It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Please stop spewing that ignorance. The American intelligence community has repeatedly confirmed the Russian meddling into the election. They targeted Facebook ads, for one, and paid trolls, for another.TheScavenger said:in regards to the quote "Fringe sites and online media outlets were catastrophic to her campaign"...holdenfive said:Well that's exactly what the Obama administration would have liked to have done towards the latter part of this past election cycle. Hillary even hinted at it, wanting to shut down Breitbart 4Chan and others. Fringe sites and online media outlets were catastrophic to her campaign. Had she been elected it would've went in the opposite direction and existing policy expanded on to enable the government to make it as difficult as possible for people who operate sites like these. Trump takes the position to do away with as much big government regulations as he can get away with, across the board. He isn't targeting net neutrality specifically.Cleffy said:I don't mind the censorship private companies engage in. I do mind when the federal government censors content.
This whole manufactured outrage about what ISP's can theoretically do now is just pissing in the wind. The vast majority of Americans are against the theoretical evil ISP's 'might' do if they aren't governed. And since their main concern is offering a palatable product that is deterrent enough against doing it. There is nothing to deter big government from infringing on your rights though, any time they take a step back, it's a step in the right direction.
in before "but muh russia narrative" for hillary losing...pretty much nothing big or important came out of that lol.
In california, I saw TONS of bernie bumper stickers and over the election period saw a total of 3 hillary bumper stickers. That had nothing to do with Russia lol, people just didn't like hillary. Bernie would have had a much higher chance of winning as he had much higher support
I guess people forgot what the internet was like before obama's regulations. Making a big nothing burger out of removing regulations.
There's really no reason currently to do anything other than electronic distribution. Download speeds and storage space is well able to handle the task.CrazKanuk said:Interesting note, BF2 was #2 in digital sales in the US next to CoD WW2 in Novemeber on $1.2 billion in sales overall (which is up 19% year-over-year).
It also sits above Assassin's Creed Origins which apparently is doing better than any AC game since Black Flag which did like 10 million copies in the first couple months.
Not sure where that puts BF2, but I think it at least illustrates that the retail sales are becoming less and less reliable as time goes one. In the next 3 years it's likely they will be nearly non-existent as I think they estimate that 95% of game sales will be digital by 2020.
I would buy into this, if only we didn't have representatives who still deny climate change.Eldurian said:To be fair that's because the American voter is grossly uninformed about everything including net neutrality.
Half the time I hear people talk about net neutrality they are talking about "More government regulation" and "The FCC putting their greasy fingers on our internet."
They don't realize that "Net Neutrality" is a series of regulations enforced by the FCC, and the repeal of it means less government regulation, and less FCC involvement in our internet.
Of course many get this and it's the corporations they demonize, but many seem to feed into this ignorance with intentionally deceitful wording intended to use anti-FCC sentiment to get people to support NN.
I think the numbers would be very different if the American voter knew what they were talking about for once.
This is the reason we have a republic and not a democracy. It really is best we have people actually researched on these issues representing our interests rather than the common man voting on every single issue. Our founding fathers shunned direct democracy because of issues like this. It's the system that put Socrates to death after all.
Piggy-backing here, but:Sovrath said:Pretty much what Sector said.6stack_Chris said:Let me ask you all.
What is a fair model for a studio to have, that generates revenue but you as a gamer do not feel cheated? Keep in mind, people come from all walks of life, and have different budgets. I'm honestly curious, because most things I see are:
1) Do away with subscriptions
2) Loot boxes are a scam, the need to go away
3) Micro-transaction are a cancer and money gouge.
Studios cannot create content, support a game or deliver on promises without the flow of cash.
So, what is the ideal system for you to hand your hard earned money to the developers of these games?
I have no problem with loot boxes or even a $100 loot box. But wait! The company is going to make so that the game is annoying or "less fun" unless I purchase loot boxes? That's a problem. It's a bigger problem if I've paid for the game.
If it was a free game and they were up front with how they made their money then at least I am in the know. But a paid game with loot boxes means they are going to have to implement them so they don't seem like they are fleecing customers.
Subscriptions? Sure, awesome. I'm also for companies raising their subs. But a lot of people will balk at paying monthly as they say (and big eye roll from me on this one) that they feel obligated to play if they are paying a sub. As opposed to just having complete access to the game whenever they want. And sure, they need to keep coming up with good content. A steady stream.
However, if a person only plays one day per month (or a "few") then sure it might not be worth it to pay $20 every month for a few hours of play.
Microtransactions? Same deal as loot boxes.
People don't want to feel that they are being fleeced, they want to feel like they are getting good value for money.
Using utility companies was a terrible example to support the argument that governments and regulations are bad...zymurgeist said:Lol, no.Yes, because corporate entities have excellent track records in honest, up front dealings with the public. Why in the world were governments ever created in the first place???zymurgeist said:The government hate bandwagon has been the longest running hate bandwagon in the world.SedrynTyros said:Exactly. I'm continually amazed by such ridiculous rhetoric.Tiller said:So I'm guessing you will be the first to speak with your wallet, go off grid, throw out your cell phone, put up hippy solar panels for power and go down to the nice clean river and dredge up some unprotected water for drinking?Asm0deus said:Your "corporate will save us from govment" kool aid must taste even better.SedrynTyros said:It's remarkable that any human being could have such a narrow view of a situation like this. "Government is bad" is just some stupid trope that's been pushed on you relentlessly for decades. There are some things that government is good for. It's too bad that so many folks like you don't realize that yet.All the doomsayers here clutching to government's boots is funny. The government can not run or regulate anything successfully. You all can have faith in them I will not. Less government the better.
Your government Kool-Aid must taste great.
Corporations and governments only serve one thing and that is themselves. If either can get away with it they will screw you for money and power. It is the people that actually have to do something about it. Media, if we had one that worked, to get information out. People to actually speak with their wallets.
The world works the way it does not the way people wish it would, and the way it works is government officials are elected, corporate executives are not.
With good reason. When was the last time a bakery killed 20 million of it's own customers?
To rule over people and control resources for the betterment of those incharge of the governments. It is a modern day myth that governments are really for the people and by the people.
Your inability to see anything beyond some grand, sweeping, idealistic position prevents you from providing any pertinent input. You go ahead and refuse assistance from the government when a natural disasters hits in your area though... I mean, you know, deep down, they're not helping you, they're just sneaking all your prized possessions out the back door, right?
Last time a natural disaster hit we didn't see the government for three days. I saw linemen restoring electricity as soon as the winds died. Not because utility companies are the saviors of the universe. Because they know if they don't provide service they don't get paid.
Governments are a very necessary evil that needs to be kept in check. Corporations need to be kept in check. Citizens must participate in their governance. How much power do you want to give other people over your life? History shows the larger a role government plays in citizens lives the more it abuses them. Corporations come with tempting offers to get your money, governments come with guns. Don't trust either until you know what they really want.