Orogun01

I wish

Who is defending it? Aren't you and Volo? I mean i'm of the opinion of who cares if its gambling as long as it stops micro transactions. And before anyone starts getting on a high horse about how i'm wrong; net neutrality finished after many years and many previous fights. If they can use the law to their side consumers should be able to stop anti consumer practices using the law. Just because free to play have a 2% of people that pay a lot for games (whales) doesn't mean that the rest should be force to buy this **** to complete the game and definitively not on a game that's already been paid for. I don't want to government bludgeoning the gaming industry with their heavy handed policies. Do you want the gaming industry to be driven by consumers or the government? It annoys me that consumers have made microtransactions a reality, but it seems like a pretty obvious slippery slope to let the government control content. It's not gambling, or at least it isn't any more than trading card games and a ton of other products out on the market. This entire thing seems like something Jack Thompson would wholeheartedly support. Consumers haven't supported this as it only has been extensively implemented on FTP games, whereas DLC and Season Passes have led to this is another argument. As whether I want the government or not...I didn't want them screwing up net neutrality yet they did it. It seems that is erroneous to assume that one law will lead to more or that no laws somehow prevents them from legislating. Specially when there is money involved and special interests in following that law. I might even argue that a sudden draconian move might be the best thing since it would force the hand of the generally indolent public.

Who is defending it? Aren't you and Volo? I mean i'm of the opinion of who cares if its gambling as long as it stops micro transactions. And before anyone starts getting on a high horse about how i'm wrong; net neutrality finished after many years and many previous fights. If they can use the law to their side consumers should be able to stop anti consumer practices using the law. Just because free to play have a 2% of people that pay a lot for games (whales) doesn't mean that the rest should be force to buy this **** to complete the game and definitively not on a game that's already been paid for.

I never thought I would see anyone in a gaming forum defending micro transactions and pay to win. I guess some people deserve to be cheated.

Follow up from the CD Projekt

It's got to be the worst possible time to let it be known that they may be considering even a slight shift to the games-as-a-service approach. The cheap shot at EA was too easy, though. Video that they were replying

Way to ruin a feel good thing. Hope you have enough tact to know not to say that in front of actual soldiers. How does that ruin a feel good thing ? Firstly it's their daughters but also they, being soldiers, know they're hard. They don't need to worry about being perceived as such. I've said as much in front of my soldier buddy and he's cool with it as it makes sense, likewise with the one who's done MMA, really. Most of the ones I've met aren't so keen to be described as killers directly, you can joke about it but addressing it directly digs up unpleasantness. But then again my mates were on the GI bill to get through college and might not have had the same mindset as your buddy. Or people are just different I guess.

I'd say that loot boxes and microtransactions seems to be the topic of the year.

Way to ruin a feel good thing. Hope you have enough tact to know not to say that in front of actual soldiers.

I don't know but I think that it is better to get it done earlier rather than later, it doesn't actually affect the game in terms of difficulty and you don't get extra quests.

I cannot like this enough.

I read that CK is in no legal trouble, meaning he can acknowledge the sexual conduct without admitting to statutory sexual misconduct, which had not be committed. So he's allowed to make a baptism by confession that the other's cant. Because they'd be admitting guilt to an indictable crime. As far as I know, all of CK's conduct was consensual but abused implications of power. Not to defend the behavior or victim blame (although I have a lower threshold for this type of bull****) But couldn't have they just say no? I mean is not like they don't have careers or they live in a country with no options. Somehow in all these cases its seems like the victim is completely devoid of any agency, which to my sociopathic self makes it seem like a case of deer in front of the headlights and they were just too stupid to move away from it. A lot of these allegations feel like they would have ended if the victim had just spoken up at the moment and not waited years to come out with it. The Weinstein thing made sense since he clearly used his position to lure women, but the rest were casual encounters.

What's the difference?

Worse yet, I don't think God married Mary and if he did then she is guilty of bigamy.

In my line of work you benefit a lot from having colleagues that use a different workflow to achieve the same result, you get to compare your own and learn tricks that might work best in certain situations. Although at my current work I'm the best and have gained very little except learning how to play office politics.

The chicken flying was a mode?

Considering that copies that were handed out for promotional use were buggy, I'm going to wait for a deep sale on this one

The only vessel in the game that cannot be destroyed are the colonial warships. They can, however, be totally neutered by destroying all of their turrets. The Corvettes can be tougher to handle for new players, especially if you are new to using the Scout, which lacks the maximum energy capacity to take them down without using consumables. Using secondary weapons (missiles) will make them tremendously easier. The frigates are most easily destroyed by closing range on their aft and taking out their hard points--particularly the "blast generators". It will take skill, but can be done with a basic ship without perks if you're a good enough pilot. I'm a big fan of Everspace, and consider myself an expert at it. One thing in particular that I enjoy about it, is the arcade nature of each zone. I can get in 15 minutes of satisfying gaming, unlike many RPGs where you have barely even begun to play after 15 minutes. I've been playing this game for a while (and I mean I got it while it was in alpha) I've heard people say that they have destroyed warships. What bugs me is that I don't get a sense of progression, weapons don't get better. Each ship you unlock isn't better than the default one, and most of the skills are trite. I mean, what's the ****ing point of even trying. Arcade is really hitting the nail on the head with this one, it feels like Tetris. You just play to kill time and have fun but beating it is optional and not worth the time.

I don't know why I cried, I guess I'm a sucker for dog movies even though I never see them since I dread thinking that the dog might die.

Oh, it is beautiful all right: Can be a bit overwhelming at first, like all games with a roguelike core mechanic. Feel free to ask if you need anything. Yeah, How the **** they expect me to beat a batleship when I can't outrun or outgun it? Same deal with the ****ing corvettes.

**** you.

I just skip K-Pop and go straight to K-Porn. Same thing but I don't have to listen to horrible music.

I love this quote and I will use it for RL events.

I can see both issues as unjust without having to compare them, my personal grievance is that after emigrating to what I thought would be a better place I find the same cage except now its gilded. The sheer stupidity of not asking to better your conditions because someone has it worse is ridiculous, they can care for themselves and I will do the same for myself. The worst is when this argument comes from people who are not themselves in optimal conditions and ask others to sacrifice their standards for others. Asking the barista at Starbucks to not have AC so that children in Third World countries can have it better; whilst the 1% still have it worlds above better than everyone, that just sounds like the stupidest form of Socialism ever. Sure, everyone is entitled to better his/hers condition. That is indisputable and normal. So choose the company you want to work with, leave if it's not suitable, ask for raise or enhancing of condition to your superiors, even sue if your rights are violated. I'm all for that. However if you whistleblow to public opinion and paint yourself as the most oppressed and exploited people you need to be prepared that people would call you out on that and not nod in agreement with you. That's all. The whole point of whistleblowing is to better the overall conditions by forcing management to make a change, or at least pretend to just for the sake of public's opinion. If all the public thought like you do they could get away with anything since its not going to affect their stock and no one is going to boycott them. Moreover, you make it sound as if workers have a plethora of options, which they don't. Once you bring family and kids into the mix, you are stuck within a radius and if there's only one company from your industry within that radius you're **** outta luck. Unless you manage to convince your spouse to move to a different place, which becomes very complicated. Finally, I don't think I need to explain the dangers of rocking the boat. That's just painting a target on your back asking to be demoted to part timer and then slowly pushed out. Why not outright fired? Cause they don't want to pay unemployment benefits.

Funnily enough, the company I work for has had access to this license for months now and thanks to a rightly disgruntled brand manager that is what we call it now: ASScreed.