Thorton_AP

I find Bloodlines and Alpha Protocol to be very similar in that they had somewhat clunky gameplay but really interesting story and conversations. I'd probably give the nod to Bloodlines as I enjoyed their open world aspect, but I did enjoy the consequences of my actions moreso in Alpha Protocol. Some might complain that they didn't like having to accept negative consequences (I loved that the Veteran was occasionally able to do both challenges because he's just that badass), but I enjoyed having to actually make a choice.

As evidenced, this probably isn't the best place to look for support for BioWare's NWN game. Good luck though.

With what? Your comment that it looks like a 3rd rate game's alpha stage.

Disagree.

Yeah there's still going to be hardware support for the output to start your computer up.

She's also not the only dragon you can slay either. EDIT: So late....

ROFL fail on my part XD

Looks like hair tied back.

Hilter!

Is it the boobies?

So you're suggesting that THQ get into the retail business then? (hint: there's a reason why venture capitalists now-a-days do not fund entrepreneurs looking to get into Retail)

That's probably MS/Bio dropping the ball or something XD

There's only a point in arguing if you're actually interested in discussing something with the person you're discussing with. Lord of Flies destroyed that long ago (as have other people on this board). People aren't going to bother because people like LoF only serve to frustrate and often obfuscate the point. Even if your opponent is making actual points is not a guarantee that there is a point in arguing with someone. Especially if that person has destroyed their own credibility through their own arguments such as LoF. He's made some good points, but there's no point in filtering through the lies, propaganda, and blatant misunderstanding (or misrepresentation) of topics to bother. More than likely it only serves to obfuscate the issue for onlookers because he can actually be pretty well written in what he writes. Even if it doesn't contain an iota of actual fact in it. Unfortunately, people such as himself (as well as other such as writers and passers of chain letters, or just blatant trolls throughout history) rationalize their actions as saying "Hey I'm just asking questions and trying to get people to think." They think they're doing Devil's Advocacy, when really they've just become Glenn Beck.

No there isn't.

Irrelevant. In this case they're spending time and money doing this then. Furthermore, how long do you allow an account to be inactive before removing it? There's additional overhead regardless of what you do. Now you're just warping your original premise in order to try to keep some footing under yourself. Actually I was asking a question. It's irrelevant because whatever action they take, additional cost is occurred rather than the original game purchaser continued playing the game. The point is that a new user playing a resold game with a new online account is not equivalent to the original user still playing the game with his online account. No. When I reinstall WoW I no longer need my CD Key because I already have an account. YOu need a CD Key in order to create a new account.

If you really want to know I can PM you.

I think it's more that there's no point in bothering.

The cost of buying games has continuously decreased since games came out, especially in my neck of the woods when NES cartridges were $60-$70 upon release. Games DID get cheaper when the conversion was made to CD (see: N64 vs PSX) moving to their $50 price point. They then returned to $60 price point again in the 2000s. Maybe it's different where you are. Irrelevant. In this case they're spending time and money doing this then. Furthermore, how long do you allow an account to be inactive before removing it? There's additional overhead regardless of what you do. Now you're just warping your original premise in order to try to keep some footing under yourself. @Greylord IMO your analogy only demonstrates that you don't actually know what is being discussed.

The biggest one is probably that you can become King/Queen as Human Noble.

It did. Adjust your costs for inflation. Furthermore, factor in the cost of game development compared to what the end user pays. This is the slippery-slope logical fallacy. If this is actually as big of an issue as you are indicating that it will be, wouldn't this cause people to buy less games and see a significant reduction in revenues for the game devs, leading to them rethinking the actual policy? The entire online component is not covered with the resale of a used game. Take an extreme example. I buy a game, and create my online user profile that the game uses to log my match history, statistics and so forth. I resell this game and this game continues to be resold a million times. The online servers still log each and every individual profile that was created and keeps track of a million times more data than they were originally compensated for. The only cost is not just bandwidth and the matchmaking service. Your scenario would only make sense if upon being resold, the game's online profile was now in possession of the new owner as well. This is not the case.

You can more legitimately complain about the online features now being pay to play than you can about not getting paid DLC. At the same time, videogamers are probably the biggest group suffering from a sense of entitlement as their hobby has pretty much seen 0% inflation over the last 20-25 years on the cost of a new game, yet bitch and moan about how unfair it is that other costs now come into the picture. Economies of scale have allowed the game developers to keep this price point, but the fact is that game dev cost has not remained static and you will get to a point where you have saturated your customer base and there is limited room to grow in terms of number of customers. What I see here is game devs actually utilizing the free market to improve their revenues, and then you claiming that they aren't being fair and are trying to hurt the free market. Lets be honest here. People buy the used copy of a game for $50 from Gamestop simply because it saves them $10 over the $60 new copy. It might not become +20 new copies of the game being sold at retail, but customers are sheep and they aren't going to go and say "oh you know what, I don't want this copy of the game that I went to the store for because I can't save $10 on a used copy now. The situation becomes much muddier when Gamestop would sell used copies of the game at a high enough price that the used copy + the DLC is more than the new copy of the game. They got some negative press for this because people would just come in and go "hey, save $10 on the game," and then have to pay for the Day One DLC ultimately paying MORE money than if they had just purchased the new game. Since this people were already paying more than they needed to, the idea that they wouldn't purchase a new copy because of the "increased price" is incorrect. Unfortunately for these people they got burned and Gamestop now needs to advertise that used copies of the game will not include bonus DLC.

The content wasn't free and now locked out. New copies sold of the game have a code bundled with you that purchasers can redeem to get the content. The entire process is the same as if you were buying the content, except instead of entering your credit card info, you're effectively clicking the "redeem code" button. It most definitely is an incentive for people to buy the game new. It is "Thank you for buying a copy of the game and directly supporting us. To show our gratitude we have granted you a key to enable you to acquire some paid downloadable content." Unless you're suggesting that the better idea, (and I suppose it'd be "fair") is for the publishers to just outright charge everyone for the content. I don't know why you'd want those that get new copies of the game to lose this incentive though simply because you don't think it's fair for used game buyers.

You reap what you sow.

What I find funny is that the developers/publishers feel this is an issue, so they start providing incentives for people to buy new games instead of used games, yet people here claim that game developers/publishers feel as though they are "above the free market." Sounds to me like they are just taking advantage of the free market.

I think it's a bit of a stretch to state unequivocally that the idea that all mean are equal must come from the idea that all men are equal before God. Personally it sounds like an unfalsifiable statement unless anyone here is able to demonstrate communities and/or cultures that believe in equality that are not Christian. I would not at all be surprised if there have been (or even currently is) cultures that believe in the idea of equality between people that have not been under the influence of Christian beliefs. However, given that the Church specifically stated that kings were bestowed additional powers by God, I'm a bit skeptical that your assertion is actually the correct view of things. I wouldn't (at all!) be surprised if such messages from the Church became stronger when egalitarianism became more mainstream.