Amentep

Oh did you open a can of worms with that one. How does one accomplish what you are saying? At one point in the transfer there need to exist 2 copies of the ebook. Does that mean you broke the law? See what I said above about the letter vs. the spirit of the law. When the transfer is done, does 2 copies exist or one? If only one you didn't act as an unauthorized publisher, did you? If the transfer is interrupted halfway through does 1.5 copies exist or 1? If only 1 you didn't act as an unauthorized publisher, did you?

My only point was that they had to have some money upfront on the project which means money coming into the company as my understanding was that my.com (I think that was the Russian company) was acting as the "publisher" - ie funding the production. You seem to be arguing that Obsidian is acting as the "publisher" and thus investing their own money into the development which may be true, but would indeed be news to me. If I'm right, then yes Obsidian is getting money upfront. If you are right, then yes Obsidian is investing their money into development in the hopes of a return. Obviously, I thought we were talking about the former and not the latter with regard to Obsidians money flow and "work for free".

Obsidian can't be working on it - F2P model or not - if there wasn't money coming in to work on the project. In essence, you're arguing that Obsidian is working on it for free out of the goodness of their hearts until at some point in the future some money might roll in. They're nice guys, and all, but I don't see Urquhart et al being THAT nice.

Actually its not essentially like that at all. Buying a book there is still only one book. The only way it directly compares is if there is only one eBook; that you download the ebook and then send that ebook to the other person and retain no ebook for yourself. Because, as has been pointed out on the issue isn't really theft (loss of a physical good) but unauthorized copying/distribution/publication of copyrighted works. The definition doesn't change whether you get caught or not (or even whether anyone cares that you did it). Even fair use excerpts will only take you so far.

Shoeless Joe Jackson

It's actually pretty savvy, they've rebooted in a way that they can still draw from the previous films without being chained to them. And they can recast Gambit like they did...

Are you friendless? Do people cross the street to avoid you? Are you lonely? Do you feel that no one understands you? Donate 10,000 GP and improve your reputation! Yes, you can be the life of the party through a simple investment of 10,000 GP in our Church! Our package includes - mentioning your good deeds at mass! Putting your picture in our "donator" wall outside the church! Sending our choir out to literally sing your praises through town! And that's not all, act now and we'll throw in a glowing review of your best points in our monthly newsletter! But why stop there? For a limited time offer, if you agree to do 109 fetch quests for the church (our mail needs to be delivered too) we will have our sister churches in the region to also work to raise your reputation. Act locally, but think globally! As in think global reputation boost! But act now, this offer is ending in 10...9...8....

"I yam what I yam an' tha's all I yam" - Popeye.

I also don't understand the laughing stock comment, since working on games means they have a money influx, somewhere in the pipeline. Which can only be good for an independent studio. I think that would be better than what happened with Troika which, IIRC, ended one game's development only to find they couldn't get anyone else to take up any of their pitches for new games. I have no interest in any kind of MMORPG, but if it helps them and they still are making games I'm interested in outside of those games...why would I care? People get bent out of shape over the weirdest things.

Right, Gromnir, once it becomes even uncommon its harder to keep secret. Which is why I agree with you that Lord Reginald hiring people to experiment on others (who can be "disposed of" quietly if it doesn't work) makes a lot more sense. A large undead population would then probably result in the catastrophic failure to contain the experiements (or undeath by some other means that raised a large population at one time, or over a long time like dead adventurers in a tomb joining the existing undead in undeath for some reason).

Thing is Gromnir's not wrong, really. Yeah I made a somewhat humorous (well I like to think it was) comment about a snake-oil salesman kind of pitch to a noble who KNEW another noble that had become undead (and obviously so). And Gromnir's right that, if a widespread correlation could be made to a medicine show and appearances of the ravening undead then the medicine show would not be a viable method of spreading animancy (and in fact would probably lead to arrest and execution). I think the reason why there is a difference of opinion here is that there are a certain degree of intangibles involved, the biggest being the ability to create a correlation between what an animancer does, in secret, to Lord Reginald and when he does go ravenous undead (a process that, from the initial timeline might take some time to get to that state - if years, then the correlation co-efficient is going to be rather small). If so it might be harder to draw the conclusion of "animancer did it". That said, the most likely scenarios are probably what Gromnir suggests - nobles paying for animancers to practice on others rather than on themselves. "Did you hear about Lord Reginald? The guard found he'd been dabbling in an animancer cult. Had people locked up in his basement in various stages of undeath trying to unlock the secret of immortality". "Hopefully no one we knew". "Just a bunch of peasants." "Oh well, terrible business, but no real harm done..."

I'd totally lose the character assessment if it included "getting on the expressway behind cars going 30 mph" though.

Ignoring the potential breach of the Terms of Service, you seem to miss the point that the extras are incentives for people to pay money to fund a game that is only going to exist if they make their funding. Why would they want to create a dis-incentive for paying as much as one can (and thus insuring they make their target)? How is the raffle unfair? Its unfair to the people who pledged the money to get those tiers that rewarded backer content. Remember Kickstarter is not a store. You don't go in and say "Yes, I'd like to order one 'PROJECT ETERNITY' and I'd like a side order of 'being able to create content' please". You're putting your own money forward with an inherent risk that you will get nothing for your investment. And for taking that risk, Obsidian is giving the ability to shape a very small part of the game *if* the game got funded. As an aside at least three posters here who did pledge for backer content ran their own contests for the tombstones they had in their pledge tiers. The contest lasted about three weeks all told as I recall. But they did that on their own, covering their own pledges and it did give forumites here a chance to offer their own wit for a chance to be included in the game (and I thought it was magnanimous of those posters to do it).

I like rain. So no problems there. I've only ever lost luggage once. Didn't realize it was missing until weeks later. Still not 100% sure what I lost in it. Don't have tangled Christmas tree lights because when I take them down, I put them back right. EDIT: I met Ms. Angelou back in the early 1990s; very nice and gracious woman. Very thoughtful and even though her mom (IIRC) had just passed very willing to try and connect with the people who'd came to see her and pass on her ideas.

I didn't know historically what a Penny Dreadful was until you mentioned it and I checked. Now it makes sense I am here to educate AND entertain.

Yes, she played Gisele Harabo (or so the internet tells me; never seen a F&F film).

I think he used a female avatar once. Gotta be a woman then.

I really don't like donations being available as a way to game the NPC influence system. BGII: "Oh I'm being too bad to keep Aerie - I'll donate to the church" followed by "I'm being too good to keep Korgan, I'm going to go whack a villager who is by themselves so I get a -1 rep without triggering the guards...". I'd be okay with donating to the local church being a way to improve the characters local area reputation.

Yes?

I'm looking forward to seeing PENNY DREADFUL eventually... But there's a part of me that thinks...would it be too much to ask for them to actually add some characters who actually appeared in Penny Dreadfuls? So far it looks to be built more on traditional Victorian age supernatural stories (with the exception of Victor Frankenstein who is pre-Victorian; written in the early 1800s and set in the late 1700s). When it was announced I was almost hoping to see Sexton Blake* punch Varney the Vampire and Spring Heel’d Jack or something. *yeah, I know Sexton Blake was in the Harmsworth's half-pennies, but as they were a response to the "evils" of the Penny Dreadfuls, who better to fight their evil in a TV show?

I may be misremembering, but IIRC Kickstarter forbids contests/lotteries based on backing which makes sense as you'd have people who pledged the same tier getting different backer rewards. I'm pretty sure at least one kickstarter I had joined ran into that issue.

In the comics, Coulson isn't the Coulson from the TV show, he's not as high up in the heirarchy of SHIELD as far as I know.

The old prostate exam was a bit more uncomfortable, I thought.

I'd think people who are bad at watching movies would also include people who miss stuff that's in the movie and then complain how that same stuff wasn't explained despite the fact that it was, in fact, explained in the movie. But he is right in that the movie doesn't stop you from watching it because you're watching it wrong.

I like the way the video looked. Good stuff.