Widescreen Gaming Forum

What grievous accusation?

That he had an enormous implication.

What does being "another thing" mean, exactly?

A more serious action.

I will ask a more relevant question: Does our discussion have a goal?

We've established and re-tread our differing views, is there any point in continuing?

I will ask a more relevant question: Does our discussion have a goal?

We've established and re-tread our differing views, is there any point in continuing?

yeah, this thread isn't going anywhere, but i don't think it's worth locking it because of all the news about ea's next moves i'v been learning on here...but i suppose when EA decides to stop limiting installs a new thread will be made anyways....yeah.....i hope thia doesnt end up being a flame war.

I will ask a more relevant question: Does our discussion have a goal?

Well, my goal is to defend Cliff's statements which IMO (and somewhat informed O if I may say so) are accurate and need to be better realized by the public as much as they might hate it. I won't presume to tell you what your goal is.

Well, my goal is to defend Cliff's statements which IMO (and somewhat informed O if I may say so) are accurate and need to be better realized by the public as much as they might hate it.

Thank you for putting that so succinctly. (Lesson learned on my part--I should have led with that question.)

I agree with what you said above. I wasn't trying argue that Cliff's statements were invalid, but that I felt his description of 'who is a pirate' was too broad.

Piracy hurts the game industry, I don't contest that in any way. Those who think piracy is harmless do need to wake up--Cliff made it very clear that it is a major reason why GoW2 is not coming to the PC.

i hope thia doesnt end up being a flame war.

No need to worry about that from me. I've got no reason or desire to flame cranky or anyone else here.

But it does mean they can easily afford games. It doesn't necessarily mean they can afford them every month, but they can afford games in general. That alone makes the "they pirate because they can't afford games" excuse bunk.

It's an assumption on your part at best to say anyone with a $300 video card can easily afford games. You've already heard from others here refuting that, so your argument's strength, while steadfast, is waning.

This whole thread is based on the gaming public's opinions and interpretations of Cliffy's statements and whether or not it's fair or accurate to say those affording high end gaming systems should automatically be labeled as pirates.

It has further extrapolated into personal definitions of pirates. I think it's safe to say yours are without creedence or verification, esp the part where you say most kids living at home whom are dedicated gamers are pirates.

The problem with the direction of this thread is it has stretched far beyond interpretations or opinions of the posted article, and strayed into the dark territory of labels and stereotypes. Ironic, esp being a gamer yourself, that you don't see that you're making the same blunder Cliffy did in using such labels.

No matter what one's opinion is though, at the end of the day the one guy in the madding crowd that stands up and says blatant stereotypes of the likes Cliffy has made are OK does not change the majority vote. And this kind of thing always boils down to the public's opinion, it's what makes or breaks you in marketing.

Perhaps this thread should have been posed as a vote asking yay or nay on whether Cliffy's statements were accurate, offering a few opinions why. Maybe then you'd realize you're swimming upstream in a sea of angst he created by being disrespectful to those he made his money off of.

Oh, and love the pic of the Nazi falling on his keister. Too bad Cliffy didn't make the same slip on stage when he ripped through paper with the mock up of a Lancer. I was going to make a Paint composite of RE 4's Ashley in the rockstar outfit with Cliffy's head on her, but I think most of you get the picture without needing visual aids. :wink:

BTW Skeeder, it takes much more than adequate KB/M adapter hardware to make KB/M gaming on consoles work well. The games have to be wriiten for it. Only a scant few are like Halo, CoD 4, etc.

It's an assumption on your part at best to say anyone with a $300 video card can easily afford games.

It's simplicity itself. $300 video card requires income. Income means you can afford games.

You've already heard from others here refuting that

I have heard absolutely nothing refuting that. IIRC, your first attempt was to make an erroneous analogy involving a $300 TV and a cable subscription.

This whole thread is based on the gaming public's opinions and interpretations of Cliffy's statements and whether or not it's fair or accurate to say those affording high end gaming systems pirate games.

It should not be. Both of these are moot points.

I think it's safe to say yours are without creedence or verification, esp the part where you say most kids living at home whom are dedicated gamers are pirates.

I've done some fairly scholarly research on the subject. What about you?

Ironic, esp being a gamer yourself, that you don't see that you're making the same blunder Cliffy did in using such labels.

No, *you've* made the same blunder towards me that you're made towards Cliffy. Neither one of us used "such labels," but you are seeing them anyway.

at the end of the day the one guy in the madding crowd that stands up and says blatant stereotypes of the likes Cliffy has made are OK does not change the majority vote

I'm not trying to change some meaningless invisible "majority vote." I'm trying to make a point.

And this kind of thing always boils down to the public's opinion, it's what makes or breaks you in marketing.

Epic is abandoning the PC market. The opinions of hardcore PC gamers isn't going to make or break very much.

Maybe then you'd realize you're swimming upstream in a sea of angst

I'm completely aware of this. It's better than drowning in it. And I'll forgive your mangling of metaphors... this time.

sea of angst he created by being disrespectful to those he made his money off of.

He said that high-end gamers know how to pirate, and that this is a bad thing for PC gaming. Nothing is remotely disrespectful about that. Don't blame him for creating the sea of angst. Blame the websites that distorted his words. You'd be amazed how easy it is to manipulate public opinion with a misleading headline title.

LOL, please please, stop with the space hogging quote pasting hermit, we all know you're obsessing over just the words rather than their collective meaning. It would be a lot more easy to wade through your lengthy posts if you'd just say @User Name before each selective response.

Your logic makes no sense, and for someone whom insists on pasting every word he responds to you've yet to post one source of your claimed "scholarly research" on the subject of piracy. Kind of implies they have no creedence doesn't it? The net is riddled with studies funded by biased groups. Many like Jack Thompson have had their hey day with them, but many including the Florida State Supreme Court are getting wise to it. Sorry, but the best source of info on gaming practices is still from the horse's mouth, the consumer of said games. I prefer not to trash talk all gaming kids living at home to the point of making them think they have to post pics of the games they've purchased just to prove themsleves consumers.

That one thing which costs X amount of dollars is purchased automatically means another that is an ongoing expense of 17% of that amount EACH time you buy it is easily affordable is a leap of the imagination at best. First off, having a $300 video card doesn't automatically mean the one whom owns it has an income. Lots of younger gamers buy them on allowances, get them as gifts, or take odd temp jobs in the summer. You're making it sound like anyone with a $300 card automatically has a full time job.

The person you responded to Mesh implied the expense of games is not easily affordable, to whom you gave the example of a $300 video card, and it was also argued by Da Fox besides myself:

My quote:
"Having a $300 video card does not automatically mean you can easily afford the games."

Da Fox's response:
"As someone on the other side, This is very correct."

So where I ask you have you been looking if you've not read anything refuting your claim? Makes it look rather obvious your own words are the only ones you're really paying attention to. And there is nothing erroneous about my $300 TV/monthly cable analogy.

Moot points?, LOL, you see there's the problem. You think since you are one person amongst many here, whom have shaped this thread accordingly given the subject matter btw, are somehow saying pointless things because they see the collective meaning behind Cliffy's words rather than using the rhetorical dodging a lawyer or politician would in excusing it.

Labels can be applied directly or via implication, you do know what an implication is don't you? Those that do know know how to read between the lines, although in this case it is rather obvious. The main "point" you seem to be making is that you can mince words as well as any lawyer or politician, as I alluded to earlier. No matter how slick the talk though, the public is quick to see what the REAL blunders are.

We agree that Epic is abandoning the PC market, easy to agree on the obvious. You don't mention though like many others have that the PC gamers are the one's Epic made their empire with. I could add that your use of the word abandoning implies total disregard for rather than using the word leaving for instance, but I'm quite sure you would somehow dodge that with rhetoric too.

I don't mangle metaphors, and I've used them here quite appropriately. Swimming upstream in open hostile waters is in fact a prelude to drowning, much like Epic's rep has. A rep btw that is not as black and white as you make it sound. There are many PC gamers whom also own a 360. I'm sure this decision of Epic's is not going to sit well with many of them.

You end by needlessly repeating the same thing you've said over and over, that Clify's words were not a direct accusation. Time for you to put 2 and 2 together and arrive at 4 isn't it?

Topic is increasingly tedios and boring, I'll just say this:

Find pass card A39 to defeat drm.

LOL, please please, stop with the space hogging quote pasting hermit, we all know you're obsessing over just the words rather than their collective meaning.

I'm addressing both. The quote feature helps show which point I am responding to. When you don't, it makes it look like you're avoiding my points. It also helps space out my posts and make them more readable, as opposed to your contextless walls of text.

Your logic makes no sense,

See, here's the problem with you not using the quote feature. I have absolutely no idea what "logic" you are criticizing here. How can I respond to criticism if I don't even know what you're criticizing?

and for someone whom insists on pasting every word he responds to you've yet to post one source of your claimed "scholarly research" on the subject of piracy

First of all, you didn't ask for one. Secondly, the message board format isn't exactly ideal for publishing research papers.

The net is riddled with studies funded by biased groups.

The ESA does this kind of research fulltime. They have no cause to be biased. The gaming industry makes business decisions based on their research. Biased research would make for bad business decisions. It's in the industry's best interests for their research to be as accurate as possible.

the best source of info on gaming practices is still from the horse's mouth, the consumer of said games

That would depend on what you mean by "the consumer." There's more than one of them you know. Assuming you know this, it makes your statement rather vague.

I prefer not to trash talk all gaming kids living at home to the point of making them think they have to post pics of the games they've purchased just to prove themsleves consumers.

Sure, and I prefer not to slander game devs.

First off, having a $300 video card doesn't automatically mean the one whom owns it has an income. Lots of younger gamers buy them on allowances, get them as gifts, or take odd temp jobs in the summer.

Allowances and summer jobs count as income too in the sense that one can purchase games with it. As for gifts, it wouldn't make much sense to give a youngster a new video card as a gift if he had no means of getting the games, would it?

The person you responded to Mesh implied the expense of games is not easily affordable, to whom you gave the example of a $300 video card,

In that case, it was my $300 video card example that refuted the person. Not the other way around.

it was also argued by Da Fox besides myself:

Contradicting != refuting.

And there is nothing erroneous about my $300 TV/monthly cable analogy.

Except for that it ignores the possibility of buying games "every now and then" as if games absolutely had to be a dedicated expense. That's pretty erroneous.

You think since you are one person amongst many here, whom have shaped this thread accordingly given the subject matter btw, are somehow saying pointless things because they see the collective meaning behind Cliffy's words rather than using the rhetorical dodging a lawyer or politician would in excusing it.

Replace "collective meaning" with "misleading headlines" and you're not totally off. Though I don't really see what the first part of that statement has to do with anything.

Labels can be applied directly or via implication, you do know what an implication is don't you?

Yeah. I've said many times in this thread what the actual implication is, and explained why it's that as opposed to "all high-end gamers are pirates."

No matter how slick the talk though, the public is quick to see what the REAL blunders are.

The public are sheep. They'll see blunders wherever they are told to, and ignore blunders where they are told there aren't any. You give them way more credit than they are due.

You don't mention though like many others have that the PC gamers are the one's Epic made their empire with.

Was I supposed to? I don't disagree with this statement, nor do I believe it is at odds with any of my points, nor do I believe it requires my personal reiteration in order to hold ground.

I could add that your use of the word abandoning implies total disregard for rather than using the word leaving for instance, but I'm quite sure you would somehow dodge that with rhetoric too.

I honestly don't care whether my choice of the word "abandoning" implies "total disregard" or not. The implication that I was aiming for was a sense of necessity, like one would abandon a sinking ship.

I don't mangle metaphors, and I've used them here quite appropriately.

AFAIK, you can't swim upstream in a sea. Just a river. That's all I meant by mangling metaphors.

You end by needlessly repeating the same thing you've said over and over, that Clify's words were not a direct accusation.

I'll tell you what. You stop saying over and over again that they were a direct accusation and I'll stop saying over and over again that they weren't. But no fair alluding to that with stuff like "he was disrespectful" or "the collective meaning of his words" either.

Okay, this is where this topic ends. Everybody had his say. See you guys in the next useless piracy thread.

Hurrah!