FredEffinChopin

I wasn't sure if there were differences or not until now either. My choice of car, when I decide to change it, plays out as follows: 1. Try and fail to figure out what those little orange icons are in the corner of most of the cars' windows. 2. Look at which cars have 0 wins under their belt, and wonder why some of them remain that way despite me winning ranked games with them. 3. Pick a cool-looking car. I'll have to experiment with them in practice mode though, and get a feel for some of the differences. By the way, anyone check out those leaderboards?

Cross-platform play is a bit of a holy grail of online gaming in my mind. Any developer that pursues it is A-ok in my book.

Oooh, a thread for it! I'm having a great time with it so far. I played a little bit of its predecessor on PS3, and liked it, but it got kind of lost in the shuffle. I don't know if this one is that much better or if I'm just giving it more of a chance, but I'm feeling this one a lot more. Feel free to invite me if you see me playing. If I don't reply it's probably because I'm either afk or just playing 1P at that moment because I need to be able to pause at will. I'd love to get some team play going though, despite my limited schedule in coming weeks. In the meantime I'll just be building my little library of sweet goal videos.

I neglected to post a couple of updates about the game, which is a shame, as I vaguely recall being interested in a couple of them. Here is something easier to package though: more songs. Aerosmith – “Toys in the Attic” The Cure – “Friday I’m In Love” Dream Theater – “Metropolis – Part 1 “The Miracle And The Sleeper”” Foo Fighters – “The Feast and the Famine” Judas Priest – “Halls Of Valhalla” Live – “All Over You” The Outfield – “Your Love” Ozzy Osbourne – “Miracle Man” Paramore – “Still Into You” St. Vincent – “Birth In Reverse” Van Morrison – “Brown Eyed Girl” There it is.

Oh wow. Just a side note on that group: The vocalist is the actress who played the love interest Ramona in the Scott Pilgrim film. She's been in a bunch of other shit as well, but I figured that might be an appropriate tidbit for this forum. I was personally turned off by the idea of the Scott Pilgrim movie, and by the trailers, but I know that I'm (or at least seemed to be last time I checked) in the minority among gamers in that respect.

I'm glad to help! I get my fair share from in here as well, so it's good to know that the feeling is mutual.

The whole fuckin album, really. Dan the Automator's (Handsome Boy Modeling School, Gorillaz {production}, Lovage, Deltron 3030) latest project.

No problem.

Yeah, I'm surprised that I didn't see it in any NHL games I've played either. It might exist in some of the other sport games that involve stadiums, but I have no idea. While I'm not a wrestling fan, I do think that the feature would be uniquely appropriate for it given the emphasis on individuality, and on the personality of the competitors in wrestling/UFC vs. other sports.

It's not an issue of custom soundtracks while gaming, but of games that utilize the music you have for something other than replacing the existing BGM. For example: MLB The Show (series) - You used to be able to edit and set specific songs to be used when certain batters walk up to the plate, step up to the mound, or hit a home run. The music came through the stadium speakers in those situations, or whenever else you wanted to have music playing during the game, unless you chose to have it play without that filter. It did a lot to incorporate custom material (in the place of a soundtrack of 30 shitty songs) while maintaining the realistic presentation of the game. Rhythm games (Beat Hazard, Symphony, Audiosurf) - These are games that use music as a model for the stages themselves. GTA IV (on PC) - Let you have a station that played your custom music while inserting DJ banter over the ends, and commercials between songs, just like on the other stations. A few of those weren't on PS3, but the possibility of those or others are completely shut off to PS4 in its current state. It's possible that those games can do with the USB stick what MLB The Show 15 can't, but I'm really not sure. Maybe MLB is different because it requires editing and assignment, whereas those other games just load up a song and go. I do know for sure though, that the inability to store music in the HDD really ruined one of my favorite features of the series, and isn't really doing me much else good otherwise.

They still need to let us get at least the music onto the HDD, as there are games that incorporate music into them otherwise that can't on the PS4. Well, one that I know of at the moment, which is MLB The Show. The PS3 version still has Sounds of the Show, but the PS4 version is a downgrade from the entire last generation of the franchise in that respect. Anything else that aims to use personal soundtracks though, is just a no-go on the PS4 at the moment.

I was going to edit, but I'll just throw it in here now since there is more to say. On the same point, but a little more succinctly: Within an isolated culture, you will never find anyone with any sort of cultural identity uncertainty. You sure a shit will find one with gender identity confusion. While a valid response to that point is that you're isolating them in one case and not the other, I think that the fact that you couldn't have a society without gender diversity speaks to the huge significance of that element of our identity, as opposed to anything society has to offer that. Cultural identity is certainly important, and in that some peoples' sexuality are more muted than others, cultural identity is surely even more important to some individuals more than sexual identity. I don't think it's difficult to draw the lines between what's basic and what isn't though. Eating, reproducing, and protecting ourselves from harm are what I would call a base of core instincts that guide us. Those were going on before we developed language, community, and all of the creations that we've come to know as culture. They're pretty much all that's necessary to continue our species.

Pretty much what Ethan said, though I did eventually manage to nail down some distinctions while discussing it with a friend. Whether or not they're sufficient to justify the expectation to be treated as a "race" other than one's own being treated differently than the expectation of being treated as a member of the opposite gender is anyone's question. My answer is that it is different. The driving motivation behind wanting to live and be treated as the opposite sex, and even to get surgery to make the transformation as thorough as humanly possible, is one that involves one of the most significant driving forces that guides us as a species: our sexuality. There isn't any evidence I've ever encountered that supports the idea of any mundane notions such as sympathy, respect, affection, love, or anything else being significant determiners of sexuality. Whatever drives it in any given direction is a much deeper, unshakable compulsion. That's not to say that there can't be fluidity to it, but that it's probably less driven by any external factors than the idea of being transracial could ever be. Many if not most transgendered individuals, as I understand it (and as makes perfect sense), actually come to terms with it in a really uncomfortable and even reluctant way. It's not something that's easy to embrace given existing social stigma, not to mention any number of other implications that an individual might draw or have imposed upon them. The idea of transracialism seems like it's impossible to result of anything but social factors, and only deals with relatively superficial notions of identity. We don't have many examples to draw on, but it's seems safe to say that Dolezal embraces her African-American identity, and I imagine that anyone else with a similar sense of identity would either have identify in some way with the culture/ethnicity/race that they're seeking to identify themselves as, or have been brought up so surrounded by it that it's a part of their personality, regardless of what they might think of their community. That's all I've got. It's a new and fascinating discussion though, and I'm open to more ideas on it. I feel somewhat settled now, but who knows what hasn't occurred to me yet. I honestly haven't read to much discussion about it, and probably should just to see what's being kicked around out there.

That might be a fact for you personally, but it certainly isn't a fact about e-cig juice. There not many chemicals required to make vapor juice, and they are not mostly, but completely known, as Dean's buddy and countless other DYI juice-makers are happily demonstrating for the world right now. In fact if you've ever been around a smoke machine, you've already inhaled one of the two major ingredients in vapor form. What we don't know is the long-term effects of inhaling the mixture habitually in vapor form, though at the moment there is little rational basis for suspicion of it having significant health repercussions. We do know that they don't have any noticeable short-term effects though, since, despite what much of the fearmongering around the product would have you believe with all the yelling about how new it is, these things have been around for over a decade already, and there are people who have been using them as long (which in itself demonstrates that these aren't nearly as detrimental to respiratory health as a cigarette, since just about any decade+ cigarette smoker can tell you about the change in their health over that time, without needing to hear it from a doctor; and ex-smoker can tell you with even more clarity). Since there are many people from various communities who are quick to ring alarm bells around vapor on the simple basis of "It hasn't proven itself not to be bad yet," I can assure you that at the first signs of even a slight possibility of someone's serious adverse health effects being caused by vapor use, those same people will be beating the world over the head with it, thrilled that their response finally found its call. You might be the one who links it in here before I see it somewhere else =) That's not the way concern over a danger works though, or at least not ideally. We don't point at things, say "That's dangerous because I don't know about it, and I'm going to believe that until it's proven otherwise." and wait for the thing to prove or disprove that characteristic. There should be some basis for believing something is dangerous before treating it like it is. Everything else should be monitored. Just because a product or process passes review by a specific organization doesn't mean that it's a thoroughly sussed out in any respect, and plenty of products have made it to market that prove to be dangerous way down the line. That's when we take the lead out of the paint and reset. We don't keep 50ft away from any new product that uses familiar components in an unfamiliar way without any informed awareness of a possible risk though. Nobody does that with anything else, and while we'll never be able to find out for sure, I'd confidently bet that if the same physiological element were to be introduced to society in some way that didn't resemble cigarette smoking, not nearly as many people would be freaking out about this. On the list of stupid things that people do to enjoy themselves that have some effect that might be worse than doing nothing at all, so far e-cigs don't make the top 1,000. Its unfortunate form factor (though it's exactly what makes it appealing and effective for many ex-smokers) has given it an unearned stigma. To be clear on ingredients: While we don't know what every single producer of juice is including in the package, and while there is an old study floating around out there that cites some unsavory ingredients that weren't supposed to be in but were in some of the very, very few brands they sampled , that's not a problem inherent to e-cig juice, but a problem of lack of regulation that would exist in all industries that don't have it, and that we still see in a limited fashion despite regulations on almost every other major industry. There are countless independent, entrepreneurial-minded, juice-making individuals that have set up their own businesses, many of whom pride themselves and transparency, not to mention customizability of their product. So yes, not every e-cig juice is what it claims to be, but even with the market in its current, unregulated state, it's still fairly easy to find vendors who conduct business more honestly. For one who trusts nobody, they can always hit youtube and mix their own. I'm personally hoping that the market regulation comes sooner than later, mainly in the form of some basic quality control. While I love the product in general, I don't typically trust industries to regulate themselves. While there has been indication of tobacco-industry interference with the e-cig market in the past, there is also heavy participation. If I'm not mistaken, RJ makes up a fair portion of the (cig-a-like) market already. I'm not to worried about Smokin Randy (not a real person) who is making his vape juice in the garage, not if he's already established a solid reputation in that market. Tobacco companies though, and many other corporations for that matter, will sneak rat piss into your products if it will save them some money and if they think nobody will notice. Regarding the paper you read: The conclusion that you reached from it can't possibly be reached by a study unless it's claiming to include a significant portion of the juice market. I'd like to see it if you can find it, but from what you've included in your post, I'm willing to bet it's the same exact one that I referenced earlier, as it's the only one that anyone had to cite for a long time, at least that cast a negative light on the product, and it was popular for that reason. It's sample size was woefully inadequate to draw any conclusions about the market though, and the analysis of chemicals in those brands doesn't say anything about the hundreds, if not thousands of other juices being sold, let alone about the effects of using those or any other juices as intended. A lot of studies get reported on with misleading headlines. Some of them are inept as well. This is a really difficult process to analyze, as there are considerable variables involved. I have also seen some responsible, sober studies conducted that report some legitimate starting points for further exploration that might reveal what risks if any are involved with the activity. Nothing in them has shown anything conclusive, or even especially alarming. Much of the concern is about it being a gateway to smoking, and not even about the act of vaping itself. Here is a pretty neat and very recent Q&A collection with some medical experts that explore the phenomenon in a pretty level-headed way, if you're interested in reading it. Fortunately vapor serves me well while drinking, and I haven't resorted to cigarettes for that reason. I've revisited it on a couple of occasions, such as New Year's Eve, or when I was in Jamaica for a week for my friend's wedding. It's never been something that I resorted to out of compulsion yet though, even during drinking, which honestly surprises me even now. I totally expected to fall of the wagon when drinking. None of this is to say that I don't miss cigarettes at all, because I do crave them occasionally, and unlike many ex-smokers, I still love the smell of it when someone is doing it nearby. Vapor manages to satisfy me enough that I can get past it though, which is very cool. And yeah, I imagine if you're a one-drink-a-day kind of guy the pressure isn't as bad as if you're (like I was at some point) a frequent *and* heavy drinker. Nowadays I rarely drink, but when I do I still pretty much look for the bottom of the bottle. In that state, I'm not sure I'd be able to go without anything to puff on. I can't speak for this product at all, but this VaporFi is known as one of the premier makers of more expensive Ego-style batteries with all the bells and whistles, and they carry this dry vape device that, as I understand, is fairly inexpensive compared to most. I'd check some reviews first, of course, but it might be a decent device to go for if you want something smaller.

Marijuana vaping is something that, in wax or oil form, is not very cost-effective as I understand it. I tried it once, and I personally didn't find it very satisfying either, not in the sense of the act of vaping it or in the result. If I had the money to burn (or vape; wak....ka) I suppose I might do it if I really needed to be low-key about things, but even then I'm more inclined to just go somewhere low-key with regular pot. Different strokes for different folks though. My friend whose (I think) wax I sampled was really into it. I also tried that dry-vape thing with him, and found that even less satisfying. They were each one-shot experiences though, and it's possible that my experiences happened to be flukes or duds or something... If either of those terms can be applied to something like that. What Ethan said, but also some people are just going straight to vapor it seems, which has some concerned that progress made in spreading anti-smoking sentiment is being reversed. I think that can't possibly be going on, as people aren't smoking cigarettes, but that's just me. A lot of assumptions are made about the product that primarily stem from superficial similarities that vapor products share with cigarettes. The method of intake is similar (only similar since many people who vape don't inhale, since supposedly the nicotine can be absorbed via the skin inside the mouth in vapor. I can't speak to the accuracy of that at all.), the products are often designed to be shaped like cigarettes, and the liquid is designed to create thick vapor that resembles smoke. The similarities mostly end there. And the nicotine. That's also optional with vapor though. That was a bit of a tangent. For me, I intended these to replace cigarettes in certain situations. Once I started realizing that vapor can mostly satisfy the need for cigarettes altogether, I fully replaced them. Especially after noting how even the drastic slowdown for a few days left me feeling better than usual. Since I began I've gone through periods where I've not vaped at all, or done so pretty infrequently. Since school has had me sitting in chairs and reading for much longer stretches of time than I'm accustomed to though, I started to really want something to puff in in recent months, and so have been vaping fairly frequently at home. So I guess for me it has broken that habit of puffing on something altogether at times, but I've mostly replaced smoke with vapor. Yeah, I was really turned off by the appearance as well. I didn't expect to leave the house with it when I did eventually get one, and have only begun to do so recently. Even though they've become fairly common to see in the street (and I even get nods on the road from other vapers who catch my eye), I can't get over the fact that the giant piece of hardware I'm holding makes me look like such an addict. Even though it's far, far safer than smoking, I feel like I'm the guy inhaling cigarettes through a tracheal tube when I'm using one of those in public. I'm starting to get over it, though I still feel the need to say something in acknowledgment in front of people who see me with it for the first time. It's always a wonder for me when I see people boldly wearing them on strings around their necks. I'm pretty much with you on the second part. Circumstance caused me to seek an indoor solution, and I just decided to see how far I could take it. Once I got to a certain point I just couldn't go back. While I feel no need to come as close to immortality as humanly possible, it was so nice to enjoy increased lung capacity, and the loss of the occasional morning coughing. Even with the shift though, I still did eat more after quitting, and put on some weight. So now the other American killer, cholesterol, will get me instead. **EDIT** @GOH - I was more worried about drinking making me want to smoke cigarettes than marijuana. I feel like if I ever had to drop smoke and vapor permanently, I'd probably have to avoid drinking permanently as well. Have you had any problem with that since quitting? Congratulations on 5 years, by the way.

With the exception of a small handful of occasions, I've been cigarette-free for over two years now, and I mainly have e-cigs/vaporizers to thank for it. Having had such a positive experience with them, and the product having become as popular as it has (and frankly a considerable economic force), I thought there might be room on this forum for discussion about them. Maybe someone here is curious about them and would like some recommendations or has questions, or just wants to tell me that myself and people like me look like complete douches (I agree). Maybe someone can recommend some stuff to me. Whatever it is, here is a thread for it. When I very first began experimenting it was with disposables, just to test the waters. I went with The NJoy Kings. If not for the fact that they're so damned expensive, I probably would have stayed on those permanently. Most e-cigs, even disposable ones, can't escape the feel of hardware when compared to a cigarette, as they have metal and plastic parts everywhere. The "filter" portion of an NJoy King though, has a very soft plastic than one can sort of bite on, the way one might hold a cigarette in one's mouth. Not only does the soft tip make it great for that, but the extremely light form factor as well. While I've moved on to "juices" with better flavors, greater content control, better vapor production, and more transparency in regards to production, nothing has ever come close to being as comfortable as the Kings were for me as an ex-smoker. When I first invested in actual hardware to use regularly, I went with what's called the "cig-a-like" form factor, which is exactly what it sounds like. Those are a bunch of automatic (as opposed to manual) cig-a-like "Volt" batteries by SmokelessImage, which is the company whose hardware I've been using until very recently. These batteries screw onto what is called a "cartomizer", which is a combination of a cartridge and an atomizer, and resembles the filter portion of a cigarette when attached to a battery. Earlier e-cigs were all three-pieces (many still are, especially more expensive ones), consisting of an atomizer, a battery, and a tank/cartridge. The two-piece setup is most common for cig-a-likes nowadays though, and it's where most people begin their experimentation. Like many (probably most) people who stick with vaping, I eventually graduated to a bigger battery, the battery itself being only part of the reason. They are often colloquially called "Ego batteries", but it's a bit like the way the name Pampers is used interchangeably with the word diapers. The eGo is a specific line of batteries by Joyetech that became very popular. There are many companies that make many larger batteries. While larger batteries provide much longer life than cig-a-likes do, they are also more suited to larger tanks, which is one of the reasons they're desirable. These present a couple of benefits. The amount of juice they can hold is usually substantially greater than with a cartomizer, even with smaller tanks. You can also pretty clearly see when they're low, as opposed to cartomizers, which contain cotton on the inside that soaks up the juice, so that even if they were transparent, it would be difficult to know when they're low until they start tasting funny. These also seem to produce more vapor than their cotton-filled counterparts for whatever reason, and can sometimes produce more "throat hit" that many desire. There are plenty of people on youtube with cute names and dramatic intro music that get really into the science behind the products, and who are happily answering the "why"s of this as we speak (including a very strong modding community). All I can say is that it's true, I seem to get more substantial vapor production from the same juice in a tank vs. a cartomizer. Also, some of the larger batteries let users switch voltages, which is helpful for anyone who likes to experiment with lots of different juices, as they come in various consistencies. I'll wrap this up, as I'm not sure there is enough interest to justify what I've already put in here, let alone any information beyond it. Let's see if this goes anywhere before I do any more yapping.

That's exactly what it makes them, if it was a good and not a service, then ongoing terms would be impossible as you exhaust your rights to goods when you sell them to a consumer (nobody can tell you what to put in a bowl, not to break it down, or not to sell it on). Practically speaking almost all games these days are treated as a service in any event with software updates and what not. The disc is the medium through which the service of delivering an experience if provided. You can't return the experience of playing the game, any more than you can return the meal you ate, or the ride you went on at the theme park, so handing back the disc, or the 1s and 0s, or what have you, is meaningless, you've had the experience. (I'm not advocating whether that is right or wrong, I'm just saying that is the position of publishers. It's the justification for EULAs as a license to continued enjoyment of a service. It's the model the entire industry is built on.) It seems like you're conflating the legal constructs that dictate how video games are purchased and used with the nature of video games as a product as defined by their inherent properties in this discussion. When you say "...from my point of view games are not a product, they are a service." and then liken them to things that require continued service on the part of the provider in order for consumers to access them, you're making a statement about the nature of a product. To follow up an inquiry as to the similarities between those three perceived services with "You are buying permission to use something." is to completely move the goalpost. The licensing terms are what are applied to the product (video games) to govern the way they are sold. If for some bizarre reason it becomes the garment industry standard to attach certain rights to the use of articles of clothing, it would not mean that my clothes are now a service. They can be made to be like a service in some respects by the people who create and distribute them, but there is nothing about articles of clothing that make them a service by nature. If, in that strange hypothetical situation, someone were to say "I view clothes as a service, personally." and then justify it by saying "Well, people try to sell it like a service." , that person isn't really making a statement about clothes as a product. It's just acknowledgment of how clothes are treated in a specific arena. It still wouldn't make articles of clothing a service. To follow your suggestion that a disc is a medium through which a service is being delivered is actually an argument for clothing being a service right now, despite not being sold as such in any way. There is work embedded within the shirt I'm wearing. I can't return the experience of being clothed for the day that I wore it if I try to return it. To call it a service is a bit of a stretch though. Another point on that analogy, as well as ones I didn't address earlier on the restaurant and amusement park ones (I had to run to school): Video games are even less offensive to ask for refunds on than these things, for the simple reason that there is not a tangible product being sold and depleted, at least in the case of digital sales (aka the Steam policy we're discussing). There is not a loss to be found on the vendor's end, such as having to restock a sweaty shirt, or having wasted resources (idk) at an amusement park. If I'm the only person who entered a movie theater and I leave early and get a refund, they've hired employees to come in, get the reel moving, and clean the bathroom. There are services being provided by the theater that are necessary to enable me to access a movie theater and its content. It still doesn't make the object on the reel a service in itself though. That's still a product.

That doesn't make it a service, that makes it a product with specific uses that are dictated by the terms of your purchase. To say you view it as a service, and liken it to a theme park or a restaurant where there is an environment that requires continued... well, service, makes it sound like you're making a statement about the nature of video games as a product; that they aren't things you buy and then use on your own, but that require continued service to be used. I just wanted to clear that up before addressing anything else in your post, since it seems to be a foundation for your conclusion that games are a unique sort of product that can't be bought and given a refund for. That being said, there are plenty of reasons you can get refunds at restaurants or amusement parks, and it used to be common that people left shitty movies early and got a refund. I don't know if that still takes place since I don't go to the movies. Scaleable refunds are something that occurred to me and that sound reasonable. It might be a little bit challenging coming up with firm rules, but I'm all for the protection of the integrity of the sales of short games, just as long as it doesn't interfere with a more important, relevant, and overdue change like the refund system.

Firstly, from my point of view games are not a product, they are a service. That sounds pretty arbitrary. What do you base that on? A single-player game is not something that someone needs to labor to provide you. You buy it and the machine does the rest.

I haven' read any of the devs' actual bitching, but having read in here that some have, my immediate reaction is: This here is the argument to beat, and if they can't do so (which they cannot), they should, in their own best interest, stop revealing how desperately they're trying to cling to anti-consumer practices. It's a bad look. Steam has a problem of selling games that aren't always functional, either generally or in specific operating environments, and if they're taking steps to rectify it, they shouldn't be impeded by those who are afraid that such a large portion of Steam users are corrupt that they'll no longer be albe to make bank on their $2.99 products.

Imagine what that science class looks like.

I see, this is in reference to in-game keyboard implementation. Yeah, the lotus kb from Steam is the image I was referring to. Are we sure that they didn't just clumsily tout a feature of Steam Machines or Steam OS or SteamSomeOtherShit as being part of the controller by showing that snippet while discussing text input? The reason I ask that is because I can't imagine why having a new controller is suddenly going to make it so that you can access the text fields within games where it (presumably, I don't know for sure) wasn't achievable before, especially when you're using the same client to run the game. If there were some software solution that they're making available, I would think that they could have also made the lotus available for existing controllers to enter in-game text (unless they want to reserve that feature for their own hardware). I understand that the controller can emulate a kb, and the video does show the user switching profiles on the fly, but the overlay just seemed to come up as a result of clicking on a text field. It seems like Steam itself would have to be triggering that in some way. However it pops up, I'd wager that they make the lotus available as an option as well, especially since it's going to continue to appear in the client for Xbox-style controllers to use. And also especially since it seems like those control pads might be even better suited to it than analogs are. The input they showed looks like it might be interesting though. Almost like a touchscreen interface. I feel like not having your hands on top of the images themselves could make things for more difficult to manage than with an actual touchscreen though.

That's odd, the image you posted displayed on Tapatalk, but not on the browser. The kb is still there as far as I can tell, I just booted up the PC to verify. You had me scared there for a second. Or are you talking about a different implementation of it?