Thursday Next

For me it's more that a headset means that no one else in the house hears what the other side says. As opposed to the VoIP being pushed through the main audio speakers.

I don't do it for the rewards. Love this community. Happy to support it.

Yup. Even in the UK positive use of drugs, injecting heroin for bullet time or whatever, would likely see you not get a rating. It's easily fixed with a change in the name / skinning of things.

Do you also enjoy hearing about e-books?

You'll have to have some sort of elaborate marionette affair a la Home Alone involving cardboard cutouts on trainsets etcetera.

I find the game works a lot better in houses than in the open. I'm never sure if I'm in line of sight or not.

I voted 7, forgot to put my user name, but ahh, you know who it is.

You'll be a tax payer soon enough. Besides which, don't forget that near enough one fifth of everything you spend is tax so one way or another (or both) they get you.

PAYE is both great and horrible. Great that it is effortless, horrible that it is not transparent (and it takes a third of my money and gives it directly to Dean to spend on betting on dogs, smoking roll-ups and raising pigeons*). *That last bit was facetious. I'm actually in favour of the benefits system and am confident in my belief that Dean does not abuse it.

Email it to yourself? Not sure if emails are stored locally or for how long etc...

Just the browser I think. There's no Steam / Origin(I have to include it!) overlay or anything.

Every month, one third of my money, gone.

Xbox and PS4 will both sell really well. It'll be a close run thing this gen. I agree, and I believe have said myself that if MS really wanted to do all this game sharey stuff they could have done it with just digital. Making retail the poor cousin with a reduced feature set would have done loads to increase digital revenue over retail. It wouldn't make Gamestop love them any more, but you can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs.

The difference is that some labels are self applied to help someone understand that you are different and have different needs. "If *you* label me" not "If *I* label me"

I honestly don't see why you think EA is less "stable" (not really sure what you mean by that now) than Activision. EA is profitable. Is a leader in console, PC and mobile. Has a lot of reliable IP that are pretty much guaranteed to be profitable over the next few years. I just don't get where you are coming from. What element of EA makes you think they are in anyway unstable?

Between The Sims, SimCity, EA Sports, Battlefield and mobile, we're pretty stable. That's not to mention upcoming titles like StarWars.

I don't think even Microsoft know how their console works any more.

Cheers, looks like he has a problem with the person who used the term and they way they used it in that instance, rather than having an issue with the term itself. Shame he didn't have the "do not engage" statue to hand instead of responding to the baiting and backing himself into a corner. He's not really one for admitting he is wrong is he?

Well that's kind of my point, I've not heard the term before, and it would be easy to use the term in an effort to seem superior because you know all the gender identification terms. I don't know the context for PA bloke hearing the term. Perhaps it was delivered in a condescending manner? If the conversation went: PA Bloke: I don't have a problem if you are transgender or non-transgender. Some patronising guy: Um, I think you'll find the term is cisgender. Then I'd get why he would find the person irritating and associate that term with patronising gits. He should however have explained his annoyance on a channel that gave him more than 140 characters to work with.

Only to you.

Ok. In that case I kind of get where he is coming from in that it might come off as a bit pretentious especially if used outside of a gender identity conversation.

So "I'm cisgender." is essentially a non-provocative way of saying "I'm normal."? Or am I missing something here? Note: I'm not entirely comfortable with the way I phrased that. I hope I didn't offend anyone here.

German case only stated that a customer may sell a software license on. They said nothing about publishers having to facilitate that sale. So yes, you are allowed to sell your steam games on. But the practicalities mean that you are unable to. Sort of like how you are allowed to sell your tattoos to anyone else, there's just no way to actually do it and the tattoo artist is under no obligation to remove the tattoo from your arm and put it on your friend's. EDIT: I don't think the courts will force publishers to make digital resellable. If they do, publishers will jump to an MTX Free to Play model all the quicker. I could be wrong though and Valve may just be getting ahead of the curve, they might think this is a good idea. If you can share you game with others one at a time then as Dean says it could encourage further sales. I do honestly believe that people will pay for games if you give them the option, this is just a way to introduce them to a game and then let them show their appreciation by paying for it afterwards.

Double posting since new topic... From that pastebin: Microsoft might be a big company, but we at the Xbox division have always been for the gamer. Everything we've done has always been for them, we have butt heads with the executives many times on what we've wanted to, some times we lost (removing the onboard processor from Kinect 1.0) and other times we've won (keeping Gears of War as an exclusive). How is this "for the gamer"? In what way does keeping a franchise exclusive to one platform benefit anyone except the platform holder? "Oh the poor devs who make blockbusters how will they survive?" Well, perhaps if you didn't insist on exclusivity and effectively cut their market in half it would be a start?