TheMightyEthan

Yeah, and posting unmarked spoilers like that is a dick move, or at the least thoughtless (if done unthinkingly). Okay, but again, what's the solution? There has to be some point at which it becomes okay to casually mention stuff, or any discussion about media will be completely hampered. How long until it's okay for me to mention that Darth Vader is Luke's father? (That one's been 33 years, am I good yet?) Yes, people should try to be courteous, but if you get spoiled for something that's 2 years old that you hadn't been able to play yet, that sucks, but you can't expect people to be silent forever. That is slightly classist in that not everyone can afford it, but we're talking about an entertainment medium, it's not like you have some inherent human right to play all games unspoiled. They don't have to be that expensive, but it's an entertainment medium, you don't need it. I can't afford to buy every game I want either, but you don't hear me whining about it. Or go to every movie I'd like to see. Waa, movie theaters are elitist. Yeah, it sucks when (seemingly) everyone's talking about something that you haven't been able to afford to experience yet, but what's the solution? That the government nationalize games?

What's it lacking? To me it ticks all the boxes (admittedly for an action-RPG, when my favorite combat is KotOR-style, but still).

I'm 27. Was 14 in 2000 Now that I think about it more I'm fairly sure we did have internet at home when I was 14, but we would have just gotten it. My grandparents had internet for several years before we did.

Goddamn, if I'd had the internet at home when I was 14... just... goddamn.

I wasn't really impressed by the demo either, but the game itself really sucked me in. The demo doesn't misrepresent the game really, I think the problem is that it's just the first 45 minutes of a pretty huge WRPG, which tend to have slow starts, and this is no exception.

Pacific Rim, though I gotta disagree with WaS and say Charlie Hunnam's acting was just atrocious. I think the movie took itself just slightly more seriously than it should have, so a lot of stuff was me cringing rather than laughing with the movie. That seemed to get better the more into the movie we got though, so I'm not sure whether that's because something in the movie changed or if I just got acclimated to its style. The first half especially though had most of the non-action scenes in this awkward middle ground where they were bad but not cheesy enough to be enjoyable. I probably would have liked all of that stuff more if I'd known what I was going into, but I really didn't read anything about it except that the general reaction was "YOU HAVE TO SEE THIS!" All of that said, I really liked the move as a whole. I wouldn't really call it "good", but it was definitely entertaining and enjoyable. And the actual robot/monster fighting was fantastic.

I don't know if they're the actual main cast but I have read that the outcome of the DLC affects whether or not certain characters appear in Season 2. Again, don't know if that means it changes whether certain main characters appear or if it's just referring to side characters.

Yeah, the first title I know about to make me want either console is Destiny. *Edit* - Of course, I game on PC, so for me it needs to not just be next-gen exclusive but also be console exclusive, which is what Destiny is.

Games aren't going to stop coming out for current gen until at least late 2014. Unless you mean first-party. I mean, there will be next-gen exclusives before that, but good stuff will continue to come out on current-gen for a while.

Not actually the Steam versions, but I like Steam's banners.

That was my thought, but that's not a PS4 exclusive.

I think that generally speaking it's accepted practice to mark your spoilers as such if you're within any kind of reasonable time frame of release, and people who intentionally don't are generally considered to be jerks, so I'm not even really sure what his point is? The first half of the article sounds to me like he's saying "don't talk about games for a long time after release, because I want to be part of the discussion but by the time I can afford it the discussion is over". Which, again, sucks, and I've been in that position, but it seems incredibly selfish to say "you shouldn't talk about this thing until I can afford to experience it and join in." The second half of the article seems to just be lamenting that games are expensive, and I don't really understand the point he's trying to make about that. Yes, games are expensive, and yes it sucks that you can't afford to buy every/any new game at launch, but you don't need them either. I think the article would probably have been a lot better if he had better articulated what he wants to change, rather than just lamenting the current state of things. As it is my reaction is just "I can kind of see where you're coming from, but what do you suggest should change to make it better?" Because at the moment the problems he's talking about seem to be just inherent in the medium, and not really something that can be addressed. As far as how long after release do unmarked spoilers become okay, I think it's all about context and the importance of the spoiler. If you're in a discussion about the game then obviously spoilers are more expected than if you're just in some random thread about something only tangentially related. Like, Mass Effect 3 is just over a year old, but if you go into a Mass Effect thread and get spoiled for the ending of it, then sorry, that sucks, but you should have seen that coming. If you go into a thread about player agency in videogames, though, then that should probably still be clearly marked as a spoiler. @Tenshi: Wow. You have like 0 empathy for other people.

Well and two things: 1) I'm not saying it's definitely illegal, just that I'm not convinced it's legal. I'd like to think it would be illegal but it wouldn't surprise me if it went the other way, but it would be trivially easy for Apple to just put in a disclaimer and cover their ass so that seems to be the prudent approach (which is supported by the fact that after this broke the description was edited to add such a disclaimer) and 2) in the US stuff like that doesn't get enforced unless someone sues over it, and who's going to spend the money to sue over a $0.99 iOS app? (I know this one was $7). Stuff like that tends to get overlooked until there's a catalyzing event, like this one seems to be.

Not in the US it's not. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IOS_jailbreaking#United_States *Edit* - Wait, it's legal for phones, but tablets are in a grey area. An exemption for them was denied, but because the definition of "tablet" was too vague. So iPads are probably included, but not definitely.

The dropships look like Killzone, but the character design doesn't. Also, that dragon looks like an inanimate object to me.

Not this one specific app, any app where it's been specifically designed to not be compatible with jailbroken devices. I didn't realize other such apps existed. Apparently this was the first one where it was a big enough deal for them to put in a disclaimer. Making a statement about what the program is or is not designed to be compatible with is not catering to, it's requiring their statements be truthful. I dismiss TOS because it doesn't get them out of truth in advertising laws. You keep talking about what Apple's policy is, but my entire point this entire time has simply been I AM NOT CONVINCED THAT POLICY IS LEGAL. Just because it's in their TOS does not make it legal. I am also not convinced their policy is illegal. That's the entirety of my point, and has been since my first post.

I can see how it would be somewhat classist, but it's the nature of the beast. The only way to solve the problem is to tell people they're not allowed to talk about anything until years after release, which is patently ridiculous. The fact of the matter is that games are a luxury, and if you can't afford it that sucks, but it's not like you have some right to be part of the discussion immediately after launch and can demand others wait for you. And I say this as someone who cannot afford to buy every game I want at or near launch.

Again, I'm only talking about when it's specifically designed in, so the dev should know about it without Apple QA testing for it. And the app descriptions aren't written by Apple. All Apple needs to do is require devs to include in their app description a warning that it is not compatible with jailbroken devices if it has been specifically designed not to be compatible with jailbroken devices. Apple need not test jailbroken behavior. Okay, you keep saying this, but that's talking about "we don't provide support, so if it's glitched you're SOL", not "we specifically designed this so it will not work." This is why I feel like you're deliberately misunderstanding me in order to argue against a straw man. I didn't think I needed to specifically acknowledge that, I figured it was implied every time I said their TOS are not the be all and end all of what they're allowed or not allowed to do. Yes, I acknowledge that their TOS says they don't support jailbroken devices. No one has said they need to support jailbroken devices, just that if the specific app is specifically designed to specifically break on jailbroken devices there needs to be a warning. I have repeated myself so many times, but you can't seem to comprehend what I'm saying. Again, this is why I feel like you're deliberately misunderstanding.

No one's saying they have to check whether they work or not, we're only saying that in the case of things that are specifically designed not to work they need to say something. Again, I disagree with what you believe their rights are. If they make an affirmative statement, such as "this works on X devices" then if they know that statement to have caveats they have to include those caveats. I don't understand why you can't get that through your skull. That's not catering to anything, that's requiring them to be truthful. Anyway, I'm done. You clearly don't care what we're actually saying, you just want to argue with your fantasy version of what we're saying.

Fuck the Light?

Requiring that their statements be true is not requiring that they cater to jailbroken device users. That's just advertising requirements. ME3 was never advertised as having thousands of endings, it was advertised as your decisions affecting the outcome. They do. Just not as much as people would have liked. This might be the dumbest thing I've ever seen you say. An iPhone 5 is an iPhone 5, regardless of if it's jailbroken. So if it says it's compatible with iPhone 5 that covers the jailbroken ones unless they specify otherwise.

I also want to be extra super clear that I do not think Apple is in any way obligated to ensure that things work on jailbroken devices, I'm only talking about situations where the thing is specifically designed not to work on them.

What might be a good idea would be KS requiring in their little FAQ section about risks and whatnot a little explanation of what will be done with any funding above the goal. Specifically whether the project will be expanded in scope and, if so, a general idea of what direction that expansion might take.

Yeah, but I have a feeling that even if you sued them, unless you could show they acted wrongfully in some way you're going to be SOL even there. If it just legitimately failed as a business project, the court would probably just say you made a bad investment, move on. It's possible I'm wrong though and they'd say you had a contract to deliver a specific thing and you are responsible for that contract. I think the fact that it's made very clear up-front on KS that these projects might not succeed though would be enough to cover them.