121–130 of 164 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
yeah but you can be a nice company that actually cares about people, and takes really good care of their customers and still make money. you can also be a company of douche cookies and make money, but that lowers our collective trust, goodwill and happiness.
It really depends on the market conditions.
That's like arguing it was okay to cheat on your wife because of the state of the relationship. It's a douche thing to do either way.
Different context, but Dan Savage articulates this well. Relevant (and censored, because he is who he is) paragraph from a long blog post [1] on Sanders vs. Clinton: 'It's ####ing moronic—it's political malpractice—to attack a politician for coming around on your issues. There are lots of other issues the queer community is going to be pressing politicians on, from passing equal rights bills and trans rights bills to…
Well, this is missing the point, in both cases. Opponents of neither Hillary Clinton nor Oculus are opposing them for the sole reason "they used to have this opinion". In Oculus's case, this DRM was only the most obscene manifestation of their exclusivity strategy - the one that would set them up to be, going forward, between a legal rock and a PR hard place if they kept it in (they'd have to either leave ReVive's DR…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why? They fixed the problem. Do you cut people out of your life the first time they make mistakes?
As with all things it would depend on what they did. If the mistake was stabbing a homeless person I certainly would. At the very least losing trust based off of mistakes seems pretty reasonable to me.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This isn't "Halo is Exclusive to Xbox only". It's "Halo is exclusive to Samsung 4k Ultra HD TVs".
I'm not a huge fan of exclusives either, but (technical reasons aside) how is your example different?
Edit: technical reasons aside, I guess there is no difference. But at least one excuse can fall back on semi-technical reasons... This sort of exclusivity is purely for marketing and contractual reasons. It actually requires more effort to make the game exclusive than it does to make it multi "platform".
Different context, but Dan Savage articulates this well. Relevant (and censored, because he is who he is) paragraph from a long blog post [1] on Sanders vs. Clinton: 'It's ####ing moronic—it's political malpractice—to attack a politician for coming around on your issues. There are lots of other issues the queer community is going to be pressing politicians on, from passing equal rights bills and trans rights bills to…
Hahaha, this comment is exactly why Sanders and his supporters continue to attack Clinton on the issues. It shows a clear misunderstanding of why the issues popped up in the first place and the world view that makes such issues important. It assumes that politics is just tit for tat, and issues are like the American flag pin politicians wear after tragedies... merely accessories to appeal to a certain demographic in…
They deserved the backlash for implementing it, and I hope the Rift continues to suffer now that people know Facebook's true intentions. Not to mention how poorly they treated early supporters after the buyout, e.g. stocking Rifts on retail shelves before they'd fulfilled orders for all backers, then telling backers who complained to get a refund and go buy one from a store... They're only doing the "right" thing bec…
You're kidding right? Oculus was very generous to early supporters. Name one other Kickstarter project that shipped backers the full retail version of the finished product in addition to their original purchase.
Yeah there was a slight delay, but really, original backers came out pretty good on the deal.
Disclosure: I was an early backer. My free retail Rift arrived a couple of weeks ago, and I'm happy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So, you punish them for their assumed transgressions. That's rather medieval of you.
The transgressions are not assumed. All they've done is reverted a small piece of DRM that was leading to piracy. They have not opened up their store at all. It's still completely closed to non-Oculus hardware. Perhaps you're missing context to understand why people are upset. Oculus has went so far as to actually pay developers of open, non-exclusive VR games to restrict their games to the Rift and Touch only, eithe…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So, you punish them for their assumed transgressions. That's rather medieval of you.
The transgressions are not assumed. All they've done is reverted a small piece of DRM that was leading to piracy. They have not opened up their store at all. It's still completely closed to non-Oculus hardware. Perhaps you're missing context to understand why people are upset. Oculus has went so far as to actually pay developers of open, non-exclusive VR games to restrict their games to the Rift and Touch only, eithe…
i don't follow this VR stuff; why should Oculus do that?
Different context, but Dan Savage articulates this well. Relevant (and censored, because he is who he is) paragraph from a long blog post [1] on Sanders vs. Clinton: 'It's ####ing moronic—it's political malpractice—to attack a politician for coming around on your issues. There are lots of other issues the queer community is going to be pressing politicians on, from passing equal rights bills and trans rights bills to…