Bay 12 Games Forum

Quote from: Goron on May 04, 2010, 01:30:05 pm

Quote from: fenrif on May 04, 2010, 01:21:14 pm

Paying someone else to do it is like paying someone else to shoot the bad guys for you. Wheres the fun?

Trust me when I say people will pay for near anything in MMOs...
I personally have had (cumulative) thousands of dollars, real life USD, pass in and out of my bank account for in-game transactions regarding anything from purely decorative crap to 'leveled' characters (accounts).

The difference being that those are in MMOs.

APB isn't an MMO. Its a shooter with an editing suite. Also usually those things people pay for in MMOs are things that they would otherwise have to grind for. If they could aquire them right off the bat (without even using their subscription time) I think you'd find them a little less willing to shell out cash.

It all comes down to opportunity cost. Everyone values his or her time differently. While you may not think the few minutes to make your own design is worth anything, someone else may. I personally would rather buy a T-shirt than take the time to weave it myself. Some people may prefer to buy a 'digital' t-shirt than take the time to design it themselves. You don't consider that process as part of a 'grind' but some people do.
Take for instance Battlefield Heroes. There are some purely decorative clothing items available for sale. People buy them. Sure, maybe not a lot, but some.
It has nothing to do with MMO or shooter or rts. You need to keep in mind that some people value money differently than you may. I personally would rather spend a couple hundred $ to buy a 'finished' Ultima Online account than take the time to do it myself (In fact, I have). As such, I can see myself rather spending a few dollars on some decorative stuff, even in a shooter, than making it myself. My time is worth more to me than the couple dollars something might cost, not to mention the creative skill I may lack.

Just because you are spending time in an editor and not 'using subscription time' does not make it less of a grind (to some).

Jeeze, I read the subject line and expected this thread to be about heroin...

...hmm... *gets an idea about modding certain 'poisons' into game*

also remember that participation is a factor. the more people finding bugs, the faster toady can fix em all.

This is not entirely true.
No matter how quickly he is flooded by bug reports, he still needs to take time to fix them. Currently he is working on the merge stuff. Finding more bugs now will in no way speed up the fix rate. It only adds them to the queue. Just so long as the bug queue is filled as quickly as he can institute fixes, we are good to go. A longer queue does not mean faster fixes.

I have not gotten the new version yet.
I am waiting for it to be patched a bit more. Its not like there are no other games to play in the meantime

Quote from: Thndr on February 16, 2010, 06:20:07 pm

In the modern world, people eat a hell of a lot more than they used to in the past. What we consider a 'meal' would have more in common with the royals' meals than it would with the peasants' meals.

But your point still stands about the amount of space needed for farmlands.

Then again, a seaman on Captain Cook's vessel during 1768-1771 would receive eleven pounds of biscuit per day, plus whatever the allocated vegetable/meat was that day.

That's half a ton per day for a crew of 100.

Please provide citation for your claim.

EDIT:
Considering the official English rations of the time consisted of ONE pound biscuit (plus other foods) it goes to show that the necessary calorie intake for a sailor likely matches around that level. To force 11 pounds of biscuit a day is far fetched.
            Sunday:             1 lb. biscuit, 1 lb. salt pork, ½  pt. peas

            Monday:          1 lb. biscuit, 1 pt. oatmeal, 2 oz. butter

            Tuesday:          1 lb. biscuit, 2 lbs. salt beef

            Wednesday:    1 lb. biscuit, ½ pt. peas, 1 pt. oatmeal, 2 oz. butter, 4 oz. cheese

            Thursday:        Same as Sunday

            Friday:              Same as Monday

            Saturday:          Same as Tuesday
(a source: http://www.navyandmarine.org/ondeck/1776salthorse.htm)

Calling me an idiot huh?

You're one of those guys that interprets the constitution word for word?

We're not babies, we can interpret these laws now to fit our changed worldview.

thats fine, but the gun debate is on an entirely different level than a Sony software update as the gun debate actually revolves around rights. So any argument about firearm rights stands stronger than an argument about the ability to install Linux on a PS3.

But if you rather have the government or corporations tell you everything about what you can or can't do with your property, then I think we see who is really an idiot.

Once again, Tthe update is optional. No one is forcing me or telling me what to do. No one has to install the update. Therefore no one has to lose the ability to run other OSs. But, Sony has decided that use of their future services may require this new update. So if I want to terminate my relationship with Sony now, while maintaining all that was agreed upon previously, I can do so. I can continue to run my PS3 exactly as I have been. But, if I want to utilize future Sony releases and features, I will need to agree to their new rules, which include removing the otheros feature. But the core of it is that no one is making anyone do anything. So you are right, we see who really is an idiot: the one that continues trying to spread false information and fear tactics, by making it seem like Sony will come to your door and force you to install the update at gunpoint.

I've said many times, that its the principal of them patching out functionality for no good reason,

But they do have a good reason. They want to protect their intellectual property and form of income (from what I understand). So they have made the decision that if you want to utilize future ps3 features, you need to patch and lose your otheros ability. They are not forcing it on anyone. Don't patch you ps3 and you don't lose your otheros. simple.
I stand by my very early point that I think this is silly how you are mad at Sony because you want to 'hate the man'. Why not be mad at the hacker that caused Sony to get worried and make this move? And, why be mad int he first place if this doesn't affect you at all?
Principals? Well, there are more people touched by Sony's ability to make money than there are ps3s, so I would argue the 'principal' of remaining competitive for their stakeholders much outweighs the 'principal' of not taking out a new found vulnerability (vulnerability in a business sense, not a security sense) even though it was an initial selling point (before being a risk factor).

which not only sets a bad precedent (well, taking out backwards compatability did that, so i guess they're at least consistent)

Thats odd, my ps3 is still backwards compatible... please explain?

but is plainly a stupid PR move.

Thats arguable... Stupid PR for the 'hate the man' crowd maybe, but irrelevant to the rest of the world and likely even good for software developers and other stakeholders. For now software developer X knows that their intellectual property is being defended by Sony which is only a good thing. If I made ps3 games I'd be happy to know Sony is acting to prevent my games from being pirated. I'm sure Ubisoft is loving this move.

If principals are "hippy crap" then I guess I should make some anti-gun arguement to prove that your principals are just as important to you as everyone elses are to them, and thus not hippy crap.

heh, when you find where in the constitution that it mentions Sony, PS3s, or even principals, then please, point it out to me... but until then, gunsmith has you whooped on that one .

I own a loaf of bread and have not eaten it. Is it broken?

Even if guns aren't meant for killing people (they are), that doesn't make the comparison suddenly not ridiculous.

I guess I should have said, "I've used my firearms many many times and yet they've never killed or tried to kill anyone"... How often do you use that bread?
There are plenty of firearms designed in such a way that they would be completely ineffective in any type of killing, but are exceptional at target shooting. I do not believe it is fair to claim the firearms are meant for killing people.
Also, since you use the term 'guns,' I will bring up air rifles (and other airguns); while some have the power to easily kill small critters (and some are indeed designed for that purpose), most are not designed for killing at all.
I could go even deeper and discuss airsoft guns (some fit into the airgun category, but many are spring fired) which to even try claiming they are designed for killing is hilarious.

Overall more firearm types have the capacity to kill than not, no argument there; and I would even give that they are specifically designed to have that capacity, but that doesn't mean that is their intended use. Just as I think it is not fair to claim that bows are meant to kill. They can, and many are specifically designed to do so, but others are not. I am completely comfortable in saying that the archery equipment at your local kids summer camp is not meant for killing, but rather sport/target shooting...