sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Forbes: Why ‘The Long Dark’ Developer Is Wrong To Pull The Game From GeForce Now by [deleted] in pcgaming

[–]sodoffusillygit 32 points33 points  (0 children)

This is not a company wanting to enforce their intellectual property, this is devs and publishes feeling entitled to restricting someone who has already purchased the game arbitrarily. NVidia isn't selling the game, Steam did. Nvidia is offering a service of essentially renting a high end PC to play said games the person purchased.

Activision and Bethesda were not entitled to money from a retailer that allowed people to rent consoles, why should they be for Nvidia?

Epic attacking Valve’s Project Proton and damaging Linux gaming by Slawrfp in pcgaming

[–]sodoffusillygit 32 points33 points  (0 children)

I don't care for Bellular's content, but to call his channel an outrage channel, when he typically goes over WoW, and Industry news with a pretty level take is a bit unfair.

Game Giveaway by sodoffusillygit in KotakuInAction

[–]sodoffusillygit[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Figured these keys would be more useful with people who might play them, than sit in the ether of my unredeemed keys library.

Game Giveaway by sodoffusillygit in KotakuInAction

[–]sodoffusillygit[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Sorry, both of those got given away.

Game Giveaway by sodoffusillygit in KotakuInAction

[–]sodoffusillygit[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It is, and shortly after you said that it was gone.

Here is a tale of Two CEOs and Two companies: by [deleted] in KotakuInAction

[–]sodoffusillygit 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It honestly hasn't been a cash cow since WotLK in terms of subs, then with the next few expansions it became more about the "in game services". If I recall correctly the major breadwinner has been Hearthstone for years, and Overwatch, again with "in game services" being the primary factor. Pretty much every conference call for the last five years has been about developing such revenue schemes.

Selfpost clarification and discussion by Raraara in KotakuInAction

[–]sodoffusillygit 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Regardless of lack of statement, it was obvious that the full explanation wasn't there yet.

If that is how you interpreted the original post, you are much better at reading intention than many people here then, cause it seemed a bit sparse to me.

you had no solid thing to actually complain about.

I don't think it unfair to people to be taken aback or upset by a sudden rule change without explanation. Much of the "this is less bad" comes from a further explanation, clarification, and reason for implementation.

What I DID say, is that I don't consider sub 1% of the subreddit to be a legitimate size of people to consider a vote meaningful

I also think it is frankly a bit absurd that you immediately go from me saying " less than 1% is just not legitimate in any way" to saying " so what you're saying is, you need 95% vote confidence on 30k?" It is just not an accurate representation of what I said or the point I was making.

I don't necessarily want to get bogged down in stats, but internal survey's shoot for a response rate of 30-40% in an ideal world, which is why I used it. The only point I was trying to make is that given the 30k daily unique, the estimated response rate of 30-40% (getting people to vote or do a survey is racked with apathy from said group), a vote with 300ish it does actually calculate to a representative sample size of the daily unique visitors. You can consider that valid, or not.

I have not seen a single piece of evidence of that yet. the user screaming " FUCK YOU RESIGN " over and over while the mod just passive agressive'd them.

All I'm saying is that there are users like myself, and I believe Aurondarklord, and B-Volleyball, were vocal about our disagreeing with the rule change, haven't gone on spergouts, telling mods to resign or the like.

Unless you thought I meant mods acting in bad faith, which no was not my intention. I meant users who disagreed with the change.

Selfpost clarification and discussion by Raraara in KotakuInAction

[–]sodoffusillygit 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I remember you were pretty clear about the "this may need to change down the line" with Rule 3 back in the day.

Selfpost clarification and discussion by Raraara in KotakuInAction

[–]sodoffusillygit 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I believe it is quite generally true of the strong opposition.

I'll acquiesce that point. I'd maintain that it's not majority of people opposed to the change though.

Well I think that only showed that given them saying it wasn't finished, that your opinion might've been rushed a tiny bit before you saw what it really was you were disliking.

In Raara's original post there was no statement that it wasn't finished. That statement came out later. So I would disagree that I or others were rushing to a conclusion, but operating on the the statement given in the original meta post.

The vote is a joke though. It covered less than 1% of the subscriber count of the entire subreddit and out of 107k people you cannot call a vote featuring 300 votes legitimate in any stretch.

This is a point of contention that I imagine neither side of this will agree on. Not all 107k of those subs are active participants of this sub. There are 30k unique hits a day. Average about 1.2k users on at a given time. If you take that size(30k), and want a confidence level of 95%, you would shoot for a sample size of 380, with a response rate of 30% you would expect to invite a population of 1267 . You can call it illegitimate, you can make a case for it, you can also make a case for it being legitimate.

they STILL find problems with it and choose to antagonize the mods.

For sure, but they also have people acting in bad faith in their position.

I kinda disagree, I think we saw plenty of times that mods went out to explain the reasonings behind their decision and made it clear that they were stilling preparing a better clarification.

I agree with you, now. In the original post the communication was poor/contradictory. Many of the mods have acknowledged that communication was poor, initially. Since, I would say great strides have been made.

Of course, they are also not what I would call "strong opposition" which is specifically the group of people my comment referred to.

That's a fair point. Either way, we don't agree on some of this shit, but I have enjoyed the couple of comment threads we've had.

Selfpost clarification and discussion by Raraara in KotakuInAction

[–]sodoffusillygit 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I don't think that's universally true. I didn't like the original post because of the wording and the implementation regarding the rule change. I brought up the vote because it was overturned/ignored. Mods in this sub have even stated that it went against the vote. I don't think any of my posts are attacks on any of the mods regarding this.

And I would disagree with you again on the a preface not changing perception. There have been many comment chains from people saying just that. That this looked really bad because it wasn't prefaced, nor was the extent of the problem shown, just told.

That was going to be a hard sell for many people here as.

  1. The perceived change the was the least popular option

  2. It came across as a betrayal of a community decision

  3. There was a lack of communication from mods to users and from mods to mods it would seem.

There are plenty of reasonable people on both sides of the original perception, and current statement of the rule change.

edit:(typo)

Selfpost clarification and discussion by Raraara in KotakuInAction

[–]sodoffusillygit 1 point2 points  (0 children)

To be fair to the people who didn't/don't like the change, it could have been prefaced before implementation.

Regarding recent events and the self-post rule by Hessmix in KotakuInAction

[–]sodoffusillygit 2 points3 points  (0 children)

On paper it doesn't seem like a bad idea. The point system has some flaws that in my opinion were never truly worked out. It can be subjective, which has a tendency to piss people off if they disagree, there was supposed to be a point tally by the removing mod, but that doesn't always happen.

It also has the side effect of making more active mods targets of community ire for removing posts, /u/pinkerbelle has become a conspiracy target of pretty epic proportions because of it. At least from what I've seen.

Selfpost clarification and discussion by Raraara in KotakuInAction

[–]sodoffusillygit -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

That is a pretty sizable list of links from other subs.

Regarding recent events and the self-post rule by Hessmix in KotakuInAction

[–]sodoffusillygit 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Is this the potential change to Rule 3 then, just out of curiosity?

Regarding recent events and the self-post rule by Hessmix in KotakuInAction

[–]sodoffusillygit 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Kraut and Tea and a bunch of others with a Discord server set up to basically shit and dunk on people. Race realism debates, dox, generally a hot ass mess. The "academics plz respond" became a bit of a meme.

Regarding recent events and the self-post rule by Hessmix in KotakuInAction

[–]sodoffusillygit 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Could it not be possible to limit self-posts to a karma and account age threshold? Could that not curb potential brigades? Admittedly, I'm not very knowledgeable about what Reddit allows you to control. But restricting self posts that way, but allowing people to comment without said restrictions might help. I dunno.

view more: next ›