Login or register
Login or register
Stay logged in
Log in/Sign up using Facebook.
Log in/Sign up using Gmail/Google+.
CREATE A NEW ACCOUNT
Email is optional and is used for password recovery purposes.
Have the FunnyJunk newsletter e-mailed to you
Rank #15584 on Comments
Level 238 Comments: Ambassador Of Lulz
Send mail to thesimonved
Invite thesimonved to be your friend
Last status update:
Date Signed Up:
Highest Content Rank:
Highest Comment Rank:
Content Level Progress:
Level 70 Content: FJ Cultist → Level 71 Content: FJ Cultist
Comment Level Progress:
Level 238 Comments: Ambassador Of Lulz → Level 239 Comments: Ambassador Of Lulz
Times Content Favorited:
Total Comments Made:
What people say about thesimonved
latest user's comments
- It's funny that people don't understand the term "procedu…
Procedurally generated content can be great. Just look at Minecraft and terraria for good examples of it. The devs also lied in interviews, showed off a handmade planet for all their gameplay reveals and even claimed it was procedurally generated when asked in interviews. They said the expectations high by lying about this.
It doesn't matter if it was made by 6 orphans in a basement over the course of a weekend or by jesus himself and his army of tech gods. They charged $60 for it, and they falsely advertised it. It's not my job as a consumer to give one single fuck about who's making my product. I just want my moneys worth. If being a small team was an excuse they shouldn't have promised so much from the start.
They made literally millions of dollars by lying to people and falsely advertising. They deserve to have their dreams tread on.
well difference being is minecraft has a map atlas with about a 95% accuracy rate
just tap in your game seed and presto, you can find all other locations and what would be randomly generated landscape is now all plotted out so players now where to go
can the buttbuddies of no mans sky call on this?
"It's not the same because the other game also has X" doesn't excuse anything. They made their game world how they wanted it, and just because another game is made in another way that gives it access to other resources, it doesn't include anything. Such an atlas may not be possible in no-mans sky, but I've really just got two points to make about that.
1. I've never used that in minecraft. I wasn't even aware of it until now to be completely honest, though I'm not exactly a hardcore minecraft fan, I just tend to binge play it maybe once every couple of months. The game is still plenty of fun without anything like that
2.It's not my problem as a consumer if the devs made their game world in a way that limits certain features like this. I literally could not care less what excuses are made as to why things aren't as good as they should be. It just looks like minecraft was developed with a way of tracking worlds and such so you can always respawn in a world you like for example, which then allows for things like this. There's no reason no mans sky couldn't have allowed for something similar.
the best thing NMS could have done would be a better version of spore... a million planets aka pretty much infinite because who the fuck will ever visit all of them to do anything with them
not even sure if mineatlas was ever intended to go mainstream hence why its 'unofficial" but the fact its capable of producing an almost accurate map of the possibly limitless spawning world, does give it a one-up on NMS
NMS could have done similar like warhammer 40K having a million worlds and you rediscover them all with a vague idea of where they are / were [when the original stellar maps you have were taken] and part of the adventure is fiding out where they moved to over the solar shifting in time
just comes across as sad that an older game is more in depth and reliable than a newer and more expensive one
i say take NMS back to the drawing board and try again.... i think the only reason theyre getting sued as opposed to EA games bullshit of baiting and not delivering is EA can say "go ahead, sue us... we can delay proceedings till youre bankrupt and cant afford to maintain the suit" while an indie company cant do that
NMS could have been developed with a map system in mind though. 3rd party or not with minecraft, it's really not my issue as the customer why it doesn't have this feature, that's down to the devs.
EA isn't being sued because they've not lied to anyone or broken any laws. The most they've done is trailers being a bit representative, but they always have "not actual gameplay footage" or "not representative of final product" on the screen somewhere. Sean murray literally showed off a hand crafted world in the no mans sky demo, was asked about the world he was showing off, and said it was procedurally generated. It then came to light that it wasn't, and that the files for the e3 demo world were still left in the game's data at launch. Plus there's things like multiplayer. Sean murray expressly stated it would be possible to find other players, and the box of some versions of the game even stated it had multiplayer on the back of it, but the game hasn't got multiplayer whatsoever.
EA isn't the most honest, but they don't break any laws. They do what they can to make their product look good within the realm of legal advertising. Hello games literally just lied to people about what NMS was.
hasnt ea done it a bunch of times with "hey we're gonna put XY and Z in a game.... LOL TROLLED the released game doesnt have those XDDDD"
yeah false statements arent as bad as outright falsified gameplay footage but still illegal
plus ea is on the border with legal issues selling games that require DLC and micro-transactions to get the actual full game, and seriously have to question their banning people for a bunch of shitty reasons or refusing to give refunds for faulty games
When did ea do this?
NMS had false statements AND false gameplay footage. All of the trailers were handcrafted and not procedural generated worlds. When asked in an interview, sean murray said they were procedural generations and lied about it, as shown when the files for this trailer were found in the released gmae.
There's no border of legality selling day one DLC, and in 90% of cases, this isn't half as bad as people make it out to be.
Look, at this point people know what EA is. They aren't super friendly and consumer first. But they're certainly not breaking any laws. They've not done anything that isn't easily seen. People understand to take what they show with a grain of salt.
Hello games literally lied, broke the law, falsely advertised etc. Someone couldn't have made a reasonable decision based on that they stated and showed about their games because it was untrue.
Just because you dislike EA, doesn't mean they've done anything illegal. They aren't great, but they haven't broken any laws to my knowledge
dude... selling dlc is like opening a cupcake shop and saying "oh by the way... icing and stuff that normally goes on top of the cupcakes costs extra"
plus its a colossal dick move to make a game that your average player is gonna get fucked up by the little kid with daddy's credit card who just pays to win and the only way you can match them is also buy the upgrades
much as usa has different laws im pretty sure entrapment does still work there... like suckering people into buying games that turn out to be missing stuff and require additional purchases to get / unlock / be able to play at full potential.... is illegal
ea games is still doing things illegally just not as blatant about it as HG
Yeah, it is kinda like that with the cupcake shop. Still wouldn't be illegal to open a cupcake shop for that. And when that cupcake shop has been doing the same thing for 10+ years, you should probably either stop buying your cupcakes there or just stop complaining about it because they likely won't change anytime soon.
I don't think you know what entrapment is. For one, in the legal sense, it only applies to a member of law enforcement getting someone to break a law they usually wouldn't. EA isn't law enforcement and they aren't getting customers to break laws.
Games missing stuff is completely subjective. As long as a core advertised feature isn't missing then there's no legal grounds to stand on. "I feel like I'm not getting the full experience" doesn't hold up in court unfortunately.
Laws about "getting the full experience" would be ridiculous and likely lead to a ban on all DLC if they were in place.
Look, you're clearly just arguing that it must be illegal because you don't like it. But it's not. In europe or the US, it's completely legal what they do. Lets go back to the cupcake shop analogy. You know how they operate. It's not new, and it's not changing. So either buy your cupcakes elsewhere, or build a bridge and get over it, because they're not gonna become super consumer friendly overnight or anytime soon
well there is the problem with people who are on the verge of being retarded that just keep buying shit from ea because they sheepherd behind the name and like having the same shit handed to them year after year and claim sequels that play out the same "are new games
or new kids who dont know how shit ea is and just buy into it over the name all the same
drunk here... give me a break... mixing up legal terms
ea games is in fact practising a form of fraud and also extortion with their selling incomplete games that require you to "pay to play"
how would you feel if you signed up to play football and got told "your cup is DLC so buy one or just hope to god you dont get hit in the nuts out on the field"
and i did build a bridge.... to other games
i stopped buying ea back after BF2.... BF3-4 are just pretty much the same game with new graphics..... same "lets shit out more dull modern combat games like CoD does because sheep buy namebrands"
and love your logical fallacy of "hey you dont bow down and accept shady business practices YOU JUST HATE EA"
"They don't like what I like so they must be idiots". If people enjoy a product consistently, they'll keep buying. Simple as that, and there isn't anything wrong with that. EAs target audience isn't the same as someone like CD projekt red's target audience. They aren't hurting anyone.
So what defines a game as incomplete? How can you argue that an EA game is incomplete when it works like any other with a start, middle and ending with credits? Furthermore, how can you argue their DLC makes the game incomplete, but other DLC is ok? You don't need DLC, or to pay any extra to play any of their games that you bought. You can get extra content, and perhaps the base game is low in content compared to other games similar in genre, but there's zero laws being broken there. Unless the game is advertised as having something it doesn't have, there's not been a law broken.
I'm not sure you're getting this so I'll simplify it with an example. Lets say you bought the sims, and you needed to pay for DLC so you could have more than 2 windows in your house. That still wouldn't be illegal. It would suck, but unless they were advertising the base game specifically with more windows, there wouldn't be any laws broken.
Once again, you go for the "they like different things than me so they are idiots" stance. You've said you're drunk so I know you drink. Do you whine and bitch about idiots buying the same alcohol like jack daniels or budweiser because of the name? Or do you just let them get on with their lives? Because it's the same idea with video games here. People like to know what they're getting with any product.
That wasn't a logical fallacy, it was a reasonable assumption. You've been claiming they're breaking laws, and when asked for evidence you don't state a single law they've broken, just their business practices that you disagree with. It shows you have a clear dislike for the company, and an obvious bias hurting your argument as it's clearly not an objective view you're looking at this with
"if people enjoy a product and keep buying then its a good product"
not really... people liked watching mtv jackass... beavis and butthead... squidbillies... and other retarded shit
if something is shit, then its shit... 'popularity' doesnt reflect the quality of the product it just means they were lucky enough to find people with low enough standards to accept it at its shit level
look at mcdonalds... their food is total shit BUT they hooked enough people to justify keeping making shit
by comparison.... a game that has all content and just simply requires you to level up or achieve certain goals to unlock the extras, is in fact a legit game because the content is there and anyone can get it within the original game they purchased
HOWEVER a game made to have content in it, but requires players to pay more money to unlock them to get the full effect of the game, is fraudulent and extortion on the grounds of "you HAVE to spend more on top of the original purchase to get 'the full game"
and the game is incomplete... as i stated... if content is in the game buy players cannot get it without additional expense... its extortion
if youre trying to play the game on vanilla and little jimmy comes at you with his $5 "fuck you" sword that you have no vanilla defense for.... and the only way you can stop him would be buy the $5 "tough shit" shield... yeah thats extorting you out of money just so you can have a level playing field in the game
nice how you have next to nothing to argue on so moving the fallacy goalposts away from the topic of gaming and onto what i drink
**anonymous used "*roll picture*"**
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it's bad. Not every TV show needs to try to break new ground or be artistic. And not every place serving food needs to aspire to be a 5 star restaurant. If a product can consistently make money, and the consumers of that product are happy with it, I'd consider it a good product. I think you'd be a fool not to when it hits those criteria.
Again, that's not breaking any laws. From a legal sense, what's included in the initial purchase is the product. Extra data on the disc (Disc locked paid content) doesn't necessarily take away from that (It usually does, but in a legal sense there's nothing to say it does). If the game is considered "ready" by the devs, and they decide to put some "previously planned dlc" on the disc to "save the player a download" then it wouldn't be part of the original purchase. Consider this. If the law was changed, so that you couldn't be charged for content already on the disc, it wouldn't stop companies like EA doing the same thing. You'd just have to download that crap instead of it being on the disc already, making it even worse than it is already.
And that isn't extortion whatsoever. Unless they're advertising features as part of the main game and then locking it away it's completely legal. Plus, lets say we consider a law like this being made. What happens to DLC in multiplayer games? Often content like that needs to be in the game already because otherwise you couldn't play multiplayer with someone who has the DLC as you don't have the data to run that.
Then we can go into how you don't buy the actual data on the disc, but a license to use it. It's not actually yours. Same for digital downloads.
Pay to win isn't extortion though. Simply go play another game. You're not being forced into anything. It's a leisure activity. Besides, I can't think of any EA game (Mind you i've not played a ton of them but mostly keep up on any gaming news coming out) where skill isn't worth more than money for the most part.
I wasn't arguing about what you drink. Whoosh. I was comparing gaming to alcohol in the sense that there are people who are more into things like craft beers and high quality alcohol, and there are people who just drink what's easy and reliable. That's the same in gaming, people who look for the newest things in gaming, and people who stick with reliable fun. I was using that as a point to say, if you bitch about people for alcohol choice then you're a dickhead and most would agree, and the same goes for gaming.
Again, at the bottom of all of this, you're arguing it all with maybe a highschool understanding of these laws at best. You're twisting wording to fit what you want and haven't been able to cite me a single example of a specific game breaking a specific law, just you trying to argue about games being "incomplete" and other subjective things and how that should affect the law
And now the stupid faggot has blocked me
Definitely; they're using the procedural generation as a fall back just so they can go "Hey, we didn't know what would happen". Who would actually fall for that?
Well, fortunately the damage is done. People learned their lesson and likely wont hype or buy ANYTHING done by hello game or Sean Murray again.
Tbh, they shouldnt have expected much from an indue game anyway..
**bargh used "*roll picture*"**
It's also funny how people got the game hyped up to be an aaa title when it was just a small indie game
Although yes selling it at 60Dollars is fucking bullshit and should be frowned upon
- Well it was the last time he and his parents were together, so…
- 'german passport
"I really want to get...
- Well, all she said was that Multiculturalism doesn't work and …
"I really want to get...
- I thought the last thing we had in Western Civilization was be…
- A joke? Your life, I guess
- Damn, dude's got no chill
RT Reporter at a Cosplay...
that is his schtick.
- Only thumbed up for Gunnar Krupp, he's the man
Cleaning the floor.
- "Look at them, they're just staring at me…
Danny Fenton looks like...
Show Comments (8)