Unless they decide to put games back on Steam, I don't really care who in charge of EA.
Sorry, irrational dislike of Origin went out of style about a year ago. Yeah Steam is great, but Origin works fine.
You may be right, but if Origin is so great, it should be able to stand on it's own now and not be propped up by exclusives. EA needs to put their games on Steam and let people choose where they want to buy.
I love Steam but how is EA not releasing their games on Steam any different from Valve not releasing their games on Origin?
Creators create, consumers consume. If there is a market demand for female protagonists in video games, then the invisible hand of the market will address it. This is a non-issue. So long as the market is free and fair, this "problem" is self-correcting. Unless, of course, you have an agenda that goes beyond addressing market needs.
No. Insurance is about putting in your share so that when you need it, you can get the treatment you need. I don't feel bad that all the money I have put into insurance over the years is going to pay for prostate cancer treatments, etc. It is spread out between everyone. I pay for your health issues, and eventually a piece of your share will pay for mine. Such is life.
As a mysterious "woman" I have health insurance and I will tell you one thing, I use not that much of what I put into it. I have one yearly check up, get my 1 prescription renewed, and that's about it. The one time I had a health issue, it was an issue that effects BOTH men and women and was something that was a complete surprise to me considering how generally healthy I was/still am.
It's interesting that this debate is happening I suppose. Of course most people are pointing to the issues of having children and that sort of thing as the main added cost and why women should pay more. Also that women live longer and have more check ups. Of course, you could say that men, if they had more check ups and properly used their insurance, would maybe live longer and then this debate would be minimized on two fronts. I speak from experience. The men I know tend to wait to have a catastrophic health issue before seeking medical advice, while I take the more pragmatic approach of saying "Well, I am paying for the service, why not use it!" Who is "right" in that situation? My father drove himself to the hospital while having a heart attack (that he had been having for some amount of time before deciding he needed to go see someone about it) and ended up in an ICU for weeks. My husband, though he is on my insurance plan, still hasn't gone for a check up, taking the approach that he is fine and healthy, so why bother going? Should I pay more because I use what I am paying for? Should I pay more because there is a chance I may have children or may live longer than my husband? Should my husband also share those costs? He is a man, but he would inevitably be sharing these increased household expenses, is that fair to him?
This is a slippery slope that I don't want to go down. It's like people who pay property taxes complaining that they pay for upkeep of local schools when they have no children. I have no problem paying for services I don't use because, in the end, I may need them one day. That's what a society does. We put our money in the kitty to make sure that we have insurance when we have a medical problem, or that fire trucks will come to our houses to put out the raging fires, or that police will arrest the person that stole our stereos, or that the schools will have books and be properly heated and cooled when we finally have children and have to send them out to learn. If we start charging more for certain people, it won't end. If I pay more, then why can't I complain about smokers or obese people using even more of the healthcare, or older people, or people with chronic conditions or people with downs syndrome, on and on.
This isn't a black and white issue of - you take more, you pay more. It's much more complicated than that and breaking it down in this way is just begging for people to start forcing people to pay more or excluding people based on age/genetics/race/lifestyle choices or gender.
That's a fine viewpoint, but I hope you do recognize how hypocritical it is for people to claim it sexist for women to pay more while completely ignoring the issue of car insurance, which is in no way under the control of an individual man. I feel like if it's one way or another on both issues it's fine, but I fear some people feel men should get screwed on car insurance while women should be afforded special protection for health insurance.
Reviewers shouldn't be considering total hours or price in their judgement of a game at all, but of course it's absolutely fine for the reader to do so. The reader is the only person in a position to make that value call for themselves and nobody should sneer at them for doing so.
Feel free to sneer at reviewers who base their judgement of a game on time/price value though. That isn't their job and they are in no way equipped to make that call for the reader. Reviewers should concern themselves with quality, not value.
I don't buy this for a second. I look at reviews to inform me as a consumer, and consequently reviewers should be consumer advocates. If Brad wrote a review of Plants vs. Zombies II, are you honestly suggesting he shouldn't mention the micro-transactions being shoved down your throat when you play it?
I have no idea. At some point I'm sure they will need to hire some new people so they are not so short handed, but beyond that who knows. Whoever they hire on, if they are not part of some click from the guys past I'm sure they will get nothing but hate from the community for a while as all new staff does.
Right, remember when Drew first showed up and everyone just despised him? Oh right, that never happened.
Also, remember when Alex joined, who is very much someone from their click, and some people hated him anyway? In other words, you do realize that you're spouting BS, right?
This has been discussed already and quickly got locked, but I think the obvious move would be putting Rorie in editorial, and maybe having Vinny produce/host the podcast. However, that's not my decision to make, nor is it yours.
Nobody ever said it was. Why are you acting so defensive?