Shivoa's forum posts

#1 Posted by Shivoa (634 posts) -

All the other GB reviews (at least the recent ones I just browsed to make sure this wasn't a wider issue) include the author byline with the author name.

I'm getting eg "by on October 6, 2014" here (Alien: Isolation) and "by on October 1, 2014" here (Danganronpa 2).

Looking at the html we're getting a space char rather than Patrick Klepek:

<a href="/profile/patrickklepek/" rel="author"> </a>

#2 Posted by Shivoa (634 posts) -

Many thanks to all the staff (especially doing moderation work) and specifically Jeff for writing down his thoughts and desires for the GB community and gaming.

#3 Edited by Shivoa (634 posts) -
@akyho said:

Unless the comments from people defending gamersgate has been moderated and taken away from this thread. The people who you are calling defenders of GamersGate are people who said Gamersgate is a mess and that there is no side to take.

That is exactly what has been happening in this thread. There is active moderation (each post has the post number next to it, scroll down and note the oles where comments have been deleted) in this thread. From what I've seen of posts before they are removed, the stuff vanishing is the conspiracy theory GG stuff you get thrown at your mentions if you try to use the hashtag on Twitter. Some comments in this thread are partially responses to posts no longer in this thread because GB actively moderates these sort of threads.

#4 Posted by Shivoa (634 posts) -
#5 Posted by Shivoa (634 posts) -

@amyggen: It's weird to say you're with someone and then quote a tweet written as their opinion (and that of the site they write for) emerged. That process finally crystallised with the article responding to Frank Cifaldi's concerns (over lack of coverage of this event) and later tweet from the writer in question (below) giving his views on GG as a movement. The point of the article on The Verge was to inform their readers and make sure no one blindly walked into GG support, thinking it was just some response to potential issues with gaming journalism. It ensured readers were informed of the origination point of the movement (attacking a game creator) and gave context to the world-view of prominent speakers for it.

#6 Posted by Shivoa (634 posts) -


The personal stances of the staff, which they express on Twitter etc, should be presented as an article from the staff on the main site so everyone who visits is absolutely clear where the staff stand. Anyone who has been duped into joining a movement based on harassment and silencing criticism of this medium should hear from the editorial voices that they've been tricked and lied to; that dissociating themselves from that collective is how to take a stance against the harassment of women that is robbing the medium of critical voices and creators.

#7 Edited by Shivoa (634 posts) -

Really appreciate the dig at always-on DRM games that launch as a $60 middle finger by simply giving error messages and having no game you can play, even if this is bad news for everyone wanting to play the demo of what sounds like a middling game on launch day (also bad news for people who pre-ordered it and now find some of the game glitchy as the servers fail to cope with the load):

Rest assured, if you've pre-ordered the full game upgrade from the PS Plus Edition, you will still get the full version of DRIVECLUB digitally, and if you can't get online you'll be able to get started offline like everybody else with single player mode as you start your DRIVECLUB tour. You’ll still be able to earn fame, unlock cars and get to grips with all of the options for playing and creating your own events and challenges - and everything you do will be synchronised with the servers when you do get connected, so you can set-up a bunch of challenges to send out to your friends as soon as you are able to join each other online.

#8 Posted by Shivoa (634 posts) -

So we get Divinity and Wasteland 2 this year, Eternity and Torment next year. This seems like an ok spacing out of these games riffing on what CRPGs from the '80s and '90s could be like today on a modest budget.

Seems more important for the sustainability of these (kinda) throwback titles that they all launch to acclaim rather than being rushed out. Really hope we continue to get solid CRPG releases and this generation of them sparks off another one to follow.

#9 Posted by Shivoa (634 posts) -
@joshwent said:

@counterclockwork87 said:

A private company can't just do whatever it wants. They are immune to law? If abortion is illegal in a country I can't just open up a "private" clinic. If it's against the law it's against the law, and in this case Australia may have a law that would force Valve to offer refunds.

Okay, not really at all what I was saying there. A company can't break the law, sure. I can't open Josh's Murder Co. and go around killing people because it's a "private" business.

I'm just saying that when governments make specific laws that dictate the policies of a privately owned company, it can cross some sketchy lines. A business should be free to create their return policies as they see fit, just as consumers are free to not shop there if they don't like said policies.

No, they should be required by law to provide goods without deception, otherwise I've got a lovely bridge you really must buy. That is what the consumer protection of sales is about, providing confidence that you're not being scammed by offering legal protection for the transaction/quality of the goods. It makes everything better.

#10 Posted by Shivoa (634 posts) -

This sounds like good news. I think moves to stabilise digital goods rights to more closely mirror those of physical products will increase consumer trust (gamers win), lead to more risk taking in purchases and so more upside to taking creative risks (devs win), and a healthier long term store (distributors/platform owners win). Enforcement of these consumer protections on digital stores is a great thing for everyone; it's almost as if, many years ago, people worked out that consumers who felt safe to hand over currency for goods because they knew they weren't going to get scammed made trade easier and everyone better off so they made up a set of rules that best protected equitable exchanges. Then someone decided moving from buying a box (with a load of 0s and 1s in it) to getting that product down a pipe (built to send those 0s and 1s) was a great time to try and roll back those consumer protections. And now there's all this worry about how to avoid being scammed by bad products, how products should be restricted from even getting onto infinite digital shelves to protect people, and so on.

I think this is an idea whose time has come, as I've commented before while explaining exactly how this stuff is meant to make consumers feel safe handing over their money. GOG gives you refunds for 30 days (although they could do more), even EA have some refund policy in place for not-Origin; it's time Steam changed to their "argue with a CS rep using a support ticket and maybe we'll refund you" policy.