Sor_Eddie

@planetfunksquad: Whoops daisey doo.

@exfate You sure about that? Because Kotaku said, quote, "I'd rather play a game like this - admittedly not fun, and even kind of ugly-looking - than play most triple-A games out there.", so it must be amazing and worthwhile!

then again it was in an article written by a writer who is so widely considered both a poor quality writer and an unethical one to boot that there are memes about it, sooooooo

@brandondryrock: This is pretty common. I've had multiple occasions where I've been accused of being a creep or a stalker or whatever for commenting on someone's hashtag'd public conversation string. People seem to think of Twitter as a private conversation between friends, when it's basically the same as standing on the street corner and yelling your thoughts really loudly.

@brandondryrock: I was just saying that because it's been covered a few times as front page content on here, it's a more relevant game to talk about, as opposed to, like, dregging the very bottoms of Desura for nobodies. I am honestly kinda baffled that a single snide aside comment I made became such a sticking point though tbh.

@thatpinguino: I'll add in some extra stuff but what he says reeks of damage control of the worst kind now that's realized he COULD be liable for fraud. "All previous owners will be receiving a Steam key" could be "misconstrued" as a promise of key? What other possible way is there take that sentence?

@brandondryrock: I would like to point out that I wasn't saying it on any kind of conspiracy angle at all

Anyway it all has nothing to do with the actual current subject at hand so n/m

@slag: I didn't really think it was very petty at all, I mean, the fact that you knew exactly what I meant kinda says something, but fair enough, I've removed it. I go to a lot of different gaming boards and I forget that the GB boards are more like Neogaf in the tone your posts are supposed to have, my bad.

@thatpinguino: Presumably he planned to just not mail out Steam keys to people who publicly support GamerGate, since it was plans he was discussing "in secret" in order to lay a "very cruel" surprise, and not an officially worded statement/rule/etc on the website.

This is different from refusing service though. This would be like if you were at a restaurant, and the owner didn't like you, so he took your money but then refused to serve you any food, which I'm pretty sure actually would be illegal, since that'd just be plain old fraud/theft. If he wanted to just not sell the game at all to GamerGate supporters, that's his own (boneheaded) decision, but to block them from getting certain features after he's already taken their money is an entirely different thing.

@corevi: You tell me, you're the one who clearly cared enough to see the thread, read the opening post, read the follow up posts, and then post your own response.

Also, it's relevant and you should "care", because him and his game have been front-page material on GB before. He was a guest on Bombing the AM, and there was an article written about him and his game. It's not like he's some random unknown from nowhere I picked out of nowhere.