WarioBarker’s Techdirt Profile


About WarioBarker

WarioBarker’s Comments comment rss

  • Mar 12th, 2021 @ 5:32pm

    (untitled comment)

    It's EA. I could see this direct-selling-on-the-sly thing being intentional.

    EA says its investigating and it needs to be very transparent as to the results of that investigation.

    Again, it's EA. I'd be surprised if they're actually conducting an investigation, and even if they are I doubt they'll find any wrongdoing unless those responsible aren't giving EA the profits.

    The entire part of the gaming industry that revolves around buying packs trying to get rare items only works if there is trust from the public that all of this is on the up and up. The moment that the public no longer believes in the system, it collapses.

    In which case, good riddance and GTFO.

    It's one thing if the pulls or gachas or whatever are 100% cash-free, available every couple hours or so, and stack with no upper limit (so if it's 1 draw per 2 hours and 12 hours pass, you have 6 draws at your disposal) or FOMO (promotional items and such go into the regular blind draw after the event ends). It's another thing if games that are free-to-play or pay-to-play have predatory lootboxes and microtransactions, which seems to be the overwhelming majority (want an aiming reticule on the screen? $5. That gun skin? $15. That character? $50. Not to mention the common "You can either struggle and grind for days and days, or pay to win." model).

    And eroding trust in a major player in this industry, such as EA Sports,

    (pfft) HAHAHA! People actually trust EA? Pretty sure that's what's referred to as "fools and their money".

    is going to have a spillover effect to other publishers and studios.

    EA has such a terrible reputation, all of its own making, that I doubt it'll have a spillover effect outside of other companies that pull similar lootbox/microtransaction crap.

  • Mar 9th, 2021 @ 9:19pm

    Re: Re:

    I'm not saying both major parties aren't attacking 230, but as I understand it Democrats tend to think it isn't powerful enough (or at the very least, that Facebook, Twitter, and Google have allowed some crap to stay up while taking other crap down), whereas over the past four years Retrumplickins have yelled long, hard, and loud that "230 lets Big Tech engage in anti-conservative bias and censorship!" (which translates to, as you said, "[they] don't like being called out on their bullshit").

    Even so, corruption and bullcrappery should be called out no matter what anyone's political leaning is.

  • Mar 9th, 2021 @ 4:07pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    Not sure who AC had in mind, but when I think "decades-long retaliation against people who called [him/her] by a mean name in an article decades ago" my mind goes to David Miscavige and L. Ron Hubbard before him.

  • Mar 9th, 2021 @ 1:39pm

    (untitled comment)

    Given the sheer number of times Trumpists (can we even call them "Republicans" anymore?) and their allies have attacked Section 230 for "anti-conservative bias" (because things like fact-checking and negative consequences for speech are for everyone else), I think it's safe to say that Tim and Janice are doing this out of malice - if they can't kill off Section 230 directly, they'll hold their state's ability to invest for ransom.

  • Mar 6th, 2021 @ 8:45am

    (untitled comment)

    it's a bit of a risky venture for EA Sports to take, given that any NCAA Football title as of now would have to be given an "incomplete" grade. The Big 10 without Northwestern? College football without Notre Dame?

    It's EA. I can absolutely see them releasing a college football game that's missing teams, pinky promising that the absent teams will be added as DLC, and then releasing Ultimate Team packs so you'll have to unlock the missing schools' teams yourself (but the chances of getting any individual player from said teams is 0.001%).

    And what if more schools start getting pressure from their students and athletes and start to go down the same path?

    Less work for EA, then!

  • Feb 4th, 2021 @ 10:36pm

    Re: Re:

    Dude, either stop putting words in peoples' mouths and make a valid point of your own, or GTFO.

    Leave them alonnnnne!

    Did...did you just invoke the "Leave Britney Alone" meme?

  • Feb 1st, 2021 @ 3:54pm

    Re: Easy Difference

    Platforms have a duty to remain politically neutral; publishers do not.

    Source? (And no, your asshole doesn't count.)

  • Jan 25th, 2021 @ 7:20pm

    Accuracy is important...

    As a result, BMG is guilty of [...] causing reputational damage to the entire religion, something we're perfectly capable of doing on our own.

  • Jan 25th, 2021 @ 7:01pm

    Re: "Imagine Google pulling out of Texas."

    Texas is represented by Senator Ted Cruz.

    It would be a happy thought except Texas is very purple.

    The only reason it's purple is because Cruz is wringing its neck.

  • Dec 29th, 2020 @ 10:12pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Last I checked, Techdirt is decidedly unbiased when it comes to calling out crap and corruption, no matter who's doing it.

    Saying that the site would completely flip its mindset if Biden does the same things Trump has done (or worse stuff) just because it's not Trump doing it suggests to me that you support political corruption so long as "Da Left" isn't the ones doing it.

  • Dec 18th, 2020 @ 11:22am

    (untitled comment)

    Twitter saying there's no evidence may suggest this guy's lying and made up what he presented to Dutch authorities.

    The best people are apparently not advising the president on how to keep his vaunted Twitter account secure.

    I'd say it's more likely that they have - many times - but Trump either doesn't listen or doesn't care.

  • Nov 12th, 2020 @ 12:10am

    Re: Re: The solution is simple...

    I began writing that comment when there weren't any on the page, but by the time I tapped Submit there were a bunch of (far better) responses and I realized my suggestion was kinda dumb in comparison.

    If I could delete it, I would.

  • Nov 11th, 2020 @ 8:20pm

    The solution is simple...

    And yet Nightdive was also told by all three entities, independently mind you, that they might own some rights and would go find out if Nightdive tried to rerelease the game to see if they could sue over it.

    In that case, Nightdive should try to rerelease the game. If any of the companies try to sue, Nightdive can show the receipts in court to indicate that they (Nightdive) tried for years to work out who had the rights but the suing company/ies were unwilling to check if they had any rights to No One Lives Forever unless Nightdive tried to rerelease it, and even then only to see if they had standing to sue, therefore rereleasing the game was the only way to get the suing company/ies off their asses and actually sort out this issue like Nightdive had wanted to do in the first place.

  • Nov 10th, 2020 @ 12:01pm

    Re: 7 years?


    Either the writer messed up the math, or he knows something we don't.

  • Oct 31st, 2020 @ 12:00am


    OmniGamer's analysis is here: (http://tasvideos.org/5517S.html). His findings were later confirmed and even refined a bit by MrWint: (http://tasvideos.org/5876S.html).

    Even with all of the above research, utilizing how Dragster internally works and being frame-perfect from start to finish gets nothing faster than a 5.57 time - and hence Todd's 5.51 claim was thrown out by Twin Galaxies (along with anything else he'd submitted over the years).

  • Oct 29th, 2020 @ 11:05pm

    Kappa? Really?

    Given that the Kappa emote is typically used to convey sarcasm or irony, or to troll people online, Twitch making an announcement involving said emote just after doing mass video takedowns (and telling those affected to "go learn about copyright law" as if it's the creators' fault) feels like an even bigger insult than it already was.

  • Oct 23rd, 2020 @ 4:49pm

    (untitled comment)

    Isn't what Hutchinson's suggesting almost exactly what Stadia itself does? Players pay for each individual game for the right to play them via the streaming service, and any game can be removed if publishers or Google decide to enforce their right of removal.

    Requiring a license to livestream a game would be problematic. Right off the top of my head, some questions:

    • Would licenses be required from each development studio and publisher? What if either no longer exists?
    • For adaptations of TV shows/movies/etc., would a license be required from the property's rightsholders as well, or individuals whose likenesses and/or voices are used?
    • What about games in the public domain, or where the rightsholder is unknown, or those with rightsholders that are notoriously abrasive towards criticism?

    Hutchinson's idea would force streamers to either have to track down all the needed info to know who to pay for licenses, or just not stream games at all. Licenses would be extremely costly for the more popular streamers, absolutely cripple less-popular ones and those who livestream games as a hobby, and deter anyone who'd want to get into the field...and I think he knows that.

  • Sep 11th, 2020 @ 10:04am

    (untitled comment)

    To me, these "No on 1" adverts come across as a threat - "This is what will happen if Question 1 is passed, and we'll make sure it happens. You don't know who we sell your data to."

  • Aug 25th, 2020 @ 7:29am

    (untitled comment)

    So...instead of "Yes, we supported Charter's desire to price gouge its customers.", it's "I failed to read the part of the Charter-made letter immediately above where my signature went and as a result accidentally supported Charter's desire to price gouge its customers."

    That's already a terrible excuse, but looking at the letter again, part of the signature goes right through part of the text that supports Charter's desire to price gouge its customers. So yeah, I smell bullcrappery.

  • Jul 6th, 2020 @ 3:39pm

    (untitled comment)

    So by saying that Xi Jinping and his cronies should die in a fire, I've broken the laws of a country I was never going to go anywhere near to begin with due to said fire-deserving douchenozzles thinking George Orwell's "1984" is an instruction manual?

More comments from WarioBarker >>


This site, like most other sites on the web, uses cookies. For more information, see our privacy policy. Got it