The problem with these articles is that they give virtually no context to the story and are really just a headline that serves to shock many people into the usual "OMG you Americans will sue over anything" sort of comment.
So while although I doubt this will have any effect on Gamespot's idea of how to run these stories, I really wish they could offer up some insight on the legal reasoning behind them, rather than just vague facts about the company. I personally work in the legal field, but do not do anything in company law, and as such am at a loss as the everyday person is, so I can understand the problem for the author to come up with this information. But before people go off and cry afoul and think that there can be nothing to the case what so ever, it would be nice if we had a little more to go on.
And on a side note with regards to the alleged frivolousness of the filing I highly doubt that this individual shareholder filed this pro per, I can reasonably assume he went to an attorney that specializes in this sort of practice - I doubt he wants to get his case summarily dismissed on the basis of being without merit.
Shocking! Microsoft doesn't like the derisive name that people have been using to encompass their disappointment with the system!
I seem to recall in a Simpsons episode that Bill Gates went to Homer and "bought out" his website too. Seems they weren't too far from the mark with their SOP.
Couldn't care less about the game, just had to click on the article since it was still under review. I could have sworn that Epic pumped out a few Gears of War this year already so I had to see what's up.
I guess that J_Dangerously got it right - this must be one hell of a boring game to not have finished it yet. Still though it was a Gears of War game, what was there that was so daunting in the challenge of reviewing it? Learning some new names? It certainly couldn't have been the gameplay, since that hasn't changed since the first damn game.
@minerl99 Yeah it may work out to that much in the long term (the very long term) but the thing is I don't pay for the system over 7 years. Believe it or not $100 is a deal breaker for a lot of people at the point of sale, because that's when you have to come up with the cash.
But the value of a dollar is also quite different from one person to another and I'm not going to say that anyone is right or wrong. If the Xbox is your thing, then great, you're going go out and purchase it if the price is within reason. $500, $600, or even if it was $300. The thing is though this article is about people seeing the value that the Xbox offers over the competition and I fail to see how it is.
It could cost half of what it does, and I still don't have any interest in purchasing a box to watch television on, to pay for Xbox Live again, to have to deal with a Kinect, or to play whatever games they have to offer soon out of the gate.
@Keivz_basic Due to a suit over who holds the rights to game (and it was rather messy) Valve has developed the game under its previous acronym - DOTA. It doesn't stand for anything, that was deemed protected and Valve did not secure the rights to that (other instances in the game include the changing of names of heroes that were taken from Warcraft 3 like Furion, again due to the proper holder's retaining their rights).
@ThreeVo @Shadowsault @Tripwolf Hmm that's a lot of inferences there and I am going to guess that you don't have a lot of games under your belt.
If you're going to play in the lower brackets, yeah you can expect the complexities and moreover the time that it can take to simple complete a match to take a toll on people. I certainly don't condone it and manage to keep myself at least publicly positive about it. And with that being said, I have had many a great game, some of which were loses, but were amazing matches no less. Not really sure what the humbling ones are that you speak of...
As far as loss goes, and it being your team's fault, this is fairly philosophical idea that you put forth. The struggle between two teams in any competition isn't necessarily cut and dry, I'll give you that much. But always to a certain degree your team did things that contributed to their loss just as the inverse would be true for the winning team doing the things that lead to their victory. Blaming everyone is I think what you're getting at, and yes that can get out of hand at times.
Finally you can make public games work without having to read your team mate's minds. Given time and practice, you do get better at having a reasonable guess as to what everyone is going to do in a skirmish and can plan ahead accordingly. But like one pro said (I forget who, I want to say it was Maelk) the game is really about who can get of their abilities first. It does punish the players that languish in the back and want to jump in seconds later than they should have, but then again that is a big part of why the game fills a perfect niche for a lot of people - it is so different.
pwnzord's comments