379 réponses à ce sujet

[joey_mork84]

the_one_54321 wrote...

fairandbalancedfan wrote...

Thank you for supporting mistaken perceptions and inaccurate comparisons. I'm sure everyone will benefit from this tremendously.

But he was commenting on your debating style. Having a high horse attitude will not mae others respnd to you in a logical way, it just evokes an emotional response.

They already weren't responding with much sense. Hence the post. May as well get the high-horse in there if they're going to respond with so little sense anyway.

I still don't see why you think you are the only one making sense here. You haven't even replied to a post that was revelant or with anything to say other than bashing whoever you were replying to. THAT doesn't make sense.

"That. Is. All."

[JKJEDIKNIGHT]

You know, I still see it now, and I remember it when RtO was set to come out. That it's "only 5$" etc, etc. Well if you've purchased WK and RtO, that would be $13. For what 3 hours tops of content? I could have been to see Avatar twice for that. And that's over 6 hours of entertainment lol. But that's hardly the point. The point is that it starts out at "only 5$", you rationalize it to yourself and then buy another, and another, and another. Before you know it you've bought 4 or 5 DLC's. Say they average out at $7 a piece. That's $35 you've spent there. On what, maybe 6 or 7 hours of content. You could almost buy a new game for that, and get I'm sure more hours of content. Wait. You could buy the upcoming Awakening and it's 7 hours of content for only $5 more :-p lol

[joey_mork84]

JKJEDIKNIGHT wrote...

You know, I still see it now, and I remember it when RtO was set to come out. That it's "only 5$" etc, etc. Well if you've purchased WK and RtO, that would be $13. For what 3 hours tops of content? I could have been to see Avatar twice for that. And that's over 6 hours of entertainment lol. But that's hardly the point. The point is that it starts out at "only 5$", you rationalize it to yourself and then buy another, and another, and another. Before you know it you've bought 4 or 5 DLC's. Say they average out at $7 a piece. That's $35 you've spent there. On what, maybe 6 or 7 hours of content. You could almost buy a new game for that, and get I'm sure more hours of content. Wait. You could buy the upcoming Awakening and it's 7 hours of content for only $5 more :-p lol

I plan to buy them all and will enjoy every minute of it lol and yes, I suppose if you only play the game once with the DLC's then it's not worth it for that person. But seriously, who buys a game and only plays it once? That in itself is a waste of money.

EDIT: And thanks, JKJEDIKNIGHT, for being civil about your view. Only one I've seen on here with an opposing view that wasn't being trollish.

Modifié par joey_mork84, 13 février 2010 - 02:56 .

[JKJEDIKNIGHT]

I'm not saying I haven't receive my money's worth out of Origins. I have 7 different characters with an average of 25 a piece on them. But that's among 7 characters. I had 1 character alone on Final Fantasy X with 140. I prefer the story of DA:O, but there isn't enough to do in it to keep me in the game as much as FFX did, hense the reason I've had to have so many different characters, to get different perspectives of the game. Not sure if that's good or not.

[BrotherJason]

Coldcall01 wrote...

Just so no-one thinks im going crazy about EAs plans to charge a $10 fee for second hand game transfers. I founf the link:

http://www.tomsguide...,news-5797.html

Totally unacceptable EA/Bioware.

It's already there: The Stone Prisoner DLC ... you get it for free with a new game, but have to pay for it as a second hand customer as the code will most likely have already been used.

I think that's actually a good idea, since it forces noone to really pay anything unless he really wants the full package. Currently the publisher earns nothing at all from second hand sales, which makes for some massive income cuts especially in the US of A where "good as new" gaming is immensely popular. It's not like the person who resells their games didn't like playing them, they just don't think they'll ever play them again. Thus they return the product to the market, which this time doesn't generate income of any kind to the publisher or developer although the buyer will most likely enjoy the game also.

If you like a game, then what's wrong with paying the developers the tribute they deserve no matter how, where and it what condition you bought it? If you didn't like it just resell it yourself. Noone forces you to purchase the 10bucks DLC normally included, so the final choice is still yours to make.

By the way: On digital ditribution platform there mostly is no way whatsoever to resell games. So the 10 bucks plan is definately a step in the right direction as it shows they're willing to cooperate and not just try to ban something they couldn't anyway.

Modifié par BrotherJason, 13 février 2010 - 03:05 .

[joey_mork84]

JKJEDIKNIGHT wrote...

I'm not saying I haven't receive my
money's worth out of Origins. I have 7 different characters with an
average of 25 a piece on them. But that's among 7 characters. I had 1
character alone on Final Fantasy X with 140. I prefer the story of
DA:O, but there isn't enough to do in it to keep me in the game as much
as FFX did, hense the reason I've had to have so many different
characters, to get different perspectives of the game. Not sure if
that's good or not.

That's the way to do it with this game. With every different character you make, you have the chance to experience something different. Unless you play the same race, class, and such on every playthrough lmao. But it is a very enjoyable game with so many possibilities. The scenery is always the same and nothing in the game's world changes, but its all about your character. Each character gets a specific beginning, hence the name Dragon Age: Origins. It all depends on your race/class/background as to which origin you get. I, personally, plan to play every individual origin at least once, and possibly several times when I get all the DLC's

Modifié par joey_mork84, 13 février 2010 - 03:08 .

[BrotherJason]

JKJEDIKNIGHT wrote...

The point is that it starts out at "only 5$", you rationalize it to yourself and then buy another, and another, and another. Before you know it you've bought 4 or 5 DLC's. Say they average out at $7 a piece. That's $35 you've spent there. On what, maybe 6 or 7 hours of content. You could almost buy a new game for that, and get I'm sure more hours of content. Wait. You could buy the upcoming Awakening and it's 7 hours of content for only $5 more :-p lol

so you can either buy 4 or 5 DLCs with a combined 7 hours of gameplay for $35, or an addon for $40 offering 7 hours as well ... and the point is? ...

[DomiiMai]

First off.. How did Offkorn not make sense? If you can read, they made perfect sense. And what's with the emphasis on the word "made" at the beginning of your reply? Did you want us all to know for sure that you meant it to be past tense or something? And the period after every word at the end.. unneeded and grammatically incorrect.

To the repeated and unnesesary phrase "Get a job and Cry Less", I say "Lose the attitude and 'MAKE' sense."

Only an idiot who refuse to make a small difference and having an small activity to make a little money would say that. So believe, do something with your life and you wouldn't complain as much.
And you'll be more like us people who has "a job and cry less".

So I say get off the forum and do something with your life. You wouldn't have to try to make such pathetic comebacks.

If not, then you've proven my point on how worthless your life could be.

Modifié par DomiiMai, 13 février 2010 - 03:12 .

[AlanC9]

joey_mork84 wrote...

First off.. How did Offkorn not make sense?

I guess I'll give it a shot.

Offkorn's "argument" was that "(w)hen you don't have a job and your parents buy everything for you," you don't need to consider value because you get your money for free. I thought this was self-evidently idiotic, but obviously I was wrong about that. so I'll explain it.

The fact that someone gets an allowance doesn't mean that he gets an infinite allowance. It doesn't even mean that he gets an allowance that's large relative to his desired spending. And if he doesn't have enough money to buy everything he wants to buy, then he has to engage in exactly the same calculation of value that someone who works for the money has to. The source of the money doesn't change this. If anything, the person on an allowance is in a worse position, since he's got less flexibility in terms of both income and expenditures.

[joey_mork84]

BrotherJason wrote...

Coldcall01 wrote...

Just so no-one thinks im going crazy about EAs plans to charge a $10 fee for second hand game transfers. I founf the link:

http://www.tomsguide...,news-5797.html

Totally unacceptable EA/Bioware.

It's already there: The Stone Prisoner DLC ... you get it for free with a new game, but have to pay for it as a second hand customer as the code will most likely have already been used.

I think that's actually a good idea, since it forces noone to really pay anything unless he really wants the full package. Currently the publisher earns nothing at all from second hand sales, which makes for some massive income cuts especially in the US of A where "good as new" gaming is immensely popular. It's not like the person who resells their games didn't like playing them, they just don't think they'll ever play them again. Thus they return the product to the market, which this time doesn't generate income of any kind to the publisher or developer although the buyer will most likely enjoy the game also.

If you like a game, then what's wrong with paying the developers the tribute they deserve no matter how, where and it what condition you bought it? If you didn't like it just resell it yourself. Noone forces you to purchase the 10bucks DLC normally included, so the final choice is still yours to make.

By the way: On digital ditribution platform there mostly is no way whatsoever to resell games. So the 10 bucks plan is definately a step in the right direction as it shows they're willing to cooperate and not just try to ban something they couldn't anyway.

I completely agree 100%! Great way of putting it, BrotherJason!

[the_one_54321]

joey_mork84 wrote...
I still don't see why you think you are the only one making sense here. You haven't even replied to a post that was revelant or with anything to say other than bashing whoever you were replying to. THAT doesn't make sense.

"That. Is. All."

Try reading more than the last page. My posts take up a good portion of page 5.

Not to mention the "take an economics class or learn basic math" comment. I've probably forgotten more about ecconomics and math than you ever learned. I've taught ecconomics  and math. This is precisely what I was talking about with the ignorance around here and the refusal to listen up and learn something. You're wrong about your approach. You can accept that and try to learn something or you can continue to be wrong. It's your choice.

Modifié par the_one_54321, 13 février 2010 - 03:16 .

[joey_mork84]

DomiiMai wrote...

First off.. How did Offkorn not make sense? If you can read, they made perfect sense. And what's with the emphasis on the word "made" at the beginning of your reply? Did you want us all to know for sure that you meant it to be past tense or something? And the period after every word at the end.. unneeded and grammatically incorrect.

To the repeated and unnesesary phrase "Get a job and Cry Less", I say "Lose the attitude and 'MAKE' sense."

Only an idiot who refuse to make a small difference and having an small activity to make a little money would say that. So believe, do something with your life and you wouldn't complain as much.
And you'll be more like us people who has "a job and cry less".

So I say get off the forum and do something with your life. You wouldn't have to try to make such pathetic comebacks.

If not, then you've proven my point on how worthless your life could be.

I HAVE made something of my life, thank you. And they aren't "pathetic comebacks" as you so eliquently put it. It's called a DEBATE. No comebacks needed. Only stating the obvious.

AlanC9 wrote...

joey_mork84 wrote...

First
off.. How did Offkorn not make sense?

I guess I'll
give it a shot.

Offkorn's "argument" was that "(w)hen you don't
have a job and your parents buy everything for you," you don't need to
consider value because you get your money for free. I thought this was
self-evidently idiotic, but obviously I was wrong about that. so I'll
explain it.

The fact that someone gets an allowance doesn't mean
that he gets an infinite allowance. It doesn't even mean that he
gets an allowance that's large relative to his desired spending. And if
he doesn't have enough money to buy everything he wants to buy, then he
has to engage in exactly the same calculation of value that
someone who works for the money has to. The source of the money doesn't
change this. If anything, the person on an allowance is in a worse
position, since he's got less flexibility in terms of both income and
expenditures.

The point he was making here wasn't about an allowance. He is talking about someone who is spoiled and whose parents buy everything for them. No need for an allowance when your parents cater to your every whim. When someone buys you everything you want, you will, undoubtidly, gain no respect for money or learn the value of that money.

[joey_mork84]

the_one_54321 wrote...

joey_mork84 wrote...
I still don't see why you think you are the only one making sense here. You haven't even replied to a post that was revelant or with anything to say other than bashing whoever you were replying to. THAT doesn't make sense.

"That. Is. All."

Try reading more than the last page. My posts take up a good portion of page 5.

Not to mention the "take an economics class or learn basic math" comment. I've probably forgotten more about ecconomics and math than you ever learned. I've taught ecconomics  and math. This is precisely what I was talking about with the ignorance around here and the refusal to listen up and learn something. You're wrong about your approach. You can accept that and try to learn something or you can continue to be wrong. It's your choice.

The actual debate here is not about right or wrong, it's about OPINIONS. That's what makes it a DEBATE. And I'm sorry, but if you have taught anyone anything, based on your previous posts about value and such, I feel sorry for that person.

[MightySword]

the_one_54321 wrote...
Not to mention the "take an economics class or learn basic math" comment. I've probably forgotten more about ecconomics and math than you ever learned. I've taught ecconomics  and math. This is precisely what I was talking about with the ignorance around here and the refusal to listen up and learn something. You're wrong about your approach. You can accept that and try to learn something or you can continue to be wrong. It's your choice.

Well, using your approach ... how about we say it is "I" who disagree with you. Where would that put you, if you understand what I mean.


Just to clarify: I don't believe my opinion is worth more than others, but this is to put you specifically into the same respective you're forcing on others. There is only so much one can inflate one's own credential until it's not worth anything, and that's exactly the problem with being high-horse (which you already admit).

Modifié par MightySword, 13 février 2010 - 03:27 .

[the_one_54321]

joey_mork84 wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...

joey_mork84 wrote...
I still don't see why you think you are the only one making sense here. You haven't even replied to a post that was revelant or with anything to say other than bashing whoever you were replying to. THAT doesn't make sense.

"That. Is. All."

Try reading more than the last page. My posts take up a good portion of page 5.

Not to mention the "take an economics class or learn basic math" comment. I've probably forgotten more about ecconomics and math than you ever learned. I've taught ecconomics  and math. This is precisely what I was talking about with the ignorance around here and the refusal to listen up and learn something. You're wrong about your approach. You can accept that and try to learn something or you can continue to be wrong. It's your choice.

The actual debate here is not about right or wrong, it's about OPINIONS. That's what makes it a DEBATE. And I'm sorry, but if you have taught anyone anything, based on your previous posts about value and such, I feel sorry for that person.

And again, this is what I'm talking about. You adhere to the incorrect. Value assignment doesn't work quite like you think it does. But you just go ahead and keep on believing it does.

Seriously though. If the teacher disagrees with you the teacher must be wrong? That's the attitude of a flunk-out.

Modifié par the_one_54321, 13 février 2010 - 03:33 .

[the_one_54321]

MightySword wrote...
Well, using your approach ... how about we say it is "I" who disagree with you. Where would that put you, if you understand what I mean.

That doesn't work because I know that you know better. And your post was reasonable. And your approach is reasonable. You don't ignore the ecconomics of it, like 90% of all the posters around here do. (or worse, have a skewed and inaccurate notion of what it is to determine value) You make an infomred value decision. Or at least that is my understanding of it from your posts in the past.

Modifié par the_one_54321, 13 février 2010 - 03:31 .

[AlanC9]

joey_mork84 wrote...

The point he was making here wasn't about an allowance. He is talking about someone who is spoiled and whose parents buy everything for them. No need for an allowance when your parents cater to your every whim. When someone buys you everything you want, you will, undoubtidly, gain no respect for money or learn the value of that money.

How is that relevant? Are you contending that such spoiled people are a significant fraction of DA players? Seriously?

[joey_mork84]

the_one_54321 wrote...

joey_mork84 wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...

joey_mork84 wrote...
I still don't see why you think you are the only one making sense here. You haven't even replied to a post that was revelant or with anything to say other than bashing whoever you were replying to. THAT doesn't make sense.

"That. Is. All."

Try reading more than the last page. My posts take up a good portion of page 5.

Not to mention the "take an economics class or learn basic math" comment. I've probably forgotten more about ecconomics and math than you ever learned. I've taught ecconomics  and math. This is precisely what I was talking about with the ignorance around here and the refusal to listen up and learn something. You're wrong about your approach. You can accept that and try to learn something or you can continue to be wrong. It's your choice.

The actual debate here is not about right or wrong, it's about OPINIONS. That's what makes it a DEBATE. And I'm sorry, but if you have taught anyone anything, based on your previous posts about value and such, I feel sorry for that person.

And again, this is what I'm talking about. You adhere to the incorrect. Value assignment doesn't work quite like you think it does. But you just go ahead and keep on believing it does.

If you had read my previous posts before you began ranting and insulting, you would have noticed that I was very much in the right about what I was saying and yet, you still began with the insults.. Go figure.

[joey_mork84]

AlanC9 wrote...

joey_mork84 wrote...

The point he was making here wasn't about an allowance. He is talking about someone who is spoiled and whose parents buy everything for them. No need for an allowance when your parents cater to your every whim. When someone buys you everything you want, you will, undoubtidly, gain no respect for money or learn the value of that money.

How is that relevant? Are you contending that such spoiled people are a significant fraction of DA players? Seriously?

I never said they were a significant fraction of DA players. I simply said that is what he was talking about. Or at least that's the way it came across to me.

[Dahelia]

joey_mork84 wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...

joey_mork84 wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...

joey_mork84 wrote...
I still don't see why you think you are the only one making sense here. You haven't even replied to a post that was revelant or with anything to say other than bashing whoever you were replying to. THAT doesn't make sense.

"That. Is. All."

Try reading more than the last page. My posts take up a good portion of page 5.

Not to mention the "take an economics class or learn basic math" comment. I've probably forgotten more about ecconomics and math than you ever learned. I've taught ecconomics  and math. This is precisely what I was talking about with the ignorance around here and the refusal to listen up and learn something. You're wrong about your approach. You can accept that and try to learn something or you can continue to be wrong. It's your choice.

The actual debate here is not about right or wrong, it's about OPINIONS. That's what makes it a DEBATE. And I'm sorry, but if you have taught anyone anything, based on your previous posts about value and such, I feel sorry for that person.

And again, this is what I'm talking about. You adhere to the incorrect. Value assignment doesn't work quite like you think it does. But you just go ahead and keep on believing it does.

If you had read my previous posts before you began ranting and insulting, you would have noticed that I was very much in the right about what I was saying and yet, you still began with the insults.. Go figure.

It is the way he runs, he is better than us because he supposedly taught economics...now bow down to his superiority.

[joey_mork84]

Dahelia wrote...

joey_mork84 wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...

joey_mork84 wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...

joey_mork84 wrote...
I still don't see why you think you are the only one making sense here. You haven't even replied to a post that was revelant or with anything to say other than bashing whoever you were replying to. THAT doesn't make sense.

"That. Is. All."

Try reading more than the last page. My posts take up a good portion of page 5.

Not to mention the "take an economics class or learn basic math" comment. I've probably forgotten more about ecconomics and math than you ever learned. I've taught ecconomics  and math. This is precisely what I was talking about with the ignorance around here and the refusal to listen up and learn something. You're wrong about your approach. You can accept that and try to learn something or you can continue to be wrong. It's your choice.

The actual debate here is not about right or wrong, it's about OPINIONS. That's what makes it a DEBATE. And I'm sorry, but if you have taught anyone anything, based on your previous posts about value and such, I feel sorry for that person.

And again, this is what I'm talking about. You adhere to the incorrect. Value assignment doesn't work quite like you think it does. But you just go ahead and keep on believing it does.

If you had read my previous posts before you began ranting and insulting, you would have noticed that I was very much in the right about what I was saying and yet, you still began with the insults.. Go figure.

It is the way he runs, he is better than us because he supposedly taught economics...now bow down to his superiority.

Thank you, Dahelia!! I'm glad I'm not the only one thinking that lmao

[the_one_54321]

joey_mork84 wrote...
If you had read my previous posts before you began ranting and insulting, you would have noticed that I was very much in the right about what I was saying and yet, you still began with the insults.. Go figure.

I'm looking at your first post that quotes one of mine and I'm thinking this, in particular here between you and I, may have been a missunderstanding. My first post concerning the ignornace around here was more in regard to several of the posts around yours, but not yours in particular. You responded thinking I meant yours, and I responded to that in kind. So that was an unfortunate compounding of ire that should not have happened.

However, that post is still incorrect in a couple of things. You do not make certain deeper conections between market price and consumer perceptions. It does boil down to a subjective value assignement by the consumer (or opinion as many like to term it) but only the final decision is subjective. And that subjective decision is based mostly objective factors. You listed a couple of them. In either case, market price is regulated and dictated by those value assignments by consumers. The retail price is not arbitrarily assigned, it is based on the market perceptions of the consumers.

[Dahelia]

joey_mork84 wrote...


Thank you, Dahelia!! I'm glad I'm not the only one thinking that lmao

I've been lurking for awhile watching after I gave up.

[the_one_54321]

Dahelia wrote...
It is the way he runs, he is better than us because he supposedly taught economics...now bow down to his superiority.

Read the sig. 

[AlanC9]

joey_mork84 wrote...

I never said they were a significant fraction of DA players. I simply said that is what he was talking about. Or at least that's the way it came across to me.

So he was talking about something silly and irrelevant, but you're not. OK. So why are you trying to defend his point if you don't actually believe in it?