-
Saved!Do you guys primarily buy physical games for your Vita or downloadable versions? I have 170+ titles playable on my Vita right now, but only 1 of them is a physcal copy :P
-
Saved!Big BossEditing … I prefer physical when possible cause I'm OCD about streching out memory card space as much as possible. Up to 33 physical releases, probably close to that again for digital stuff (not counting classics).
-
Saved!Silent GamerEditing … I would buy physical, but those PSN deals are too good! :P
-
Saved!Husky WingEditing … 5 of my 9 Vita games are physical
-
Saved!PuddingEditing … Have 0 physical games for my Vita. I've fully embraced the digital future with it and never looked back.
-
Saved!Silent GamerEditing … Oooh, whatcha got Husky?
-
Saved!Husky WingEditing … Assassin's Creed III: Liberation, Freedom Wars (PSN), Gravity Rush (PSN), Killzone: Mercenary, Lego Batman 2: DC Super Heroes, Need for Speed: Most Wanted (PSN), Persona 4 Golden, Sword Art Online -Hollow Fragment- (PSN), Tearaway
-
Saved!Silent GamerEditing … I have most of those :) Persona 4 is my all-time favourite game, and I was enjoying ACIII: Liberation before I got distracted :) I'm going to make an effort to play more Vita this year
-
Saved!rockshard PhDEditing … I only owned 3 physical Vita games and 6 digital ones not counting f2p or demos. Maybe if I owned Vita longer then things would have started to tilt the other way. However there is something I noticed about Vita, the cart slot is hidden. (I think this have had negative repercussions) The carts themselves are also not much to look at.
-
Saved!Silent GamerEditing … Very true. For some reason I was always quite partial to the look of the PSP UMD's :P
-
Saved!Husky WingEditing … aren't portable games just the best? I only own one home console, and, well... http://www.favslist.com/users/Husky-Wing/115/lists/6
-
Saved!Splatterhouse 5Editing … If there is a physical version available, I buy that. Hehe...I just don't feel like buying a memory card larger than 16G. Limited Run Games has been great about releasing physical versions of some of those indies, but you really do have to be on top of when they release those games - they sell out really quick.
-
Saved!rockshard PhDEditing … buying a limited run game is immoral because it's one less person who gets to have it. Same goes for other limited run products, like NES/SNES mini.
-
Saved!Splatterhouse 5Editing … I'd agree if you're buying them to scalp them, but I buy (some of them) because I want to play them, and prefer not taking up memory card space if I can avoid it.
-
Saved!rockshard PhDEditing … well nevermind, if the game is released digitally then I guess it doesn't really matter, since it's like there being infinite copies.
-
Saved!Husky WingEditing … Being a consumer because it means someone else can't be that consumer isn't immoral. Competition isn't immoral. If I beat you right now at connect four, it means that you can't win that game, because I won. LET'S SEE WHO'S MORE IMMORAL https://www.playc4.com/67ixwxjC1i4jYmAAAAu3
-
Saved!rockshard PhDEditing … Deleted by himself
-
Saved!Husky WingEditing … I KNOW YOU SAW THAT
-
Saved!rockshard PhDEditing … Competition is a zero sum game. It's by definition immoral, especially if it's a competition over resources. (such as food, water, money, etc)
-
Saved!Husky WingEditing … No such thing as a zero sum game unless you're incapable of learning from your mistakes.
-
Saved!Husky WingEditing … And someone else losing something (that they never had, especially) because you gained it is not immoral. Even if they lost something they already had, in say, a bet, it's not immoral because you both had a fair opportunity to come out on top.
-
Saved!Husky WingEditing … Okay let's pretend that competition is immoral: if morals are these horrid, why follow any of them? \o/
-
Saved!Husky WingEditing … can I have your definition of morals pls
-
Saved!rockshard PhDEditing … ^Translation: "It's not a zero sum game because I say it isn't". Look at it this way. If there is one iPad left in the store and two people want it, one person is going to be stuck without the iPad. Even if I get to the iPad before you, I get the iPad but it means you no longer get to have it. Looking at it objectively, 1 person get iPad, 1 person doesn't, regardless of the outcome. Replace the iPad with anything else, it could be a PS4, a job promotion, an election, a trophy for world's fastest cup stacker, the principle remains more or less the same. See the gender wage gap debate, feminists want men to be paid less, as if this somehow makes women richer. This is the toxic result of a competitive attitude, that in order to "win" other people must lose.
-
Saved!rockshard PhDEditing … "you both had a fair opportunity to come out on top" but the intent is to defraud the other person, which arguably makes it not fair, on top of already being immoral. If it was fair, you'd think one of the two people would be against the bet because a 50/50 chance of losing is not exactly a sound investment.
-
Saved!Husky WingEditing … An actual translation: "It IS a zero sum game because I say it is."
-
Saved!Husky WingEditing … In your iPad example, nobody lost anything. That's two people with the same fair chance to get it, but only one got it. The other learned to be faster next time they had that chance. And I don't think you know what defraud means.
-
Saved!Husky WingEditing … Are these even arguments? I'm literally dumbfounded by what you have typed.
-
Saved!rockshard PhDEditing … Deleted by himself
-
Saved!Husky WingEditing … Am I to believe that it's unfair for me to have something you don't? Is it unfair for you to have something I don't? Is it unfair to not have everything I want, even though certain other people have some of those things?
-
Saved!Husky WingEditing … Are auctions immoral?
-
Saved!Husky WingEditing … It certainly is immoral that A Bug's Life grossed more than Antz, though.
-
Saved!rockshard PhDEditing … "In your ipad example, nobody lost anything." Doesn't matter. In principle it's the same whether you're fighting to gain something or fighting not to lose something, so long as there's a winner and a loser. Also, what if the iPad was a ration and the two people were starving children. By your logic, nobody lost anything so there's nothing wrong with this picture. "The other learned to be faster next time" And what? That means someone ELSE learns to be faster next time, which means someone else learns to be faster the time after that, and so on ad infinitum. It would objectively be the same if you just let the other person have the iPad.
-
Saved!rockshard PhDEditing … Deleted by himself
-
Saved!rockshard PhDEditing … There's no need to have government funded health care by the way, since nobody lost anything by not having it, we merely stood to gain something. I'm sure you agree with that?
-
Saved!Husky WingEditing … Please tell me you're intelligent enough to understand what you're saying.
-
Saved!Husky WingEditing … Like, you must actually understand the differences between all of these examples, right? You actually have to, right? Right?
-
Saved!rockshard PhDEditing … "Am I to believe that it's unfair for me to have something you don't?" No, not necessarily. However, it is hypocritical to want to have something, and to simultaneously deprive someone else from having that same thing. Fortunately this usually isn't a problem unless maybe it's something produced in limited quantity, for example.
-
Saved!Husky WingEditing … I restate my first of the two previous comments.
-
Saved!Husky WingEditing … So should everything either be available to everyone or be available to no one?
-
Saved!Husky WingEditing … I don't believe you're real. In 40 seconds I'm going to wake up next to my cat.
-
Saved!rockshard PhDEditing … "Are auctions immoral?" Auctions help make that item available to more people. "It certainly is immoral that A Bug's Life grossed more than Antz, though." That isn't necessarily a competition. There's nothing preventing from moviegoers from seeing both movies. And grossing more than another movie doesn't mean much if both movies bombed. People just like to draw relations to things, and decide 'winners' and 'losers' where they don't exist. For example the person who makes the second best selling PS4 game probably doesn't feel like a failure and they probably don't feel like they have to learn from their mistakes, even though they "lost" to the first place game. But I guess that's what you're trying to tell me this whole time.
-
Saved!rockshard PhDEditing … This was fun.
-
Saved!rockshard PhDEditing … Deleted by himself
-
Saved!rockshard PhDEditing … "So should everything either be available to everyone or be available to no one?" yeah, pretty much.
-
Saved!Silent GamerEditing … ^ I get what you are saying. Unfeasible though, as everything exists in a finite state
-
Saved!Husky WingEditing … I would never want such a world in which we all get everything. Life without struggle is like a story without conflict.
-
Saved!rockshard PhDEditing … Husk - The things you say in this status betray your socialist stance. Silent - The idea isn't that everything should be infinite, but that we should strive to provide for each other as opposed to competing with each other. Also, technology has made many things less scarce such as food and energy, as a result it is possible for everyone to have access to these things without the need to deny others of it.
-
Saved!rockshard PhDEditing … Deleted by himself
-
Saved!Husky WingEditing … I know you made up a lot of things in this status but why would you make up something about me?
-
Saved!Silent GamerEditing … I agree on striving for it, but the sad fact is that competition breeds innovation. Without it, we probably wouldn't have come so far. Without competition, we all do without. Not so sure I like that. A utopia would be cool, but is ultimately impossible without a unified world. It's the same conflict that has been going on since the beginning of time. Free will vs Unity. Only when we all choose to work together will there be harmony between the two. There is no sign of that happening in my lifetime sadly.
-
Saved!Husky WingEditing … We can unify the world when we're not united with the space colonies.
-
Saved!Silent GamerEditing … Haha, well as every Sci Fi show ever has shown, that is likely the case :p It's why we always need a boogeyman. I think the new one is Muslims, but it switches to Russia every now and then. I gave up keeping track tbh.
-
Saved!Husky WingEditing … Well, we need a powerful boogeyman! It gives us a need for escapism! Do you know what kind of movies we get when we're not hungry for escapism? We get Lucky Number Slevin, and the late 90s-mid 2000s trend of stupid overused nonsensical plot twists. Oh, but those assholes in Russia? Well, every good Star Wars movie came when they were apparently assholes, as did every Mad Max.
-
Saved!Husky WingEditing … (Actually I think our return to escapism is largely due to improvements in CGI technology. When CGI was introduced to film, even in its easily recognizable state, many films hastily abandoned practical effects. For this reason, Willow is strangely less dated than Lord of the Rings, whose rubbery CGI and overusage of greenscreens is starting to show. Still, they're quite magnificent 9.5/10 movies. Another example, A New Hope, which even had jumpcuts between on/off lightsabers, still looks more realistic than Revenge of the Sith, which overused poor greenscreen effects and bad CGI. We abandoned practical effects too early. Now, CGI's capable of delivering that sort of escapism with less loss of believability. But like, we can thank the current perceived assholes, too.) Parentheses over.
-
Saved!Silent GamerEditing … Lucky Number Slevin is one of my favourite films :p
-
Saved!Husky WingEditing … Lucky Number Slevin is one of my least favorite films.
-
Saved!Silent GamerEditing … A boogeyman only serves to force us together in fear. A group founded on fear is unsustainable without maintaining said fear. It's an inefficient method for long-term cohesion. We need another method
-
Saved!Husky WingEditing … I'd say "fite me" but I'm woefully thin and also pretty tired.
-
Saved!Husky WingEditing … Nono it's okay we don't need anything long-term, the sooner it ends, the sooner we can get nostalgiac.
-
Saved!Silent GamerEditing … I'm a lover not a fighter
-
Saved!Husky WingEditing … get under the covers with me
-
Saved!Silent GamerEditing … It's summer though, won't we melt?
-
Saved!Husky WingEditing … I can think of nothing more sensual.
-
Saved!Silent GamerEditing … Melting together into one being? Mmmm, sign me up
-
Saved!rockshard PhDEditing … Things like marketplace competition, etc, is a good thing because it improves the lives of people. I guess what I should have said is that competition is fine as long as it's with the aim of achieving common good. What's bad is competition for the sake of competition. I think we seem to place a false importance on it from time to time.
-
Saved!Husky WingEditing … I think you're pulling shit out of your ass to try and look less ridiculous.
-
Saved!rockshard PhDEditing … p.s. defraud, verb "to deprive of a right, money, or property by fraud". if I make a bet with you, regardless of my odds of winning, my intent is to take your money. Because of this, both sides are inclined to take a bet in which they have a better of odds of winning than their opponent.
-
Saved!Husky WingEditing … Please indicate to the fraud there. We bet on who wins a football game. I win. did I defraud you? Where's the fraud? How about poker. Did I defraud you? Is there any fraud there? Coin flip. Did I defraud you? Well, there is no fraud.
-
Saved!Husky WingEditing … What's with the intellectual dishonesty, Rockshard?
-
Saved!rockshard PhDEditing … "I win. did I defraud you?" you might have known which team was going to win. "What's with the intellectual dishonesty, Rockshard?" You're hilarious. It's intellectual dishonest to challenge someone to a bet, that's literally what I'm trying to explain to you. There's no reason to bet over a coin flip because you have a 50/50 chance of winning and the risk reward is 1:1. You might as well just give me the money without flipping the coin.
-
Saved!Husky WingEditing … So you're saying that if I CHEAT, I defrauded you. But we're not talking about cheating, we're talking about betting. Do you even know what intellectual dishonesty is, and why are you still being intellectually dishonest?
-
Saved!rockshard PhDEditing … Deleted by himself
-
Saved!rockshard PhDEditing … If you tell me "hey rukk, I bet you that this sports team will win" then why would I not also bet on that team? If I bet on the opposing team, you probably think I'm wrong, at which point, it becomes morally dubious for you to agree to the bet because you think I'm going to lose the bet.
-
Saved!Husky WingEditing … Do you even know what morally dubious is? At this point I don't know if I respect your intelligence enough to entertain this.
-
Saved!rockshard PhDEditing … Deleted by himself
-
Saved!Silent GamerEditing … This is why I don't believe in arguments :p
-
Deleted!