Xplo

I think the first Avernum trilogy is worth noting here; those games did a great job of blending "town as quest hub" gameplay with overarching main quests and an exploration-friendly world full of secrets and dangers to discover. Also, in proper old-school fashion, the enemies didn't level up along with you, meaning that there were "low level" and "high level" parts of the world, with the high level parts being further from the starting point - but I see this as a positive thing, because it allows the game to impose some structure on the gameplay and narrative, and it allows the player to choose the level of risk/difficulty he's comfortable with, as well as making him feel like more of a badass when areas that were once dangerous become comfortable, and enemies that were once deadly become vulnerable.

Avoid the second trilogy, though. The designer decided that he wanted more control over where players went, how the story unfolds, and what the challenge level was at any given part of the game, and as a result the games are much more linear.

This looks interesting, but I feel like I'd have to saw my balls off to play it. Seriously, does it have to be THAT girly? There's a happy medium somewhere between ultra-feminine princesses and ultra-masculine bald space marines, I'm sure of it.

@mbarriault I'm thinking it's the one from the second to last mission.

Actually, I never bought GT5 even though I enjoyed the hell out of 3.

Price drop and mid-race saves might just tip me.

So, what people are saying, that the ToS isn't legally binding because a judge can nullify part or all of it - that's true.

But what people aren't saying is that they very rarely do this. Even if a ToS is totally one-sided and designed to screw you, you agreed to it - and unless the way the company is trying to screw you is actually illegal, the courts are likely to uphold it. AFAIK, demanding that people agree to binding arbitration is legal. (At least, companies have been doing this for years, and I've never heard of it being struck down.)

The only way to make something like this illegal and protect your right to take these companies to court is to demand that the government pass laws against it. Contact your representatives and ask them to push for better consumer protection.

You probably won't get it, because this country is pretty much owned by the pro-business right wing these days, but you can't complain if you don't try.

To the guy who joked about making the businesses he deals with agree to his own ToS: yes, you're well within your rights to do that. And they're well within their rights to refuse to do business with you on those terms, which is what they'll do. I think that when you discover that you're not even able to buy food because no one needs your business enough to agree to your terms, you may understand that only collective action is capable of forcing corporations to deal with you as an equal instead of as their helpless little bitch.

I just don't understand why they don't put both MGS1 and PW on the disc. I mean, if there's one version with each, then they're basically ready to go, right? They wouldn't even have to do much in the way of localization because that was already done when the games were released the first time.

Nothing I saw here convinced me that the cities would seem lifelike, vibrant, distinctive, deep, or anything else along those lines. I fully expect them to be empty cardboard shells with some annoying random cars and pedestrians in them and little in the way of interaction or fruitful exploration.

They sure do look good, though. Goddamn.

I don't mean to come off all feminist, but do we really need the massive cleavage? As a guy, I feel a little insulted by this obvious ploy to sell me the game by including it with Elizabeth's boobs.

I guess they're aiming at the "I just discovered masturbation, and boy is it fun!" demographic.

@marawind

Corporations exist to make money, but they don't have the right to screw their customers to get it.

I didn't pay for a shiny doorstop, I paid for a video game console, which means I bought a thing that plays video games (and in this case has access to PSN, and runs Linux). Since the software is necessary for playing video games, it follows that I bought the software. Just because Sony wants to pretend that they only sold me a doorstop doesn't mean they get to be right, and now that they've sold me a video game console, they don't get to decide which parts I should be allowed to keep.

And, if you still think otherwise, consider this: lawyers don't get paid for class action suits if they lose. They take their money out of the winnings. The fact that this suit exists at all proves that someone who knows a lot more about lawsuits than either one of us thinks they have a pretty good shot of either winning in court or forcing Sony to settle.

By the way, that piracy excuse is horseshit. PS2? Cracked. Didn't stop people making and selling PS2 games.. which they did, for years afterward. Nintendo DS? Cracked to hell and back. Didn't stop people making and selling DS games. Wii? Also cracked. Still sells games. PSP? Also cracked - and then people try to say that piracy is the reason no one takes the risk of making PSP games. Sure - no one except for Sony, Capcom, Konami, and many other publishers. The only reason the PSP is doing badly is because it lost to Nintendo, and anybody with body hair could probably tell you what that looks like because it's happened to every handheld generation since the original Gameboy.

So that just leaves the $64,000 question: are you some poor excuse for a corporate shill, or are you really dumb enough to believe that load of crap you posted?

Here's the thing.

Sony shouldn't have the right to sell you something with a specific feature set - including, in this case, Linux compatibility and free PSN access - and then take away the features that you paid for without your permission or without compensating you for the loss. Period. It doesn't matter whether or not you used the feature, or whether it might someday enable piracy - what matters is that you're entitled to what you paid for.

(Someone will probably point out that the software, PSN access, etc is "licensed" and that Sony doesn't have to provide it. I call bullshit. I didn't "license" them the $300 I paid for my PS3. I don't give people money so that they can have the privilege or deciding whether or not I actually get anything for it, and I consider any boilerplate agreement that says I did to be invalid and a violation of my rights.. as would any rational human being.)

Anyway, where were we? Oh right - you're entitled to what you paid for. So there's only two ways to stop these kinds of abuses. One is to make them explicitly illegal, which is effectively impossible. The other is to discourage them.

Corporations only care about money. They don't care about right or wrong, they don't care about being fair and honest. You can't make them feel bad, you can't make them perform community service, and you can't send them to jail. The only way to modify their behavior is to take away their money (or credibly threaten to do so). And the only way to take away their money is to take them to court and convince a judge or jury that they shouldn't have it anymore.

So yeah, I think it's great that Sony is being sued, and I really hope they lose. Not because I used Linux on the PS3 (I didn't), and not even because they owe me for taking it away (although they do), but because hurting them in court is the only way for the ordinary consumer to limit their abuses.