Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Yoink]

I wish I could play Arma and RO.
At least there's that Tom Clancy's Siege whatever coming out for those of us who would like to play a decent shooter on console... not sure if it's going to be any good, but I'm hoping it will. The premise is quite solid.

[Flying Dice]

Good, because barring having access to whichever of the few good communities caters to your specific tastes, ArmA is shit. Not the game itself per se, but the environs in which you can play as an unaffiliated pubbie. The best you can hope for is playing side gamemodes, otherwise it's going to be a clusterfuck of morons maybe with a handful of people from the server owner's group trying to organize.

RO and Insurgency are both better choices for the sim-lite experience if you're not super dedicated, and CS covers the more arcadey end.

[Neonivek]

I am getting tempted to pick up a fantasy warhammer rulebook

But then again it is probably one of the most ridiculous systems ever created and very PC unfriendly when I think about it... for no reason except that it well...

"Our characters are awesome, yours are terrible, ours are sexy, you are ugly, ours are strong, you are weak" that some games have.

At the same time... It is kind of awesome in how it makes you suck. Because when you become awesome it is because you sucked for soo long that you picked up enough skills to be awesome.

[Reelya]

If you mean the RPG then yeah, awesome combat system with it's dice rolls to work direction and distances for people's heads when you decapitate them in battle.

[Neonivek]

Ohh just to explain how "You suck" it is in the most hilarious fashion

There is a job called "Troll Slayer" and guess what they aren't good at? Troll slaying. You are literally fodder until you practice moonlighting your 20 jobs

And that is KIND of what I love about it. Heck to make it seem less like I am pooping on the system it means you can start working as a artist for example... and you wouldn't be wasting your time because the skills you gain as an artist directly helps you with your future job as say a archer or competitive eater.

[Yoink]

Ugh, why do so many musicians still use Soundcloud to release their music? It's such a pile of shit.
A band has to be really, really good for me to bother listening to them if their tunes are only available on Soundcloud. Sorry Fuzz, while what I heard of your stuff when it started playing in another tab unannounced was decent, but not good enough for me to put myself through that sort of hardship.

[Neonivek]

Ugh, why do so many musicians still use Soundcloud to release their music? It's such a pile of shit.

Because Youtube can decide that it really could profit off of your music more?

[Yoink]

Not sure what you mean.
Besides, most bands use Bandcamp these days. It's UI can be a bit annoying at times but it's still miles ahead of Soundcloud.
Also it's pretty convenient, being able to view your collection and re-download stuff.

[Neonivek]

Not sure what you mean.

Youtube can arbitrarily decide that it deserves to make money off your video. It is quite a common problem and usually nearly impossible to reverse if it happens.

[Yoink]

Okay... but how does that affect the uploader, exactly?
Does that money come out of what they would normally be earning? I've never uploaded anything to Youtube myself, let alone something that gained enough views to be profitable.

I don't like Youtube, for the record; it's just not as bad as Soundcloud when it comes to listening to music.

[Emma]

Not sure what you mean.

Youtube can arbitrarily decide that it deserves to make money off your video. It is quite a common problem and usually nearly impossible to reverse if it happens.

Is it really an arbitrary decision if they run the website that you're uploading to?

[Descan]

... Yes?

I don't mean I think it would be in this specific circumstance; I don't know the details.

But it is definitely possible for a website owner to make arbitrary monetization schemes. No warnings about it except through word of mouth, no rhyme or reason on which videos are monetized and which aren't, and most importantly, no compensation for your time, effort, or money that went into making the video. Again, I make no claims of the details, but those are three just off the top of my head of ways for it to be arbitrary.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Contrary to popular belief, merely providing a platform/storage for videos doesn't make someone deserving of having the lions share of the profits. Granted, people wouldn't have ANY profits if YouTube didn't exist, but neither would YouTube have any if nobody uploaded anything.

[Emma]

Alright, makes sense. All I was trying to say was that if Youtube decided to take some money from whatever each content creator makes I see nothing wrong with it because Youtube made it possible but I'm probably not making sense and just looking stupid.

[Yoink]

Plenty of websites profit from the things people upload to them, via advertising if nothing else.
As far as I'm aware, most of these websites don't give their users any of that money. Youtube's kinda nice in that regard, aren't they?

[Orange Wizard]

Let's make our own Youtube but with blackjack and hookers non-shit advertising and host it in Sealand so copyright claimants can stick it where the sun don't shine

...

Alright, makes sense. All I was trying to say was that if Youtube decided to take some money from whatever each content creator makes I see nothing wrong with it because Youtube made it possible but I'm probably not making sense and just looking stupid.

No, they're fully within their rights, it's just that by all accounts their system for deciding whether or not something deserves monetisation consists of looking at the entrails of sacred chickens or some crap.