Page 46 of 46 FirstFirst ... 21 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46
Results 901 to 909 of 909

Thread: New Historical total war era - Total War: Three Kingdoms!

  1. #901
    PikeStance's Avatar ⚜️ Omnipresent ⚜️
    Artifex

    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Shanghai
    Posts
    11,205
    Blog Entries
    8

    Default Re: New Historical total war era - Total War: Three Kingdoms!

    Quote Originally Posted by PointOfViewGun View Post
    I like to provide information based on the context of what the post I respond to talk about and address them accordingly. ESRB does indeed have a power over games published in the USA, and CA or Sega would be unable to show a rating of T while having the Blood DLC part of their main game without risking an IP lawsuit. Hence, retailers would indeed have a problem with selling an unrated game contrary to what you suggested earlier. I'm glad this was educative for you.
    What lawsuit?
    SEGA does not determine the rating, the ESRB does. In the US there isn't a law that prohibits the selling of the games to anyone.
    From ESRB's website
    Is it illegal to sell or rent M (Mature) or AO (Adults Only) rated games to customers under 17 and 18 years of age respectively?


    A ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2011 found that video games are a constitutionally-protected form of expression, and that laws restricting their sale or rental based upon violent content are unconstitutional. That said, ESRB supports retailers' voluntary policies restricting the sale or rental of M (Mature) and AO (Adults Only) computer and video games in the United States and Canada to customers who are at least 17 and 18 years of age, respectively (unless permission from a parent has been obtained). Through efforts such as the ESRB Retail Council (ERC) and a strong commitment on the part of major video game retailers, retail stores have vastly improved the rate at which they comply with their store policies, as measured both by the ERC mystery shopper audits as well as audits conducted by the FTC. More information on federal, state and local regulations in the U.S. is available through the websites of the Entertainment Merchants Association (EMA) and Entertainment Software Association (ESA). In Canada, you may contact the Entertainment Software Association of Canada (ESA Canada) or the Retail Council of Canada (RCC).
    What I said that retailers would not have a problem with unrated games. They still would not. However, ESRB rates all games, making the entire point moot. Moreover, my original comment dealt with the difference with the FCC which has legal authority to restrict content over the airwaves, but noneoutside of that area. Moreover, the ESRB is not a government agency and therefore cannot enforrce compliance as per USSC decision.
    MODDERS WANTED | MY PATRONAGES
    Imperial Splendour is looking for Modders and Researchers. SEE AD HERE
    If interested, contact PikeStance(Mod Leader/Manager) or Quintus Hortensius Hortalus (Mod leader /Lead Artist)

    Under the Patronage of Omnipotent- Q | Member of the House of Wild Bill Kelso
    Patron of
    _Tataros_
    | Magister Militum Flavius Aetius | Alwyn | Lord Oda Nobunaga | Massive_attack | Hayabusa Sushi|
    Proposed the Following for PHALERA: Mangalore & sumskilz | OPIFEX: wangrin, z3n, and Swiss Halberdier


    Be all you can be and Join MODDING STAFF now! |House of Noble Discourse

  2. #902

    Default Re: New Historical total war era - Total War: Three Kingdoms!

    I don't know why you guys are still arguing about this, I am telling you as long as they made the blood content a separate download that you had to access separately it would be fine. The reality is CA and SEGA sells us blood because they can get away with it.

  3. #903

    Default Re: New Historical total war era - Total War: Three Kingdoms!

    Quote Originally Posted by PikeStance View Post
    What lawsuit?
    SEGA does not determine the rating, the ESRB does. In the US there isn't a law that prohibits the selling of the games to anyone.
    From ESRB's website
    What I said that retailers would not have a problem with unrated games. They still would not. However, ESRB rates all games, making the entire point moot. Moreover, my original comment dealt with the difference with the FCC which has legal authority to restrict content over the airwaves, but noneoutside of that area. Moreover, the ESRB is not a government agency and therefore cannot enforrce compliance as per USSC decision.
    Sigh... At this point I have to assume that you're reading my posts deliberately falsely to keep on arguing and avoiding admitting the failure of your claims. To respond again I would have to repeat what I said in my previous posts. So, good luck...


    Quote Originally Posted by AHumpierRogue View Post
    I don't know why you guys are still arguing about this, I am telling you as long as they made the blood content a separate download that you had to access separately it would be fine. The reality is CA and SEGA sells us blood because they can get away with it.
    Perhaps because you're providing no substance to support why that would be the case.
    The Armenian Issue
    http://www.twcenter.net/forums/group.php?groupid=1930

    Cities: Skylines
    http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...ities-Skylines

    "We're nice mainly because we're rich and comfortable."

  4. #904
    PikeStance's Avatar ⚜️ Omnipresent ⚜️
    Artifex

    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Shanghai
    Posts
    11,205
    Blog Entries
    8

    Default Re: New Historical total war era - Total War: Three Kingdoms!

    Quote Originally Posted by PointOfViewGun View Post
    Sigh... At this point I have to assume that you're reading my posts deliberately falsely to keep on arguing and avoiding admitting the failure of your claims. To respond again I would have to repeat what I said in my previous posts. So, good luck...
    First, you should strive to a higher level of discourse. For example;

    Quote Originally Posted by PointOfViewGun View Post
    Perhaps because you're providing no substance to support why that would be the case.
    This is unnecessarily combative.

    Second, let us take a stroll down memory lane...

    Quote Originally Posted by PointOfViewGun View Post
    How did Darren debunk it? What I say is based on the same fact that just because you pay you can watch explicit content on video streaming services. Paid services don't have censoring, non-paid ones do. Even the non-paid services that live off advertising income has to censor. There is absolutely no logic or sense in how they could somehow do it if it was a separate download. The same would have been used by video streaming services as well. I already addressed why they won't charge a cent for it. An other member who wanted it to be free also argued how much the Blood DLC added to the game. Clearly, the value for that package is not one cent. They are selling you blood because they don't want the game to have a +18 rating and they make it cost 3$ because they spent resources on it and you find it valuable.
    90% of this is false. Censoring has nothing to do with "paid" vs non-paid services. I do not know exactly what you mean by paid vs non-paid though. I assume you mean free airwaves which come under the FCC regulations. Now, they do have to have advertising, but advertisers choose which shows to sponsor and not sponsor. However, this is not even relevant, because advertising has no control over violent content or nudity. The FCC regulates that.

    The 10% that is correct is bold for you.

    Now getting back to the above point you wrote this
    Quote Originally Posted by PointOfViewGun View Post
    You do realize Total War is not sold only in USA? Yet, even in USA, you don't really need a legal regulatory system. Yes, ratings in USA are voluntary but there are various conditions. Many game shops will not sell unrated games. Many, if not all, retailers only stock games that have a ESRB rating. There is a good possibility that your game with gore will have a +17 rating (is it +18 or +17) which will likely stop many moms (likely not the dads though) from buying the game.
    Here, you bring up the same point that I never addressed.
    Total War games historically go for a Teen rating but the Blood DLC is rated at Mature rating. Basically, if they keep the gore from the Blood DLC in the original game the game in its entirety will get an M rating. CA or SEGA can not simply put a T rating if they wish so.
    Last point;
    Quote Originally Posted by PointOfViewGun View Post
    There might be an IP lawsuit somewhere there. If they accept the M rating then that can translate to many parents passing the game for their children between the ages of 13 and 17. If they go for an unrated game launch then that means many retailers in the USA will not stock the game or even sell it. So, maybe there is no government regulatory system for games in USA but there is a non-profit organizational regulatory system that vast majority of the market caters to.
    The two bold statements are 100% wrong. It violates the US Constitution to prohibit the sale of a product by age. In this post here, you stated

    Quote Originally Posted by PointOfViewGun View Post
    I did not say it as a point of legality. It's a matter of store policy not to stock unrated games according to ESRB. GameSpot stores, for example, do enforce the ESRB rating system. The legality point was made about CA or SEGA giving their games T rating by themselves which would violate ESRB's intellectual property.
    You claimed here you never mentioned legality. but you mentioned (bold) that "there might be an IP lawsuit somewhere."

    Stores can seel any publish a game they wish. The law allows them to do so. You are wrong to suggest otherwise.

    Bottom line, there is a huge difference between a retailer choosing to sell a game and a store being legally obligated to follow a voluntary rating service. The entire rating system is voluntary. It works because it is what the community wants and businesses want a good relationship with their community.

    Now, if I am missing something here then the onus is on you to correct my misunderstanding. I do not get the point of pretending to not understand unless you think I enjoy wasting my time.
    MODDERS WANTED | MY PATRONAGES
    Imperial Splendour is looking for Modders and Researchers. SEE AD HERE
    If interested, contact PikeStance(Mod Leader/Manager) or Quintus Hortensius Hortalus (Mod leader /Lead Artist)

    Under the Patronage of Omnipotent- Q | Member of the House of Wild Bill Kelso
    Patron of
    _Tataros_
    | Magister Militum Flavius Aetius | Alwyn | Lord Oda Nobunaga | Massive_attack | Hayabusa Sushi|
    Proposed the Following for PHALERA: Mangalore & sumskilz | OPIFEX: wangrin, z3n, and Swiss Halberdier


    Be all you can be and Join MODDING STAFF now! |House of Noble Discourse

  5. #905

    Default Re: New Historical total war era - Total War: Three Kingdoms!

    Quote Originally Posted by PikeStance View Post
    First, you should strive to a higher level of discourse. For example;
    This is unnecessarily combative.
    Second, let us take a stroll down memory lane...
    90% of this is false. Censoring has nothing to do with "paid" vs non-paid services. I do not know exactly what you mean by paid vs non-paid though. I assume you mean free airwaves which come under the FCC regulations. Now, they do have to have advertising, but advertisers choose which shows to sponsor and not sponsor. However, this is not even relevant, because advertising has no control over violent content or nudity. The FCC regulates that.
    The 10% that is correct is bold for you.
    Now getting back to the above point you wrote this
    Here, you bring up the same point that I never addressed.
    Last point;
    The two bold statements are 100% wrong. It violates the US Constitution to prohibit the sale of a product by age. In this post here, you stated
    You claimed here you never mentioned legality. but you mentioned (bold) that "there might be an IP lawsuit somewhere."
    Stores can seel any publish a game they wish. The law allows them to do so. You are wrong to suggest otherwise.
    Bottom line, there is a huge difference between a retailer choosing to sell a game and a store being legally obligated to follow a voluntary rating service. The entire rating system is voluntary. It works because it is what the community wants and businesses want a good relationship with their community.
    Now, if I am missing something here then the onus is on you to correct my misunderstanding. I do not get the point of pretending to not understand unless you think I enjoy wasting my time.
    Oh, wow... This is quite a lot to avoid admitting that you simply made false claims. You start with first throwing what you're doing onto me; unnecessarily combativeness, which is something I demonstrably tried to avoid while you banked on it...

    Your trip down memory lane simply shows how falsely you're addressing what I wrote. The part you say is 90% false, the non-bold part, contains a question, an example on how paid and non-paid services like subscription based Netflix or Puhu (in Turkey) censor or not censor, a statement on how just because Blood DLC is a different package it could be given for free, a statement on how another argued that Blood DLC is valuable. Somehow those are all false. Of course, in your response instead of explaining what's false about them you admit that you do not understand the difference between paid vs non-paid services and talk about advertising as a tangent.

    On the second lane of your memories, you quote two sections of one of my posts separately for some reason, and you claim that these were comments on a point you never addressed. In fact, they were part of a train of thought to explain to you how the ESRB rating had de facto power over video game sales.

    Onto third lane, the IP lawsuit idea was explained to you multiple times. You seem to have ignored the explanation I have given you last time as well. So, there isn't much more I can say on that. Good luck basing your position on ignoring what's been said to you. The second part, is based on the ESRB rating website that you yourself used earlier without any problems. The SCOTUS, however, ruled over selling +18 video games to minors, not on how retail joints pick and choose which games they could sell, just like a bookstore can get to pick and choose which books they sell. It's completely legal for Best Buy to not stock a game that has no rating.

    On the third lane, you're jumbling up two completely different issues as one to create a arguable position there. My comments on stores picking and choosing which games they will sell has nothing to do with the hypothetical case of the IP lawsuit.

    All in all, this was an exercise in your attempts to cherry pick statements from multiple posts to avoid acknowledging that you made false statements. This was certainly a waste of time that you could have avoided wasting if you could simply read my posts carefully. The ironic part is that you do agree with my main assertion which is the bold part you deemed to be correct as being the 10% of my post.
    The Armenian Issue
    http://www.twcenter.net/forums/group.php?groupid=1930

    Cities: Skylines
    http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...ities-Skylines

    "We're nice mainly because we're rich and comfortable."

  6. #906
    PikeStance's Avatar ⚜️ Omnipresent ⚜️
    Artifex

    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Shanghai
    Posts
    11,205
    Blog Entries
    8

    Default Re: New Historical total war era - Total War: Three Kingdoms!

    Quote Originally Posted by PointOfViewGun View Post
    Oh, wow... This is quite a lot to avoid admitting that you simply made false claims. You start with first throwing what you're doing onto me; unnecessarily combativeness, which is something I demonstrably tried to avoid while you banked on it...
    What false claim did I make?

    Your trip down memory lane simply shows how falsely you're addressing what I wrote. The part you say is 90% false, the non-bold part, contains a question, an example on how paid and non-paid services like subscription based Netflix or Puhu (in Turkey) censor or not censor, a statement on how just because Blood DLC is a different package it could be given for free, a statement on how another argued that Blood DLC is valuable. Somehow those are all false. Of course, in your response instead of explaining what's false about them you admit that you do not understand the difference between paid vs non-paid services and talk about advertising as a tangent.
    I already explained to you non-airwaves mediums are not subject to regulations. Perhaps in Turkey, there is no differentiation, but in the US, the airwaves are regulated by the FCC. Netflix could, in theory, provide their services free if they allow advertising. It isn't the model they chose. Netflix developed as competition for the video renting industry so it would be strange if they had chosen that route. Some providers (e.g. Hulu) do have advertising. However, they do require a small subscription fee.

    On the second lane of your memories, you quote two sections of one of my posts separately for some reason, and you claim that these were comments on a point you never addressed. In fact, they were part of a train of thought to explain to you how the ESRB rating had de facto power over video game sales.
    There isn't one point I made that disputed that CA charges for the blood DLC for profit reasons. I actually agree with you.

    Onto third lane, the IP lawsuit idea was explained to you multiple times. You seem to have ignored the explanation I have given you last time as well. So, there isn't much more I can say on that. Good luck basing your position on ignoring what's been said to you. The second part, is based on the ESRB rating website that you yourself used earlier without any problems. The SCOTUS, however, ruled over selling +18 video games to minors, not on how retail joints pick and choose which games they could sell, just like a bookstore can get to pick and choose which books they sell. It's completely legal for Best Buy to not stock a game that has no rating.
    You made a point if a retailer were to sell an unrated game that a lawsuit would be forthcoming.
    It cannot be SEGA because they do not "rate" their content. It cannot be the retailers, because they cannot be sued for selling content. It cannot be the parents because there isn't any law that can prohibit the selling of games because of content. There isn't any possibility of a lawsuit anywhere.

    On the third lane, you're jumbling up two completely different issues as one to create a arguable position there. My comments on stores picking and choosing which games they will sell has nothing to do with the hypothetical case of the IP lawsuit.
    There isn't a hypertheoretical.

    All in all, this was an exercise in your attempts to cherry pick statements from multiple posts to avoid acknowledging that you made false statements. This was certainly a waste of time that you could have avoided wasting if you could simply read my posts carefully. The ironic part is that you do agree with my main assertion which is the bold part you deemed to be correct as being the 10% of my post.
    Dude, I only corrected your initial error of conflation a rating organization with the FCC. That was it.
    Here is the post
    Quote Originally Posted by PikeStance View Post
    Television is regulated by the FCC. The FCC is the one that enforces the rules. Cable, satellite and the internet does not fall under FCC regulations. HBO and other movie channels like it do follow the rating system. Anyway, it has absolutely nothing to do with advertising or money.
    It was the response to this post that you mentioned the lawsuit nonsense.
    MODDERS WANTED | MY PATRONAGES
    Imperial Splendour is looking for Modders and Researchers. SEE AD HERE
    If interested, contact PikeStance(Mod Leader/Manager) or Quintus Hortensius Hortalus (Mod leader /Lead Artist)

    Under the Patronage of Omnipotent- Q | Member of the House of Wild Bill Kelso
    Patron of
    _Tataros_
    | Magister Militum Flavius Aetius | Alwyn | Lord Oda Nobunaga | Massive_attack | Hayabusa Sushi|
    Proposed the Following for PHALERA: Mangalore & sumskilz | OPIFEX: wangrin, z3n, and Swiss Halberdier


    Be all you can be and Join MODDING STAFF now! |House of Noble Discourse

  7. #907

    Default Re: New Historical total war era - Total War: Three Kingdoms!

    Quote Originally Posted by PikeStance View Post
    What false claim did I make?
    I already explained to you non-airwaves mediums are not subject to regulations. Perhaps in Turkey, there is no differentiation, but in the US, the airwaves are regulated by the FCC. Netflix could, in theory, provide their services free if they allow advertising. It isn't the model they chose. Netflix developed as competition for the video renting industry so it would be strange if they had chosen that route. Some providers (e.g. Hulu) do have advertising. However, they do require a small subscription fee.
    There isn't one point I made that disputed that CA charges for the blood DLC for profit reasons. I actually agree with you.
    You made a point if a retailer were to sell an unrated game that a lawsuit would be forthcoming.
    It cannot be SEGA because they do not "rate" their content. It cannot be the retailers, because they cannot be sued for selling content. It cannot be the parents because there isn't any law that can prohibit the selling of games because of content. There isn't any possibility of a lawsuit anywhere.
    There isn't a hypertheoretical.
    Dude, I only corrected your initial error of conflation a rating organization with the FCC. That was it.
    Here is the post
    It was the response to this post that you mentioned the lawsuit nonsense.
    Sigh... Thanks for making it obvious once more that you're arguing for the sake of arguing. I will simply correct two of your direct statements about what I said and move on. I did not make a point that if a retailer were to sell an unrated game that a lawsuit would be forthcoming. The hypothetical IP lawsuit and a retailer choosing which game to sell were two distinctively separate issues. I also did not conflate ESRB with FCC. I made no such argument pointing at that. For the rest, I can only assume that you're deliberately diluting the issues (cherry-picking, ignoring responses, conflating different issues, altering what I argued, etc.) to remain arguing. Good luck with that.
    The Armenian Issue
    http://www.twcenter.net/forums/group.php?groupid=1930

    Cities: Skylines
    http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...ities-Skylines

    "We're nice mainly because we're rich and comfortable."

  8. #908
    [N2]Kami's Avatar Semisalis
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Viet Nam
    Posts
    430

    Default Re: New Historical total war era - Total War: Three Kingdoms!

    As someone had said above. They sell us blood DLC because they can get away with it. Lots of games have blood and they still manage just fine.

  9. #909
    Anna_Gein's Avatar Primicerius
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Paris
    Posts
    3,584

    Default Re: New Historical total war era - Total War: Three Kingdoms!

    The game look bad. I can hardly believe a AAA game with this kind of graphics can be released in 2019. Even the venerable Rome Total War (2004) had better animations. What happened ?

Page 46 of 46 FirstFirst ... 21 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •