a new type of shilling - game developer locks content to specific Intel i7 CPUs [updated]

[christianled59]

2 minutes ago, patrickjp93 said:

Because I haven't attacked him. I've attacked his abilities, which so far show as lacking. I didn't call him stupid, hopeless, or any number of qualities that are inborn, unprovable, and un-disprovable. I took him to task for his lack of engaging in thoughtful debate on merit. Yes, I did it in a very blunt way, but I don't care if you think I'm an asshole. So do my colleagues, and yet I got the major Christmas bonus because I deliver more than they do.

 

I care about competency. If all you care about it is who's going to kiss your ass the best, I do not care what you think. I'm not coddling christian, and I'm not coddling you.

In what way do you understand my abilities? How can you know what I can and cannot do? 

 

You can't accurately make judgement about my abilities without any proof of my supposed cluelessness. 

[christianled59]

1 minute ago, patrickjp93 said:

I also heavily implied you were clueless about how the industry works w.r.t. the former. Seriously, keep up. 

 

Intel can't wave a magic wand and optimize all the code in a few weeks, and a 6-month delay would be financially punishing for a studio fresh on its feet.

 

I'm being civil. Uncivil wouldn't be fit for a fiction novel. I'm just not letting anyone off easy.

Yet, you still haven't said "how" you proved this. These are claims and opinions. Not facts.

 

I never said they could. How about you keep up and read what I've been saying. Logically, they should have done something else besides dividing their community based on hardware. FYI, you don't have to delay an entire game. You can delay features and release them 6 months later. 

[patrickjp93]

Just now, christianled59 said:

In what way do you understand my abilities? How can you know what I can and cannot do? 

 

You can't accurately make judgement about my abilities without any proof of my supposed cluelessness. 

I understand them by the way you've been able to respond to logical argumentation without actually answering the problems in your own logic that I've pointed out and been wholly incapable of discounting mine on merit.

 

I produced that proof, with your help, but I did produce it. Either you're having the worst day of your life (probabilistically unlikely), or you have deficiencies in your ability to reason and understand subjects we've drummed up in this thread that you need to address in your own time.

[patrickjp93]

1 minute ago, christianled59 said:

Yet, you still haven't said "how" you proved this. These are claims and opinions. Not facts.

 

I never said they could. How about you keep up and read what I've been saying. Logically, they should have done something else besides dividing their community based on hardware. FYI, you don't have to delay an entire game. You can delay features and release them 6 months later. 

I have! In these arguments you have collapsed with nothing to hold up your opinions.

 

You very heavily implied it when you said the 6-month delay was wholly unreasonable.

 

That's what the studio did, but without locking out the entire community for 6 months.

[christianled59]

18 minutes ago, patrickjp93 said:

I understand them by the way you've been able to respond to logical argumentation without actually answering the problems in your own logic.

This has got to be the most ironic thing I've read in a while. 

 

Frankly, I have answered in my logic. I'll go fish it out. Give me a moment, there's 10 pages of trash to dig through. 

 

 

EDIT:

1 hour ago, christianled59 said:

Keep in mind this is in regards to a business move. It hurt sales. I don't give two shits about how much more they can optimize it. I'm merely implying that these decisions were bad because they cost them sales. Don't be dense. 

A simpler example, but nonetheless clearly describes my argument with my logic. My argument has been that this was a business decision; a money scheme between the dev and Intel. Intel pays them to promote their content (which they have in multiple youtube videos)

Ex: 

 

Intel also, very likely, paid them to wall off content to specific cpu's in order to promote their cpus. In merit, this can be a good idea.

It, as you've stated, provides opportunity for optimization which further improves the efficiency of the hardware allowing enthusiasts to get the best out of their systems. This, I do not disagree with. We are on the same page, yet you selectively quote me suggesting I think it should have been done by now. 

 

Your argument(correct me if I'm wrong), is that this isn't just a business move. It's solely to create a more optimized game. Frankly, you may very well be correct. My only, and I mean only disagreement here is that it was most definitely a business move.

 

They're both companies that are trying to make more money. In the end, profit is most important. I think this was a dumb choice in regards to both parties, because of how it would play out in the end. I merely questioned why they over looked this possibility. (which was my first reply in this debate if you bother to go look back on page 6).

[patrickjp93]

6 minutes ago, christianled59 said:

This has got to be the most ironic thing I've read in a while. 

 

Frankly, I have answered in my logic. I'll go fish it out. Give me a moment, there's 10 pages of trash to dig through. 

You've made assumption after assumption which make no logical sense, and I picked them each apart.

 

The modes could have been unlocked anyway, sure, but as we have evidence, that's a terrible idea because of poor experiences that are being relayed on youtube. It was a better idea to lock them down to who could run them well until further optimization steps allowed weaker hardware to get close.

 

We have early adopters' taxes. This is nothing more than a non-adopters' tax, and this at least came with an expiration date! There was no reason for people to be resentful. They got a choice, they got a good reason for that choice, and the lack of disclosure was the only thing wrong. You claim otherwise, but you can't back it up. And even if you can, logic dictates this resentment over a temporary lockdown is based on irrationality.

 

You also claim it was Intel who initiated this, even though you have no evidence and Intel could care less about PC components sales when DCG is the only market which is going to grow for a good long while regardless of what Intel does to its product stack and pricing structure (huge economic argument well summed up on Seeking Alpha if you care to read).

 

I at least have evidence I'm right that stands up to scrutiny.

 

 

[christianled59]

3 minutes ago, patrickjp93 said:

You've made assumption after assumption which make no logical sense, and I picked them each apart.

 

The modes could have been unlocked anyway, sure, but as we have evidence, that's a terrible idea because of poor experiences that are being relayed on youtube. It was a better idea to lock them down to who could run them well until further optimization steps allowed weaker hardware to get close.

 

We have early adopters' taxes. This is nothing more than a non-adopters' tax, and this at least came with an expiration date! There was no reason for people to be resentful. They got a choice, they got a good reason for that choice, and the lack of disclosure was the only thing wrong. You claim otherwise, but you can't back it up. And even if you can, logic dictates this resentment over a temporary lockdown is based on irrationality.

 

You also claim it was Intel who initiated this, even though you have no evidence and Intel could care less about PC components sales when DCG is the only market which is going to grow for a good long while regardless of what Intel does to its product stack and pricing structure (huge economic argument well summed up on Seeking Alpha if you care to read).

 

I at least have evidence I'm right that stands up to scrutiny.

 

 

Check my edit:

 

EDIT:

1 hour ago, christianled59 said:

Keep in mind this is in regards to a business move. It hurt sales. I don't give two shits about how much more they can optimize it. I'm merely implying that these decisions were bad because they cost them sales. Don't be dense. 

A simpler example, but nonetheless clearly describes my argument with my logic. My argument has been that this was a business decision.; a money scheme between the dev and Intel. Intel pays them to promote their content (which they have in multiple youtube videos)

Ex: 

 

Intel also, very likely, paid them to wall off content to specific cpu's in order to promote their cpus. In merit, this can be a good idea.

It, as you've stated, provides opportunity for optimization which further improves the efficiency of the hardware allowing enthusiasts to get the best out of their systems. This, I do not disagree with. We are on the same page, yet you selectively quote me suggesting I think it should have been done by now. 

 

Your argument(correct me if I'm wrong), is that this isn't just a business move. It's solely to create a more optimized game. Frankly, you may very well be correct. My only, and I mean only disagreement here is that it was most definitely a business move.

 

They're both companies that are trying to make more money. In the end, profit is most important. I think this was a dumb choice in regards to both parties, because of how it would play out in the end. I merely questioned why they over looked this possibility. (which was my first reply in this debate if you bother to go look back on page 6).

[christianled59]

I'm no longer going to bother with replies. Only reason I stuck around was to defend myself from the frankly insulting comments you've made without merit. 

 

Take this as me giving up, or you winning the argument if it helps. I'm just tired honestly. 

[patrickjp93]

3 minutes ago, christianled59 said:

Check my edit:

 

EDIT:

A simpler example, but nonetheless clearly describes my argument with my logic. My argument has been that this was a business decision.; a money scheme between the dev and Intel. Intel pays them to promote their content (which they have in multiple youtube videos)

Ex: 

Ugh, night theme!

 

It certainly cost them fewer sales then a 6-month delay to get it fully put together, and their financial situation certainly would not have tolerated it given the cost of building a game like this and their startup investment.

 

Except Intel has no reason to promote I7s. The PC market is shrinking, and enthusiasts already sit on I7s and the HEDT platform anyway, and enthusiasts are also generally the vast majority of the people who can afford to play VR. So, it makes no logical sense for Intel to instill the lockdown.

 

You said the 6 months delay was unreasonable and that the optimization should have been happening over the normal development cycle!

 

And you disagreement is illogical.

 

Intel makes more money off of the marketing from helping fledgling developer studios and getting the big ones to pay Intel for the same advantage.

 

Intel didn't overlook it, Intel didn't initiate it, and regardless, it's still a good idea on merit. It just should have been disclosed.

[WkdPaul]

Locked ... tried to read the last few pages and wow!

 

That's why we can't have nice things!