2DS looks like a pretty dang sturdy chunk. Made for kids, that sort of thing.
Not having the hinge definitely helps. There's a certain overall creakiness to the 3DS XL (or mine, anyway), even aside from the hinge, that hopefully they have figured out by now.
3DS: 2466-2307-8384 PSN: bssteph Steam:bsstephanTwitch:bsstephan Tabletop:13th Age (mm-mmm), D&D 4e Occasional words about games:my site
NPD leaks indicate it sold less than 14,000 copies.
Granted, that doesn't include digital, but even assuming digital sales doubled that figure (which is still a pretty optimistic assumption for retail releases at this point) that just brings us to 28,000 copies, which is still awful.
Earlier this year, Sony announced that a third of all Vita games sold were digital. I believe that's noticeably higher than most systems although you gotta figure that figures gets skewed upward somewhat since some games are only available digitally.
I've heard that Tearaway was made by a relatively small team so they might actually end up making money off the game despite the low sales, but it's not the big blockbuster that Vita needs to succeed.
I've been playing the hell out of Ys: Memories of Celceta on my Vita. Other than PS+ games, my library consists of Ys and P4G, so if Vita becomes the niche JRPG go-to platform. It'd be ok with me.
CokomonOur butts are worth fighting for!Registered Userregular
Both my wife and my 3DS XLs have chips or scratches on the top of them. I've never chipped old Nintendo handhelds, it seems easier to do that with this. Now granted, my wife's 3DS got scuffed from being dropped on a brick fireplace, but mine got messed up from being in a backpack for a day without a case.
A third law firm is in the process of seeking certification as a class on behalf of EA investors. Bower Piven has filed in US District Court (Northern California) and is seeking a lead plaintiff with common stock losses greater than $200,000.
Bower Piven cites the same reasons as the first and second firms seeking certification. Particularly, the revelation on November 15 that Battlefield 4 was having significant issues on PlayStation 4, and the announcement that EA put DICE’s future projects on hold as of December 4.
The complaint alleges that EA officers and directors violated the Securities Exchange Act by failing to disclose bugs, glitches, and connectivity issues with Battlefield 4. Again, it’s important to note that this is not a suit focused on consumers. This is exclusively about investors who purchased common stock between July 24, 2013, and December 4, 2013.
A third law firm is in the process of seeking certification as a class on behalf of EA investors. Bower Piven has filed in US District Court (Northern California) and is seeking a lead plaintiff with common stock losses greater than $200,000.
Bower Piven cites the same reasons as the first and second firms seeking certification. Particularly, the revelation on November 15 that Battlefield 4 was having significant issues on PlayStation 4, and the announcement that EA put DICE’s future projects on hold as of December 4.
The complaint alleges that EA officers and directors violated the Securities Exchange Act by failing to disclose bugs, glitches, and connectivity issues with Battlefield 4. Again, it’s important to note that this is not a suit focused on consumers. This is exclusively about investors who purchased common stock between July 24, 2013, and December 4, 2013.
A third law firm is in the process of seeking certification as a class on behalf of EA investors. Bower Piven has filed in US District Court (Northern California) and is seeking a lead plaintiff with common stock losses greater than $200,000.
Bower Piven cites the same reasons as the first and second firms seeking certification. Particularly, the revelation on November 15 that Battlefield 4 was having significant issues on PlayStation 4, and the announcement that EA put DICE’s future projects on hold as of December 4.
The complaint alleges that EA officers and directors violated the Securities Exchange Act by failing to disclose bugs, glitches, and connectivity issues with Battlefield 4. Again, it’s important to note that this is not a suit focused on consumers. This is exclusively about investors who purchased common stock between July 24, 2013, and December 4, 2013.
EA to fight the law.....but who wins.
I did not realize the SEC was involved in video game QA now.
A third law firm is in the process of seeking certification as a class on behalf of EA investors. Bower Piven has filed in US District Court (Northern California) and is seeking a lead plaintiff with common stock losses greater than $200,000.
Bower Piven cites the same reasons as the first and second firms seeking certification. Particularly, the revelation on November 15 that Battlefield 4 was having significant issues on PlayStation 4, and the announcement that EA put DICE’s future projects on hold as of December 4.
The complaint alleges that EA officers and directors violated the Securities Exchange Act by failing to disclose bugs, glitches, and connectivity issues with Battlefield 4. Again, it’s important to note that this is not a suit focused on consumers. This is exclusively about investors who purchased common stock between July 24, 2013, and December 4, 2013.
EA to fight the law.....but who wins.
I did not realize the SEC was involved in video game QA now.
Without those stock sales immediately before release (the opposite of what somebody with faith in the game would be doing) the SEC wouldn't ever get involved in this. With it...well it might be insider trading.
I'd really be happy with a partial refund or some other sort of not-BF4 goodie to make up for the shittiness that has been BF4. Yes, I could have gotten a refund from Origin no questions asked within 24 hours. But what online game doesn't have problems in the first few days.
At least when SimCity was a mess I got a copy of NFS: Most Wanted for free out of the deal.
You can get a refund in 24 hours from Origin, but I can't for the ps4 version, which is still a broken mess.
Its getting better but I agree, the PS4 and Xbox One versions are still nowhere near being properly fixed. What would EA offer though? free premium? or another free Ea title on the next gen console? Both seem very costly and would probably upset those that bought other EA products.
0
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
Both my wife and my 3DS XLs have chips or scratches on the top of them. I've never chipped old Nintendo handhelds, it seems easier to do that with this. Now granted, my wife's 3DS got scuffed from being dropped on a brick fireplace, but mine got messed up from being in a backpack for a day without a case.
I don't know about your 3DS, but your wife probably just needs a band-aid. It'll go away after while.
A third law firm is in the process of seeking certification as a class on behalf of EA investors. Bower Piven has filed in US District Court (Northern California) and is seeking a lead plaintiff with common stock losses greater than $200,000.
Bower Piven cites the same reasons as the first and second firms seeking certification. Particularly, the revelation on November 15 that Battlefield 4 was having significant issues on PlayStation 4, and the announcement that EA put DICE’s future projects on hold as of December 4.
The complaint alleges that EA officers and directors violated the Securities Exchange Act by failing to disclose bugs, glitches, and connectivity issues with Battlefield 4. Again, it’s important to note that this is not a suit focused on consumers. This is exclusively about investors who purchased common stock between July 24, 2013, and December 4, 2013.
EA to fight the law.....but who wins.
I did not realize the SEC was involved in video game QA now.
Without those stock sales immediately before release (the opposite of what somebody with faith in the game would be doing) the SEC wouldn't ever get involved in this. With it...well it might be insider trading.
Yup. This is basically about someone in the company apparently doing something they knew would cause the stock to plunge selling their stock right before doing that thing.
It sure looks like insider trading, so of course the SEC is involved.
Vita needs reverse remote play, pushing the video through the PS3 onto the TV. Dragon's Crown is a hassle to play, everything is so small. Yeah yeah, Vita TV etc, it's only in Japan though.
0
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
A third law firm is in the process of seeking certification as a class on behalf of EA investors. Bower Piven has filed in US District Court (Northern California) and is seeking a lead plaintiff with common stock losses greater than $200,000.
Bower Piven cites the same reasons as the first and second firms seeking certification. Particularly, the revelation on November 15 that Battlefield 4 was having significant issues on PlayStation 4, and the announcement that EA put DICE’s future projects on hold as of December 4.
The complaint alleges that EA officers and directors violated the Securities Exchange Act by failing to disclose bugs, glitches, and connectivity issues with Battlefield 4. Again, it’s important to note that this is not a suit focused on consumers. This is exclusively about investors who purchased common stock between July 24, 2013, and December 4, 2013.
EA to fight the law.....but who wins.
I did not realize the SEC was involved in video game QA now.
Without those stock sales immediately before release (the opposite of what somebody with faith in the game would be doing) the SEC wouldn't ever get involved in this. With it...well it might be insider trading.
Yup. This is basically about someone in the company apparently doing something they knew would cause the stock to plunge selling their stock right before doing that thing.
It sure looks like insider trading, so of course the SEC is involved.
It's kind of amazing that a company would so easily fall into that trap.
The unfortunate thing is that, let's fast forward a year when this is settled, the executives at EA won't really feel the shock from the penalization. We're going to see downsizing at EA to adjust for their overhead greed.
0
ShadowfireVermont, in the middle of nowhereRegistered Userregular
They might not have. This could be a coincidence where execs were able to sell some stock options at that time and did so at the first opportunity, rather than dumping stock before release. That's why there's an investigation though, to figure that out.
They might not have. This could be a coincidence where execs were able to sell some stock options at that time and did so at the first opportunity, rather than dumping stock before release. That's why there's an investigation though, to figure that out.
Yeah, my spouse (who is in finance) suggested that there are pretty limited periods of time in which upper-level execs are allowed sell stock anymore, so it's possibly a coincidence. It's nice to see the SEC on top of investigating that kind of thing these days, though.
Want to find me on a gaming service? I'm SwashbucklerXX everywhere.
A third law firm is in the process of seeking certification as a class on behalf of EA investors. Bower Piven has filed in US District Court (Northern California) and is seeking a lead plaintiff with common stock losses greater than $200,000.
Bower Piven cites the same reasons as the first and second firms seeking certification. Particularly, the revelation on November 15 that Battlefield 4 was having significant issues on PlayStation 4, and the announcement that EA put DICE’s future projects on hold as of December 4.
The complaint alleges that EA officers and directors violated the Securities Exchange Act by failing to disclose bugs, glitches, and connectivity issues with Battlefield 4. Again, it’s important to note that this is not a suit focused on consumers. This is exclusively about investors who purchased common stock between July 24, 2013, and December 4, 2013.
EA to fight the law.....but who wins.
I did not realize the SEC was involved in video game QA now.
Without those stock sales immediately before release (the opposite of what somebody with faith in the game would be doing) the SEC wouldn't ever get involved in this. With it...well it might be insider trading.
Yup. This is basically about someone in the company apparently doing something they knew would cause the stock to plunge selling their stock right before doing that thing.
It sure looks like insider trading, so of course the SEC is involved.
It's kind of amazing that a company would so easily fall into that trap.
The unfortunate thing is that, let's fast forward a year when this is settled, the executives at EA won't really feel the shock from the penalization. We're going to see downsizing at EA to adjust for their overhead greed.
Outfall from the investor suit is unlikely to hit the company very harshly. It will fuck the hell out of those executives who did it though. (This is of course on the "Rich White Guy" scale of being fucked the hell out of.)
A third law firm is in the process of seeking certification as a class on behalf of EA investors. Bower Piven has filed in US District Court (Northern California) and is seeking a lead plaintiff with common stock losses greater than $200,000.
Bower Piven cites the same reasons as the first and second firms seeking certification. Particularly, the revelation on November 15 that Battlefield 4 was having significant issues on PlayStation 4, and the announcement that EA put DICE’s future projects on hold as of December 4.
The complaint alleges that EA officers and directors violated the Securities Exchange Act by failing to disclose bugs, glitches, and connectivity issues with Battlefield 4. Again, it’s important to note that this is not a suit focused on consumers. This is exclusively about investors who purchased common stock between July 24, 2013, and December 4, 2013.
EA to fight the law.....but who wins.
I did not realize the SEC was involved in video game QA now.
Without those stock sales immediately before release (the opposite of what somebody with faith in the game would be doing) the SEC wouldn't ever get involved in this. With it...well it might be insider trading.
Yup. This is basically about someone in the company apparently doing something they knew would cause the stock to plunge selling their stock right before doing that thing.
It sure looks like insider trading, so of course the SEC is involved.
It's kind of amazing that a company would so easily fall into that trap.
Not really. You gotta account for good old fashioned human hubris.
A third law firm is in the process of seeking certification as a class on behalf of EA investors. Bower Piven has filed in US District Court (Northern California) and is seeking a lead plaintiff with common stock losses greater than $200,000.
Bower Piven cites the same reasons as the first and second firms seeking certification. Particularly, the revelation on November 15 that Battlefield 4 was having significant issues on PlayStation 4, and the announcement that EA put DICE’s future projects on hold as of December 4.
The complaint alleges that EA officers and directors violated the Securities Exchange Act by failing to disclose bugs, glitches, and connectivity issues with Battlefield 4. Again, it’s important to note that this is not a suit focused on consumers. This is exclusively about investors who purchased common stock between July 24, 2013, and December 4, 2013.
EA to fight the law.....but who wins.
I did not realize the SEC was involved in video game QA now.
Without those stock sales immediately before release (the opposite of what somebody with faith in the game would be doing) the SEC wouldn't ever get involved in this. With it...well it might be insider trading.
Yup. This is basically about someone in the company apparently doing something they knew would cause the stock to plunge selling their stock right before doing that thing.
It sure looks like insider trading, so of course the SEC is involved.
It's kind of amazing that a company would so easily fall into that trap.
Not really. You gotta account for good old fashioned human hubris.
Now now, we can't just discount Avarice. I think it might've been around longer.
What if it was just stock sold by people who know Battlefield, in general, ALWAYS does this?
I've never played a Battlefield game, but when I've asked exactly how broken it is, I always get the answer "Well this is just what they do. It's not different really." People who play the franchise seem to have totally been expecting this, and it doesn't phase them much.
So is it still insider trading, if a bunch of people all just KNOW this is how the Battlefield games ALWAYS launch, and dumped stock due to the nature of it being a next-gen push and all that? Is it still considered insider?
Is it totally insane to think that they could get away with this by simply saying it WASN'T insider information that the game is broken, because Battlefield games are ALWAYS broken?
PSN: mxmarks - WiiU: mxmarks - twitter: @ MikesPS4 - twitch.tv/mxmarks - "Yes, mxmarks is the King of Queens" - Unbreakable Vow
I think anybody would conclude it's the same thing regardless. End of the day you're still saying "We know this game is going to be shit at launch, so we're going to sell our stocks while they're still high before the game launches". Which is A Bad Thing to do.
"The sausage of Green Earth explodes with flavor like the cannon of culinary delight."
What if it was just stock sold by people who know Battlefield, in general, ALWAYS does this?
I've never played a Battlefield game, but when I've asked exactly how broken it is, I always get the answer "Well this is just what they do. It's not different really." People who play the franchise seem to have totally been expecting this, and it doesn't phase them much.
So is it still insider trading, if a bunch of people all just KNOW this is how the Battlefield games ALWAYS launch, and dumped stock due to the nature of it being a next-gen push and all that? Is it still considered insider?
Is it totally insane to think that they could get away with this by simply saying it WASN'T insider information that the game is broken, because Battlefield games are ALWAYS broken?
The crime isn't releasing a shitty game, the crime is using knowledge gained as an officer of that company in a way that hurts investors of the company by selling your shares in response to nonpublic information. (Selling your shares early will tend to drive down the price the other investors would eventually be able to get after the knowledge goes public.)
So if they suspected it was shit? No, not really. If they had progress reports that indicated it'd be shit? Yes, absolutely.
So Nintendo finally embraced my butt the cloud with Pokemon Bank, a service that will allow you to store your critters online and transfer them between games.
The bad news is that when Pokemon Bank launched in Japan -- and JUST Japan -- it basically broke Nintendo.
Though much of the blame for the ongoing, worldwide Nintendo Network server outages must be placed on the hordes of new Wii U and 3DS owners spawned by yesterday's holiday, Nintendo of Japan has posted a notice on its website which states that the Bank has been causing more of a traffic crush than its creators expected, and has compounded the company's traffic problems. To regain control of the situation, Nintendo has removed the problematic storage application from the Japanese eShop.
If you're able to visit the North American or European eShop despite its traffic woes, you'll now find the Bank bears a "to be determined" release date. It was originally scheduled to arrive today, but Nintendo of America followed suit with an official delay.
"As you may know, we are currently experiencing a large volume of traffic on the Nintendo Network service," reads a post on Nintendo's Facebook page. "Due to the high traffic, we are postponing the launch of Pokémon Bank and Poké Transporter until further notice. As a Nintendo standard, we strive for the utmost quality before launching any of our applications. We truly regret the inconvenience, and wish to reassure you that providing a solution is our top priority. We apologize for the delay and thank you for your continued patience."
Nintendo's also pulling the plug on its eshop services for a full day to try to get things sorted out.
So Nintendo finally embraced my butt the cloud with Pokemon Bank, a service that will allow you to store your critters online and transfer them between games.
The bad news is that when Pokemon Bank launched in Japan -- and JUST Japan -- it basically broke Nintendo.
Though much of the blame for the ongoing, worldwide Nintendo Network server outages must be placed on the hordes of new Wii U and 3DS owners spawned by yesterday's holiday, Nintendo of Japan has posted a notice on its website which states that the Bank has been causing more of a traffic crush than its creators expected, and has compounded the company's traffic problems. To regain control of the situation, Nintendo has removed the problematic storage application from the Japanese eShop.
If you're able to visit the North American or European eShop despite its traffic woes, you'll now find the Bank bears a "to be determined" release date. It was originally scheduled to arrive today, but Nintendo of America followed suit with an official delay.
"As you may know, we are currently experiencing a large volume of traffic on the Nintendo Network service," reads a post on Nintendo's Facebook page. "Due to the high traffic, we are postponing the launch of Pokémon Bank and Poké Transporter until further notice. As a Nintendo standard, we strive for the utmost quality before launching any of our applications. We truly regret the inconvenience, and wish to reassure you that providing a solution is our top priority. We apologize for the delay and thank you for your continued patience."
Nintendo's also pulling the plug on its eshop services for a full day to try to get things sorted out.
So Nintendo finally embraced my butt the cloud with Pokemon Bank, a service that will allow you to store your critters online and transfer them between games.
The bad news is that when Pokemon Bank launched in Japan -- and JUST Japan -- it basically broke Nintendo.
Though much of the blame for the ongoing, worldwide Nintendo Network server outages must be placed on the hordes of new Wii U and 3DS owners spawned by yesterday's holiday, Nintendo of Japan has posted a notice on its website which states that the Bank has been causing more of a traffic crush than its creators expected, and has compounded the company's traffic problems. To regain control of the situation, Nintendo has removed the problematic storage application from the Japanese eShop.
If you're able to visit the North American or European eShop despite its traffic woes, you'll now find the Bank bears a "to be determined" release date. It was originally scheduled to arrive today, but Nintendo of America followed suit with an official delay.
"As you may know, we are currently experiencing a large volume of traffic on the Nintendo Network service," reads a post on Nintendo's Facebook page. "Due to the high traffic, we are postponing the launch of Pokémon Bank and Poké Transporter until further notice. As a Nintendo standard, we strive for the utmost quality before launching any of our applications. We truly regret the inconvenience, and wish to reassure you that providing a solution is our top priority. We apologize for the delay and thank you for your continued patience."
Nintendo's also pulling the plug on its eshop services for a full day to try to get things sorted out.
Depends on whether the narrative is "So many people are using the service that it went into meltdown!" or "Nintendo's networks are shit!". Considering the networks, if not the implementation, have been fine up to this point, this isn't actually terrible news, because they can spin it into a "Wii Us are actually selling!" thing. Also a "Pokemon still makes us a metric and imperial fuckton of money!" thing.
What if it was just stock sold by people who know Battlefield, in general, ALWAYS does this?
I've never played a Battlefield game, but when I've asked exactly how broken it is, I always get the answer "Well this is just what they do. It's not different really." People who play the franchise seem to have totally been expecting this, and it doesn't phase them much.
So is it still insider trading, if a bunch of people all just KNOW this is how the Battlefield games ALWAYS launch, and dumped stock due to the nature of it being a next-gen push and all that? Is it still considered insider?
Is it totally insane to think that they could get away with this by simply saying it WASN'T insider information that the game is broken, because Battlefield games are ALWAYS broken?
The crime isn't releasing a shitty game, the crime is using knowledge gained as an officer of that company in a way that hurts investors of the company by selling your shares in response to nonpublic information. (Selling your shares early will tend to drive down the price the other investors would eventually be able to get after the knowledge goes public.)
So if they suspected it was shit? No, not really. If they had progress reports that indicated it'd be shit? Yes, absolutely.
Yeah, I just think it's totally crazy that to avoid serious legal trouble, EA may have to admit to the world "No, we didn't have any inside knowledge, we just knew - like most people who play our games - that it would ship broken."
PSN: mxmarks - WiiU: mxmarks - twitter: @ MikesPS4 - twitch.tv/mxmarks - "Yes, mxmarks is the King of Queens" - Unbreakable Vow
What if it was just stock sold by people who know Battlefield, in general, ALWAYS does this?
I've never played a Battlefield game, but when I've asked exactly how broken it is, I always get the answer "Well this is just what they do. It's not different really." People who play the franchise seem to have totally been expecting this, and it doesn't phase them much.
So is it still insider trading, if a bunch of people all just KNOW this is how the Battlefield games ALWAYS launch, and dumped stock due to the nature of it being a next-gen push and all that? Is it still considered insider?
Is it totally insane to think that they could get away with this by simply saying it WASN'T insider information that the game is broken, because Battlefield games are ALWAYS broken?
The crime isn't releasing a shitty game, the crime is using knowledge gained as an officer of that company in a way that hurts investors of the company by selling your shares in response to nonpublic information. (Selling your shares early will tend to drive down the price the other investors would eventually be able to get after the knowledge goes public.)
So if they suspected it was shit? No, not really. If they had progress reports that indicated it'd be shit? Yes, absolutely.
Yeah, I just think it's totally crazy that to avoid serious legal trouble, EA may have to admit to the world "No, we didn't have any inside knowledge, we just knew - like most people who play our games - that it would ship broken."
But where is the line between hoping against the historical trend and outright lying? The people at EA had a pretty strong reason to suspect the game would be borked at launc but saw fit not to mention it. Where is the line between suspect and know? Because most battlefield fans pretty much knew it would be crap until at least the first patch hit.
So Nintendo finally embraced my butt the cloud with Pokemon Bank, a service that will allow you to store your critters online and transfer them between games.
The bad news is that when Pokemon Bank launched in Japan -- and JUST Japan -- it basically broke Nintendo.
Though much of the blame for the ongoing, worldwide Nintendo Network server outages must be placed on the hordes of new Wii U and 3DS owners spawned by yesterday's holiday, Nintendo of Japan has posted a notice on its website which states that the Bank has been causing more of a traffic crush than its creators expected, and has compounded the company's traffic problems. To regain control of the situation, Nintendo has removed the problematic storage application from the Japanese eShop.
If you're able to visit the North American or European eShop despite its traffic woes, you'll now find the Bank bears a "to be determined" release date. It was originally scheduled to arrive today, but Nintendo of America followed suit with an official delay.
"As you may know, we are currently experiencing a large volume of traffic on the Nintendo Network service," reads a post on Nintendo's Facebook page. "Due to the high traffic, we are postponing the launch of Pokémon Bank and Poké Transporter until further notice. As a Nintendo standard, we strive for the utmost quality before launching any of our applications. We truly regret the inconvenience, and wish to reassure you that providing a solution is our top priority. We apologize for the delay and thank you for your continued patience."
Nintendo's also pulling the plug on its eshop services for a full day to try to get things sorted out.
Depends on whether the narrative is "So many people are using the service that it went into meltdown!" or "Nintendo's networks are shit!". Considering the networks, if not the implementation, have been fine up to this point, this isn't actually terrible news, because they can spin it into a "Wii Us are actually selling!" thing. Also a "Pokemon still makes us a metric and imperial fuckton of money!" thing.
I'm a little surprised Nintendo hadn't beefed things up more before the bank launch, especially since it's the only way to get the last hundred-odd Pokes in X/Y and I'm sure everyone would want to download it instantly. Still, I guess this shows there's plenty of customers.
No, it's all super serious, because everyone hates nintendo all the time forever, poor nintendo.
He's referring to an ongoing discussion at GAF where the thread title says that Nintendo should be embarrassed, but similar threads for the other service outages didn't have incendiary titles like that. And they discussed the seeming hypocrisy there too.
Posts
Not having the hinge definitely helps. There's a certain overall creakiness to the 3DS XL (or mine, anyway), even aside from the hinge, that hopefully they have figured out by now.
Tabletop:13th Age (mm-mmm), D&D 4e
Occasional words about games: my site
Earlier this year, Sony announced that a third of all Vita games sold were digital. I believe that's noticeably higher than most systems although you gotta figure that figures gets skewed upward somewhat since some games are only available digitally.
I've heard that Tearaway was made by a relatively small team so they might actually end up making money off the game despite the low sales, but it's not the big blockbuster that Vita needs to succeed.
Zeboyd Games Development Blog
Steam ID : rwb36, Twitter : Werezompire, Facebook : Zeboyd Games
That reminds me. I should probably pik up a DS lite one of these days for a good GBA player. I have a phat, but it's a phat...
Steam: pazython
PSN: Beltaine-77 | Steam: beltane77 | Battle.net BadHaggis#1433
You should see if you can track down a GBA Micro... the screen on that thing was so crisp.
Truly a Retina display before its time.
Switch: 6200-8149-0919 / Wii U: maximumzero / 3DS: 0860-3352-3335 / eBay Shop
Twitter: Cokomon | dA: Cokomon | Tumblr: Cokomon-art | XBL / NNID / Steam: Cokomon
EA to fight the law.....but who wins.
The law...yers.
I did not realize the SEC was involved in video game QA now.
PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
Without those stock sales immediately before release (the opposite of what somebody with faith in the game would be doing) the SEC wouldn't ever get involved in this. With it...well it might be insider trading.
I enjoy my GBA Micro, but every time I pulled it out I felt like Zoolander on his cell phone.
At least when SimCity was a mess I got a copy of NFS: Most Wanted for free out of the deal.
PSN: Beltaine-77 | Steam: beltane77 | Battle.net BadHaggis#1433
Its getting better but I agree, the PS4 and Xbox One versions are still nowhere near being properly fixed. What would EA offer though? free premium? or another free Ea title on the next gen console? Both seem very costly and would probably upset those that bought other EA products.
I don't know about your 3DS, but your wife probably just needs a band-aid. It'll go away after while.
Yup. This is basically about someone in the company apparently doing something they knew would cause the stock to plunge selling their stock right before doing that thing.
It sure looks like insider trading, so of course the SEC is involved.
Vita needs reverse remote play, pushing the video through the PS3 onto the TV. Dragon's Crown is a hassle to play, everything is so small. Yeah yeah, Vita TV etc, it's only in Japan though.
It's kind of amazing that a company would so easily fall into that trap.
The unfortunate thing is that, let's fast forward a year when this is settled, the executives at EA won't really feel the shock from the penalization. We're going to see downsizing at EA to adjust for their overhead greed.
Yeah, my spouse (who is in finance) suggested that there are pretty limited periods of time in which upper-level execs are allowed sell stock anymore, so it's possibly a coincidence. It's nice to see the SEC on top of investigating that kind of thing these days, though.
Outfall from the investor suit is unlikely to hit the company very harshly. It will fuck the hell out of those executives who did it though. (This is of course on the "Rich White Guy" scale of being fucked the hell out of.)
Not really. You gotta account for good old fashioned human hubris.
Steam: pazython
Now now, we can't just discount Avarice. I think it might've been around longer.
twitch.tv/Taramoor
@TaramoorPlays
Taramoor on Youtube
What if it was just stock sold by people who know Battlefield, in general, ALWAYS does this?
I've never played a Battlefield game, but when I've asked exactly how broken it is, I always get the answer "Well this is just what they do. It's not different really." People who play the franchise seem to have totally been expecting this, and it doesn't phase them much.
So is it still insider trading, if a bunch of people all just KNOW this is how the Battlefield games ALWAYS launch, and dumped stock due to the nature of it being a next-gen push and all that? Is it still considered insider?
Is it totally insane to think that they could get away with this by simply saying it WASN'T insider information that the game is broken, because Battlefield games are ALWAYS broken?
The crime isn't releasing a shitty game, the crime is using knowledge gained as an officer of that company in a way that hurts investors of the company by selling your shares in response to nonpublic information. (Selling your shares early will tend to drive down the price the other investors would eventually be able to get after the knowledge goes public.)
So if they suspected it was shit? No, not really. If they had progress reports that indicated it'd be shit? Yes, absolutely.
The bad news is that when Pokemon Bank launched in Japan -- and JUST Japan -- it basically broke Nintendo.
Nintendo's also pulling the plug on its eshop services for a full day to try to get things sorted out.
http://www.joystiq.com/2013/12/27/nintendo-eshop-going-offline-until-tomorrow-morning-to-fix-conne/
Ooof. Can't think of worse timing.
Luckily it's mostly up this morning.
Also good to see that doom took a holiday too.
Switch (JeffConser): SW-3353-5433-5137 Wii U: Skeldare - 3DS: 1848-1663-9345
PM Me if you add me!
Depends on whether the narrative is "So many people are using the service that it went into meltdown!" or "Nintendo's networks are shit!". Considering the networks, if not the implementation, have been fine up to this point, this isn't actually terrible news, because they can spin it into a "Wii Us are actually selling!" thing. Also a "Pokemon still makes us a metric and imperial fuckton of money!" thing.
Yeah, I just think it's totally crazy that to avoid serious legal trouble, EA may have to admit to the world "No, we didn't have any inside knowledge, we just knew - like most people who play our games - that it would ship broken."
But where is the line between hoping against the historical trend and outright lying? The people at EA had a pretty strong reason to suspect the game would be borked at launc but saw fit not to mention it. Where is the line between suspect and know? Because most battlefield fans pretty much knew it would be crap until at least the first patch hit.
PSN:Furlion
I'm a little surprised Nintendo hadn't beefed things up more before the bank launch, especially since it's the only way to get the last hundred-odd Pokes in X/Y and I'm sure everyone would want to download it instantly. Still, I guess this shows there's plenty of customers.
However, hilariously, while Nintendo "should be embarrassed", Valve is apparently looking out for us, judging by Reddit posts:
Switch: 6200-8149-0919 / Wii U: maximumzero / 3DS: 0860-3352-3335 / eBay Shop
No, it's all super serious, because everyone hates nintendo all the time forever, poor nintendo.
I know, right? Poor, poor Nintendo. The Tiny Tim of this Christmas.
Switch: 6200-8149-0919 / Wii U: maximumzero / 3DS: 0860-3352-3335 / eBay Shop
He's referring to an ongoing discussion at GAF where the thread title says that Nintendo should be embarrassed, but similar threads for the other service outages didn't have incendiary titles like that. And they discussed the seeming hypocrisy there too.