Juno McGrath
Smash Hero
So Chivalry is amazing. Got it for a steal (9.99)
Welcome to Smashboards, the world's largest Super Smash Brothers community! Over 250,000 Smash Bros. fans from around the world have come to discuss these great games in over 19 million posts!
You are currently viewing our boards as a visitor. Click here to sign up right now and start on your path in the Smash community!
sounds good especially for a game based off a television series/comic book.As it turns out, The Walking Dead is fantastic. One of the best games I've played all year.
http://www.extreme.outervision.com/psucalculatorlite.jspAnyone know where I can look for what wattage a power supply needs to be for my build?
Yeah, use motion joy is you want to mess up your drivers.Pretty much any major release uses the 360 controller on PC as default. Best way to use a ps3 controller is motionnjoy emulating it as a 360 controller. So yes.
It actually doesn't have that much of a connection to either. About three characters that appeared in the show or comic are in it, and I think that all of them are introduced in the first episode.sounds good especially for a game based off a television series/comic book.
Not really. The games have a marginal cost of 0 or near-0 so, at least in theory, you're never paying too much. However, in practice, the idea is that you can get more money from people who would otherwise not pay for these games at all; I tend to pay above the average just because the price is low. Most of the time, these are games I otherwise would not purchase (e.g. Saints Row The Third from the Humble THQ Bundle).Maybe I'm nuts, but the Humble Bundle just rubs me the wrong way. I'm either ripping developers off, or a sucker for paying too much.
I'm sick of hearing this nonsense. What makes PC gamers "entitled?"Pay-what-you-want just swells PC gamers' already over-inflated sense of entitlement.
Any evidence for this at all? THQ's stocks rose 40% after putting their games on the Humble Bundle, and typically quite a bit of money is made from these bundles in general.I want the indie market and PC market to thrive and the Humble Indie Bundle is just bad for business. I don't know why any dev would participate without a minimum price.
inb4 you have no clue what the **** you're talking about.inb4 charity. If I wanted to give to charity, I would give to charity. I don't need people giving away their goods for pennies on the dollar to motivate me to do so.
Correlation does not imply causation, and I'm not even sure if it's technically correlation. I doubt that investors give a rip about the Humble Bundle.Any evidence for this at all? THQ's stocks rose 40% after putting their games on the Humble Bundle, and typically quite a bit of money is made from these bundles in general.
If it was so bad for business,why would they have been doing them since May 2010?The Humble Indie Bundle is just bad for business.
The THQ Bundle raised over 5 million. That's not bad for business.Wikipedia said:Several of the bundles have brought in over $1 million; the fourteen completed bundles as of August 2012 have raised more than $19.5 million.
There's a correlation between ice cream sales and drowning.Haha, you have to be kidding me. The stocks went up almost immediately after the Humble THQ Bundle launched.
There's really nothing more annoying than the non-constructive poster who goes around accusing everyone of confusing correlation and causation. Seeing as "that only proves correlation!" is a universal fallback argument equivalent to sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting, I don't really know what to say. If it rained in Tennessee the day the stocks rose, and I said that the rain in Tennessee caused the stock to go up, I'd say you had a point. But a 40% increase in stock prices following the release of the bundle, when the bundle was specifically intended help THQ with their financial problems in the first place, suggests a causal relationship.There's a correlation between ice cream sales and drowning.
I think you're overthinking this, but then again, so am I. Let's just drop the subject, it's not going to go anywhere pretty from here.I don't think I ever called it a fact, though I think you're pushing into that sort of obnoxious, epistemologically nihilistic territory where you simply refuse to acknowledge anything as fact.