Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
OS X Best Mac Games?
- Thread starter ricmcgmr
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
This is very sad but truth be told, the games I have put the most time in with are Full Deck Solitaire and World of Warcraft on the Mac. I own a ton of great Mac games but I keep working on the Windows games backlog I brought with me some three years ago now when I became enlightened. Actually, I became the beneficiary of an early pension disbursement and within days ordered the iMac I'd wanted for years. The rest is history as they say.
By the way, how about these fancy updated forums? Seems pretty cool to me so far.
By the way, how about these fancy updated forums? Seems pretty cool to me so far.
You're right, critical thinking is important but not something you appear to be doing. It's important to read what others post before responding in a blind fury with things you yourself appear not to have read. You ultimately just undermine yourself and waste everyone's time - including your own.
Articles are informed opinions, which is more than you've been willing to do with what you've expressed in most of your posts thus far. As for the idea that you can find articles to contradict any article I may reference - you are creating a false equivalency. Just because you can find a dissenting view doesn't mean it has authority on the subject or makes a solid argument and is somehow equal to any other view. Again what is it informed by? Are you really going to post some unknown author from a no name website (as you have here) and expect that he or she speaks with the same authority and professionalism on the Android market as someone covering it from Forbes? Let's look at the absurd content of some of these pieces:
If you had bothered to read this carefully and follow the link you'd realize this report (which there's no actual link to and doesn't appear to exist) by Starforce is untrustworthy, as the company sells "software for developers to secure their applications." One thing Starforce does say is:
"While there is no comprehensive Android piracy study, every developer estimates its rate."
http://www.star-force.com/press/articles/index.php?news=2520
So the company that is attributed with a quote (which appears to be bogus) about knowing the state of the industry says no one knows the state of the industry. Interestingly they also go on to support the idea that piracy can act as PR.
Now lets take a look at some of the other pieces you have, usually citing one or two developers, usually the exact same ones (hmm what great promotion) who tell us they've been burned by pirates.
http://www.trustedreviews.com/opini...-a-problem-but-developers-shouldn-t-jump-ship
This piece very much like the rest you linked, takes one developer's self estimate on piracy and tries to blow it up to epidemic proportions:
"95 percent of the downloads of said release on Android hadn't been paid for."
But unlike some of those other pieces which uniformly act as press releases from the developer, with little to no scrutiny or questioning of anything they say, here there is at least some (though, very little) transparency on how those numbers were arrived at. The developer Ustwo admits that its figures of piracy didn't include Amazon making them near meaningless given the size of Amazon. We also don't know if they include free copies that were done as part of a promotion or users installing the same legitimately paid for app on a second or 3rd or 4th (family) device.
Further did you ever question why these types of articles pop up on 3rd rate websites all the time? And when you go to sites like Forbes, the NYTimes, the Economist or anything else with some real journalism you get a closer inspection of what is being said:
http://www.economist.com/node/3993427
http://freakonomics.com/2012/01/12/how-much-do-music-and-movie-piracy-really-hurt-the-u-s-economy/ (Both of these cover some of the fallacies of the BSA you link to)
Most of your articles just emphasize the larger issue of piracy on Android vs. Apple, but I've already stated my agreement that piracy is larger on Android than Apple. The reason why is at question here and the conclusion these developer puff pieces always reach for is the lack of DRM. Well sorry but the correlation of weak DRM on Android does not equate to the causation of piracy. There is much stronger evidence (which I've already provided) to suggest it is simply an issue of the low end market Android represents, (shocker poorer people may be more likely to take something they can't afford than those that can, and if they don't have the ability to steal something just don't buy it thus they're using Android junk phones instead of Apple).
As for the Microsoft, Adobe, etc pieces you've linked, I've already accused you of uncritically regurgitating the propaganda of multinational corporations so I don't get why you're furthering my point again here.
You might need to take more time reading and writing than linking or searching. I've linked articles to support what I say. It is not a substitution for an argument itself, as you're doing with your post. However your distain of informed and critical argument should be clear to anyone reading your posts by now.
Providing crap resources to justify gullible views is no substitute for the rigor of critical thinking substantiated by clear evidence.
Cheers.
Last edited:
Yes we are at an impasse. Even when text is underlined and bolded for you, it still isn't enough to make you read or understand it nor do you read or examine links - including your own.
1) You had some claims (piracy doesn't function as PR and Android has piracy because of low DRM) which was disproved with my argument and the evidence I used to support it.
2) Your rebuttal of links to poor sources that present fictitious citations and even undermine your own claims (on PR) is no substitution for a well supported, well articulated argument.
I value journalism that has some integrity and actually bothers to question and investigate the press releases companies hand them and not simply act as publicists. This seems perfectly reasonable of me.
1) The developers in question weren't big players.
2) Nearly the same 2 developers were in all of your links making their cries of piracy with zero inspection look like a PR stunt more than something to be taken seriously. Ustwo even admitted to the fallacy of their claims by acknowledging some of the things the data didn't take into account.
3) The sites themselves did not question or inspect the developers statements to validate them in any way thus acting as little more than publicists. You couldn't get the same story into a trusted source this way.
1) The BSA is a lobbying and trade association not a journalistic institution that tries to present a factually accurate story.
2) Citing the BSA is absurd. You might as well ask Philip Morris if cigarettes cause cancer.
3) Any institution is susceptible to influence - that doesn't mean they are. At the same time comparing the journalistic standards of something like Forbes or the Economist to the generic and slanted sites you listed is another ludicrous false equivalency. (You haven't googled this term by now?)
1) It wasn't fact checked by the ghetto sites carrying the story. In some cases (gamasutra) it is simply his posted open letter with no intermediate at all - to which he admits helped to increase his sales.
2) This was the same small developer making the rounds on all the 3rd rate sites you linked making his story appear more like a PR campaign for his game than some victim of piracy.
3) None of these articles address the actual cause of piracy on Android. Making your inclusion of them a red-herring.
1) Yes I'm impervious to your poorly articulated, poorly supported, poorly sourced claims.
I got that point. I have nothing to say on the subject, as all of my posts have constantly reiterated what a waste of time worrying about piracy is.
Oh well, I should pay more attention to my own statements; This is internet
Yeah it might be more reasonable to detail your views, cite credible sources, substantiate your claims, and meaningfully address the opposition before expecting people to naturally agree with you.
Last edited:
Criticizing your views is not the same as insulting you personally. There's a distinction. If it's upsetting to hear that someone finds your views naive, unquestioning, uninformed, gullible etc and provides you with a thorough and informed argument as to why - then maybe you should a) get better views or b) not post in the first place.
1) Considering you cite lobbyists as sources of evidence along with reports derived from companies that have a vested interest in selling anti-piracy software, why should anyone care about what you find to be "good journalism?"
1) You don't read your own links never mind the ones I provided that dispel this myth.
1) Everything is an anecdote to you. This is another red-herring. It shouldn't matter what anyone's personal feelings are if the evidence is to the contrary. As has already been explained to you this is not a matter of subjective feelings this is about carrying a true or false belief. Namely whether piracy is something that a) can act as PR and b) what causes piracy to be so high in the Android market.
2) My personal feelings are that I don't care about piracy and those that scream about its importance have vested interests (as your links demonstrated) in convincing the public it's a problem for them when in fact it has more to do with the policies and practices of the businesses themselves. Maxis closed this year not due to piracy but due to a broken DRM crippled release of Simcity and the policies of EA (link already provided). HBO's piracy is high because they don't release shows at the same time in other countries nor do they have options like HBO Now available outside the US (link already provided). Example after example shows the same trend. All of which have been covered already but anyone reading your posts by now should understand reason and evidence don't inform your views as much as a bleeding heart to a sob story and obedience to the official narrative of piracy spun by multinational corporations (as your links to Microsoft and Adobe demonstrated).
Last edited:
If there's a constant to your posts it's their failure to make distinctions. In this case between you and your writing.
You can believe that but you'd be wrong. I'm well aware of your inability to discern the difference between those that speak with substantiated claims, expertise and authority and those that don't.
Linking to Forbes and The Economist is doing YOU a favor as they're generally pro business and therefore more likely to support business issues rather than scrutinize and be critical of them. That should tell you something about the claims they are challenging AND something about how unreasonably charitable I am to use them as a source against your farce of an argument.
You on the other hand are so inept as to link papers from ACTUAL lobbyists which have zero credibility as they are LITERALLY the definition of a paid shill.
I simply have some scrutiny as to what informs me and don't carry childish notions that all sources are somehow on equal footing to one another and it's simply subjective as to which one is more credible. There are good sources and bad, any reasonable person should be able to understand this. However not being able to distinguish the difference and not understanding the criteria of integrity that separates them certainly goes a long way in explaining why your views are as flimsy and incompetent as they are.
Yes some sources (like journalism) care about truth while others are paid not to (lobbyists).
There's ample evidence not to care about it because we as the public are substantially less responsible than the businesses themselves for the predicament - as case after case has already shown, having been repeated many, many, many times to you by now.
Your concern was addressed. It is an anecdote, a red-herring and should not be confused with the sources that actually cause or influence piracy.
Somehow I doubt you won't bludgeon our eyes with another failure of reasoned argument.
Last edited:
Appeal to bandwagon: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum
I'll happily change my views when a well informed, well articulated argument presents itself. It's simply the case that either a) you aren't capable of presenting one, b) you don't value presenting one or c) both a) and b).
My money is on c).
You use false equivalencies like a teenage boy uses a box of Kleenex (zing).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_equivalence
If there is another side to "the story," that's credible and worthy of attention you certainly aren't presenting it, mostly because what you've presented is largely anecdotal, misleading or literally paid propaganda from lobbyists.
http://www.wikihow.com/Make-a-Logical-Argument
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies
http://www.dailywritingtips.com/what-does-sic-mean/
Last edited:
Well, I did not insult anyone, in any way. You won't find any post of me insulting anyone from 2011 that I joined this forum. However, you're right on all the rest.
I deleted (emptied, can't really delete them) my remaining posts. Thank you.
Last edited:
Don't sell yourself short, you're clearly taking a personal swipe here:
I wasn't offended by it. It was the last resort of someone without a compelling argument to make.
I'm not sure why you've repeatedly shown up here to mother this thread - it's not yours after all. The author hasn't complained - I'm not sure why you feel the need to (I'd guess you bear some relation to the past removals).
Further this thread was on the 2nd page heading for death before the piracy/DRM tangent brought it back to life. Threads are conversations, they can drift from where they start. They're not chapters in a book.
This concern also begs the question why if you don't find the discussion valuable do you seem to keep following it? This isn't Disneyland, we're all adults, people are free to disagree with each other and carry on about their disagreements. There would be nothing worth writing otherwise. What kind of critical exploration happens in a thread with everyone agreeing with each other exactly? I think I've done more than my part to bring some critical thought and substance to the topics gone over here. Hopefully that's enjoyable for some to read even if it's not you.
Besides I'm sure there are more than enough threads on macrumors that could match your criteria for the banal. Although your own threads would undermine that interest, including what you've posted about being fed up with Steam - not exactly a love fest. Should I parent you on 'a proper way' to express your distaste or say it doesn't matter, it has no value, etc.? I don't think so.
To misconstrue that joke as an insult is deceitful on your part. Clearly in the context I was responding to, it was satirizing antonis's lame attempt at derisive hyperbole. Among other things, you would blatantly have to ignore the (zing) and
to take it as some serious attempt at injury.Poorly supported, poorly articulated, poorly scrutinized views need berating - we wouldn't want someone reading such ignorance and mistaking it for anything else.
Don't falsely attribute me with this kind of fiction. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
You're out of line here. You're not a moderator, your not the author, and this discussion is supposedly not of interest to you. So find something better to do with your time than monitoring and playing cop to it - it's not a contribution.
I'm sorry, I did not mean you about that. I meant that in reference to the quote right above it.
We don't agree. However, I am not interested in arguing endlessly with you about anything. It is very, very rare I do this but welcome to ignore. Sorry, but I just don't have time for this.
This is what I advocated you do from the beginning - at least now you'll be forced to do it.