IGN's tribute to 2012's closed game studios

[Ezuka]

Sorry if this has already been posted, but I thought it interesting to share.

http://www.ign.com/videos/2012/12/11/game-studios-we-lost-in-2012

[Rienuaa]

Those people flying up...

Right in the feels.

[JWBullfrog]

That... hurt.
 
Would somebody find those &*U^*^& Onion Ninjas already?

[redgiant]

I don't see content on that page, anyone know if IGN is one of those sites coded to not show content if you block their advertising providers (like I do)?

Wowhead acts like that too.

[Ezuka]

I don't see content on that page, anyone know if IGN is one of those sites coded to not show content if you block their advertising providers (like I do)?

Wowhead acts like that too.

I use ad blocker, and it loaded fine for me.

[faith.grins]

Please don't use adblock.  It's a parasitic influence on content generation for the web, and 99.99% of the truly obnoxious ads are removed by NoScript.

[Tenzhi]

Please don't use adblock.  It's a parasitic influence on content generation for the web, and 99.99% of the truly obnoxious ads are removed by NoScript.

I can't stand FireFox, and as far as I know NoScript isn't available for Chrome.  And given that in my experience I can't trust sites to weed out malicious ads I use AdBlockPlus. 

[Arachnion]

Please don't use adblock.  It's a parasitic influence on content generation for the web, and 99.99% of the truly obnoxious ads are removed by NoScript.

That is your opinion.

NoScript only blocks scripts, java, and flash, as far as I know.

Adblock Plus actually *removes advertising frames, thousands of versions of them*

 

[Ezuka]

Please don't use adblock.  It's a parasitic influence on content generation for the web, and 99.99% of the truly obnoxious ads are removed by NoScript.

I also use NoScript.

[faith.grins]

That is your opinion.

NoScript only blocks scripts, java, and flash, as far as I know.

Adblock Plus actually *removes advertising frames, thousands of versions of them*

 

And in doing that, it cuts revenue to the website which loads them. 

Malicious ads can do no damage if you don't allow their scripts to run.  The most obnoxious features of ads (pop ups, sounds, flashing lights) also don't load if you don't allow scripts.  It doesn't prevent the website from getting revenue from your view, since the ad frame still loads, it just prevents the ads that want to step beyond their boundaries from doing so.

Seriously, adblock is damaging to honest internet business models, like Youtube and Hulu.  Please don't use it.

[dwturducken]

I use AdBlock on a couple of my older machines, or the page never loads. Am I costing them revenue? Maybe, but at least I can load their site.

[faith.grins]

I use AdBlock on a couple of my older machines, or the page never loads. Am I costing them revenue? Maybe, but at least I can load their site.

That... is a philosophical debate.  I would argue you have no inherent right to view their website, and therefore your argument "I can't view their site without Adblock, therefore I should use adblock so that I can view their website," does not hold.  You shouldn't cause them to lose revenue just so you can view their content.

In any case, I'm clearly outnumbered here, I have made my argument concisely, and I'm obviously not going to convince you inconsiderate people to stop using a program which offers a false service and costs the internet at large a great deal, so I'm going to stop de-railing this thread.

Have a nice day.

[dwturducken]

Meh. I think the track may have ended on the original thread. I'm not trying to debate you; I have a technical reason for using it. When you raise the issue of "rights" when it comes to the internet, you're venturing into very shaky territory. If they want to limit the "rights" of someone to view their site, they need to put up a pay wall, but that gets into sticky territory, too.

Really, I think the argument of "robbing them of revenue" is a bit specious, but we can't see numbers on ad blocking software against traffic. I guess it's like most "rights" arguments WRT the internet: open to interpretation until a recognizable regulatory body starts making laws/rules that will stick regardless of regional or national boundaries.

[eabrace]

OK, putting on the moderator hat.

(My moderator hat looks slightly different from Agge's.)

I appreciate a good philosophical debate as much as the next guy, but it ceases to be a philosophical debate when you start labeling anyone who disagrees with your viewpoint.

That being said, we seem to have diverged a bit from the original topic at hand.  I would suggest returning to that, but if discussion of the ideas presented in the last few posts are going to continue, the labeling and namecalling needs to end now.  (If you come back to the thread later to find it locked, you'll know why.)

Keep it civil.

[dwturducken]

Sorry. I didn't realize I was name-calling. I'm actually interested in his/her viewpoint, but it is blatantly off-topic. I pretty much have nothing useful to add on the topic, though. 

Also, that's a pretty sweet moderator hat!

[faith.grins]

Sorry. I didn't realize I was name-calling. I'm actually interested in his/her viewpoint, but it is blatantly off-topic. I pretty much have nothing useful to add on the topic, though. 

Also, that's a pretty sweet moderator hat!

I'm reasonably sure the "Keep it civil," was directed at me and my use of the term "inconsiderate."

But, yes.  It is a glorious, studly mod hat, and I wish I had one as epic as that.

[eabrace]

I'm simply asking that we try to keep the discussion civil in general.  I don't want to specifically call anyone out for public shaming.

I just don't like seeing a notification that we have open moderator reports in my inbox.

That being said...

That hat does a wonderful job of keeping my head warm in the winter, but it draws some really interesting looks when I wear it while blowing the snow out of the driveway.

[dwturducken]

See, now I wanna see how long I can keep this line going...   

[faith.grins]

Weeeeellllll....
did you know that Viking helmets did not have horns on them?  Artists and writers didn't even start portraying them that way until the 19th century.  (The only known link between vikings and horned helmets is that early Iron Age Germanic tribes used some ceremonial headgear adorned with animal horns.  No such headgear has been found dating later than the 7th century, so it's unlikely that the vikings used them, but, hey, artistic license.  Oddly enough, that means EA's modhat is actually probably ceremonial in design, and therefore appropriate to use as a modhat.)

[dwturducken]

Also, the "banhammer" actually came from the old Microsoft Chat icons given to chatroom hosts. Doesn't make this image any less amusing, though.