What are you saying? If someone pays you for a product, you sold it. Therefore, it is a sale. What is the confusion, here?

I agree with most of what you're saying, but why do we have to assume anyone lied? They were and are planned features. Maybe they led us to believe they'd be there on day one or soon after, but perhaps they were meant to be and things haven't gone so great.

Well, again, it's a story and I think it's being well-told. I don't think they shouldn't have done the rape scene or anything else. It's the story they are choosing to tell. I hope it has some meaning moving forward, but if it doesn't, it still informs the audience about the characters.

All that said, I would rather…

First of all, "retarded" is an unnecessary word to use in this situation. Perhaps you should think more about how your words affect those that read them. I assume, though, that you don't care.

I wasn't talking about liability or litigiousness. I was talking about decency.

Game of Thrones DOES have many modern day…

If you were having sex with a girl while she said "Please, no. Stop.", would you feel abhorrent and disgusting beyond measure? Or would you say it's okay because she didn't try to deter you?

I have no significant issue with the show's portrayal, by the way. It's their show and the storytelling is effective. Great show.

In my opinion, there should be no statute of limitations. It's very easy to speak about a piece of media without giving away important plot details. It's also easy to discuss specific plot details with those who have definitely seen the media. It's also easy to keep the spoilers out of the headlines / subject lines…

But you got everything that was promised to you. You got everything that you payed for. Then more stuff happened. It's not like, if they had initially announced the total amount of content that would eventually come, that they would have charged you the same amount for the season pass but given you more. If they had…

But, surely the content of the article should have some relevance to any comment one might have, right?

I gotta say, I think you are.

Are you... are you trying to start a Genesis/SNES flame war in 2014?

Luckily, many other companies will benefit from this investment other than OR. The tech and the format will be pushed forward by Facebook's money and desire, and other VR will greatly benefit. So, you'll benefit from this even while you pretend it wasn't Facebook that made it possible. Win/Win.

You're right. There are MANY who feel that way, and none of them can give a substantiated explanation as to why, other than blind paranoia. As far as I've seen, that is.

That line of thinking is unfounded and lacks any evidence to support it.

I'm happy to see some positivity. I agree with you completely.

You're literally just making that up. It's not based on one single fact or any shred of evidence.

I couldn't agree more. People are so quick to turn on their heroes. Those in charge, who were considered trustworthy just yesterday, did what they think is best for their vision. And there is no reason at all for me to think that Luckey is being anything but 100% honest in the article above.

I disagree with you. It does encourage it.

Triggers for up and down in addition to standard 3rd person controls, with shoulder buttons for shooting and d-pad to switch what the shoulder buttons fire. Seems alright.

That would be fair, but you seem to be making allegations rather than asking questions. Either way, they're not for everyone, but, of course, nothing is.

What I enjoy from the series, for starters, is the strange, wacky world of unique and absurd characters and the fact that it is all taken so seriously (and, in fact,…

You're admittedly uninformed, so why are you arguing? You needn't play this game, that's your prerogative. But why argue with people who know the series from experience and not "impression". These are code names and the game is meant to be silly and absurd in many ways. It's a very funny, but also very serious game.…