I'd agree about both Call of Juarez 1 and 2, but all of their other games have been met with mixed reviews and not-super-fantastic sales.

I don't get how this studio still exists. Call of Juarez went down the drain, Dead Island wasn't very well received from what I could tell, and now they have both another Call of Juarez game and this thing in production? How is this possible?

Well, in some ways, I would say that's incorrect. As someone who worked at a high-profile studio, the studio itself didn't have any guns. They would go to the local SWAT team and take high resolution photos of every gun at every angle possible and then make a library of those images.

That's a fair point. Why should you have to pay to represent a real-world product in your game? As they note, no literary author is going around paying licensing fees to auto manufacturer's if they decide the protagonist drives a Subaru.

That's what I've been saying all along. Most of the sources for Xbox information are working off of dev kits, which often have different requirements than the final, consumer ready version.

No worries, happens to the best of us.

Actually, it's important for developers to be held accountable in cases of false advertising.

That sounds generally good. My biggest issue with AC3 was environment reuse. Each city felt the same and I didn't have the same excitement I got from exploring Rome or Constantinople.

Did I ever say they are automatically crap?

I'm glad someone finally understood the point I was trying to make.

Yes, I've played each and every one of them. Assassin's Creed 2 and Brotherhood were excellent, but there was a sharp decline in quality from there as the 2 year development cycle set in for the studios. I do not anticipate Black Flag to be much better.

As much as I anticipate this, I'm already disappointed to know that if it reaches any modicum of success, Ubisoft will start pushing it out on a yearly basis just like they did to Assassin's Creed.

But they aren't even using that photo. They may have ripped it off, but one is a digital photo manipulation while the other is 3D assets on top of a photo manipulation. In essence, they recreated the photo, which means they don't have to credit because nothing of the photo is present except for the idea. Maybe…

I guess the point being, the words the autor uses aren't important. What's more important is the message.

But some people don't pray. So no, that's not accurate or appropriate. If you do pray, and they are in your prayers, that's wonderful and kind of you to care for them in that way.

I would love to be watching it, but it comes out in over a week.

Just out of curiosity - I'm sure some sources have requested payment for the information they have provided, considering the risk providing such information would usually put them in.

How has the response been positive? Two influential members resigning? Setting a trend against GDC networking events and parties?

Public shaming can be effective and it has it's uses - I don't think, in this situation, I would describe the people who were offended by dancers at a night club as being activists.

They definitely do, and I never implied that they didn't.