In case you haven't heard, they're making a sequel to "Star Wars Jedi:
Fallen Order" (that was the third-person Uncharted-style
action/adventure released in 2019).

Honestly, there's not much to say about the game yet and it really
doesn't deserve a post, except I'm just such a Star Wars geek that I
couldn't let it pass without mention. I rather enjoyed the 2019 game,
although I found it completely predictible in design; it had great
production values but wasn't innovative or imaginative in concept. And
- as much as I enjoyed the characters and story of the first game - it
didn't really seem to need a sequel. I don't have much hope of this
new game being much more than an attempt to milk the success of the
previous game.

I mean, I'll buy it, I'll play it and I'll probably enjoy it (when you
have Disney money to shove at a project, you can expect a certain
level of quality, after all) but that says more about my fanatacism
towards the brand and less about whether the game itself will be worth
buying.

But since there isn't anythng else to say about that topic, let's
focus on other news, such as how it "National Hamburger Day" in the
United States of America, which is one of those absolutely pointless
industry-promoted holidays designed to sell more beef... and I
absolutely adore it. More hamburgers for all, says I! All that beef is
unhealthy and is terrible for the environment, but damned if I can't
kick the habit. Don't look at me with those soft brown eyes, Bessie;
get on my plate where you belong! Nom-nom-nom!

Also, American politicians - despite there being no demand for it -
continue to prove their craveness by cosying up to the american Gun
Associations in a giant conference this weekend where they keep
suggesting the solution to the endless massacres in the USA is to arm
even more people. No, this topic still doesn't belong here, but damned
if I'm going to let the deaths of all those kids be forgotten just
because it makes people uncomfortable or is almost a week old. I don't
know what sickens me more; the politicians or that Americans keep
voting them into power.

On 29/05/2022 00:54, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:

> But since there isn't anythng else to say about that topic, let's
> focus on other news, such as how it "National Hamburger Day" in the
> United States of America, which is one of those absolutely pointless
> industry-promoted holidays designed to sell more beef... and I
> absolutely adore it. More hamburgers for all, says I! All that beef is
> unhealthy and is terrible for the environment, but damned if I can't
> kick the habit. Don't look at me with those soft brown eyes, Bessie;
> get on my plate where you belong! Nom-nom-nom!
>

I don't mind a quality hamburger (so none of the fast food outlets
count) but they aren't something I put on my list of things I look
forward to. A nice kebab (national day early July) is my choice for that
type of food.

Beef in general, I do like a nice steak but we trying and limit our
intake of for health and environmental reasons.

> Also, American politicians - despite there being no demand for it -
> continue to prove their craveness by cosying up to the american Gun
> Associations in a giant conference this weekend where they keep
> suggesting the solution to the endless massacres in the USA is to arm
> even more people. No, this topic still doesn't belong here, but damned
> if I'm going to let the deaths of all those kids be forgotten just
> because it makes people uncomfortable or is almost a week old. I don't
> know what sickens me more; the politicians or that Americans keep
> voting them into power.
>

Being from the UK I just don't understand why the US, well many of its
politicians, seem so close to the likes of the NRA. The impression I get
is that having weak gun controls is more of an ideology than anything
else and so it ends up in the category of doing anything about it won't
get you votes but it may lose you them.

Guns don't people, people kill people. Can I have a nuclear weapon then,
I promise to use it sensibly.

On Sun, 29 May 2022 08:03:32 +0100, JAB <noway@nochance.com> wrote:
>On 29/05/2022 00:54, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:

>I don't mind a quality hamburger (so none of the fast food outlets
>count) but they aren't something I put on my list of things I look
>forward to. A nice kebab (national day early July) is my choice for that
>type of food.

>Beef in general, I do like a nice steak but we trying and limit our
>intake of for health and environmental reasons.

Cows are awful... but they are SOOO tasty. Besides, anything with such
cute eyes deserves to be on a bun ;-)

>Being from the UK I just don't understand why the US, well many of its
>politicians, seem so close to the likes of the NRA. The impression I get
>is that having weak gun controls is more of an ideology than anything
>else and so it ends up in the category of doing anything about it won't
>get you votes but it may lose you them.

Reportedly, surveys indicate even most US citizens don't understand
its politico's love of the NRA, since most of the hoi poloi support
stronger gun control laws. Well, I mean, they probably /do/ understand
(the gun lobby has a lot of money and -as importantly - a highly
cohesive voting bloc they can rally to support or oppose a particular
candidate)... they just don't AGREE with the politicians.

>Guns don't people, people kill people. Can I have a nuclear weapon then,
>I promise to use it sensibly.

Guns aren't the end-all cause, of course not. It's also a largely
cultural problem, and an increasing desperation as resources are
unfairly divied up between those who have waaaaay to much and those
who are barely making by. Plus, as the old adage goes, if all you have
is a hammer, everything becomes a nail. Similarly, if guns are so
easily available, they are seen as an appropriate solution to a
problem even if more practical and sensible methods could be used.

Limiting gun ownership wouldn't cure the problems facing the US, but
it would limit the scope of the problem. It's a necessary first step;
cauterize the bleeding before you yank out the arrow.

On 29/05/2022 18:42, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
> On Sun, 29 May 2022 08:03:32 +0100, JAB <noway@nochance.com> wrote:
>> On 29/05/2022 00:54, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
>
>
>> I don't mind a quality hamburger (so none of the fast food outlets
>> count) but they aren't something I put on my list of things I look
>> forward to. A nice kebab (national day early July) is my choice for that
>> type of food.
>
>> Beef in general, I do like a nice steak but we trying and limit our
>> intake of for health and environmental reasons.
>
> Cows are awful... but they are SOOO tasty. Besides, anything with such
> cute eyes deserves to be on a bun ;-)
>
>
>> Being from the UK I just don't understand why the US, well many of its
>> politicians, seem so close to the likes of the NRA. The impression I get
>> is that having weak gun controls is more of an ideology than anything
>> else and so it ends up in the category of doing anything about it won't
>> get you votes but it may lose you them.
>
> Reportedly, surveys indicate even most US citizens don't understand
> its politico's love of the NRA, since most of the hoi poloi support
> stronger gun control laws. Well, I mean, they probably /do/ understand
> (the gun lobby has a lot of money and -as importantly - a highly
> cohesive voting bloc they can rally to support or oppose a particular
> candidate)... they just don't AGREE with the politicians.
>

That's the impression I get so it's understandable they candidates can
be rather coy on what their real views are.

>> Guns don't people, people kill people. Can I have a nuclear weapon then,
>> I promise to use it sensibly.
>
> Guns aren't the end-all cause, of course not. It's also a largely
> cultural problem, and an increasing desperation as resources are
> unfairly divied up between those who have waaaaay to much and those
> who are barely making by. Plus, as the old adage goes, if all you have
> is a hammer, everything becomes a nail. Similarly, if guns are so
> easily available, they are seen as an appropriate solution to a
> problem even if more practical and sensible methods could be used.
>
> Limiting gun ownership wouldn't cure the problems facing the US, but
> it would limit the scope of the problem. It's a necessary first step;
> cauterize the bleeding before you yank out the arrow.
>

I agree, there's a lot more to solving complex issues than just tighter
gun controls. As an example in the UK it was decided to change tact with
tackling drink driving. So besides making the laws tougher there was
also what can be best described as a fairly brutal TV campaign. So
instead of some talking head saying don't do this they went for graphic
and is some ways distressing images of, well children being hit by cars,
child bodies, graves etc. That's how to get a culturally shift.

Am 29.05.22 um 09:03 schrieb JAB:
> Being from the UK I just don't understand why the US, well many of its
> politicians, seem so close to the likes of the NRA. The impression I get
> is that having weak gun controls is more of an ideology than anything
> else and so it ends up in the category of doing anything about it won't
> get you votes but it may lose you them.
>
> Guns don't people, people kill people. Can I have a nuclear weapon then,
> I promise to use it sensibly.

Jepp literally every country which enforced tighter gun controls saw a
drop in shootings.
Sure you stil can go postal with a knife, but experience has shown that
in most cases you do not come very far.
Recent case in germany 2 years ago where people simply threw chairs and
backpacks at the attacker and held him off until the police arrived.
A knife always is subpar to anything lying around which can be thrown at
the attacker now with a gun it is a different issue.

On Mon, 30 May 2022 09:36:35 +0100, JAB <noway@nochance.com> wrote:

>I agree, there's a lot more to solving complex issues than just tighter
>gun controls. As an example in the UK it was decided to change tact with
>tackling drink driving. So besides making the laws tougher there was
>also what can be best described as a fairly brutal TV campaign. So
>instead of some talking head saying don't do this they went for graphic
>and is some ways distressing images of, well children being hit by cars,
>child bodies, graves etc. That's how to get a culturally shift.

That's the sort of thing America needs with its guns. Horrible as it
may seem, they need to show the bloodied bodies of those kids on TV...
repeatedly and in full gory color. Because otherwise its just another
headline - just another statistic - and easily forgotten as soon as
something new comes out to distract the Ameican populace. Its why I
hold all American politicians in such disdain; the one side actively
seems to support the body count but the other side doesn't take any
concrete actions - such as the above - to stop it. And at this point
I've only a little more respect for the citizens who empower them.

Incidentally America, there's been another mass-shooting; one woman
dead and seven more (including at least two kids) injured. Have you
written your politicians about the problem yet? You don't even have to
write it yourself; there are are form letters available where all you
have to do is print it out and sign it. Isn't the life of your kids
worth ten minutes of your time and the cost of a stamp?

Meanwhile, in less depressing and more gaming related news,
Activision/Blizzard reports that "Diablo Immortal" isn't being
released in Belgium or the Netherlands because - due to strong
anti-lootbox legislation - the 'operating conditions' just aren't
favorable to the corporation. Not being the biggest fan of the Diablo
franchise, nor any particular interest in a mobile version of the
games, I fail to see how that threat is in any way bad news. It just
is an indicator that the game will be heavy on microtransactions and
grind, and not worth playing.

Would more countries have useful legislation like that, AAA-publishers
might start making games more focused on providing an entertaining
experience than milking customers out of every penny.

On 30/05/2022 21:41, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
> Meanwhile, in less depressing and more gaming related news,
> Activision/Blizzard reports that "Diablo Immortal" isn't being
> released in Belgium or the Netherlands because - due to strong
> anti-lootbox legislation - the 'operating conditions' just aren't
> favorable to the corporation. Not being the biggest fan of the Diablo
> franchise, nor any particular interest in a mobile version of the
> games, I fail to see how that threat is in any way bad news. It just
> is an indicator that the game will be heavy on microtransactions and
> grind, and not worth playing.
>
> Would more countries have useful legislation like that, AAA-publishers
> might start making games more focused on providing an entertaining
> experience than milking customers out of every penny.
>

WoT got around that problem by just making it so you couldn't buy
lootboxes if you lived in Belgium. Admittedly it wasn't a good look when
the left a large loophole in it and their own community managers where
more than happen to post how to use it. Sometime later someone
presumably thought maybe that's not a good look so removed the most
obvious loophole.

Games as a service though, nah I don't like them and this is a good
example as to why. Fans of Diablo aren't get a new version, they're
getting a financial model wrapped-up in a game IP.

On Tue, 31 May 2022 09:06:44 +0100, JAB <noway@nochance.com> wrote:

>On 30/05/2022 21:41, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
>> Meanwhile, in less depressing and more gaming related news,
>> Activision/Blizzard reports that "Diablo Immortal" isn't being
>> released in Belgium or the Netherlands because - due to strong
>> anti-lootbox legislation - the 'operating conditions' just aren't
>> favorable to the corporation. Not being the biggest fan of the Diablo
>> franchise, nor any particular interest in a mobile version of the
>> games, I fail to see how that threat is in any way bad news. It just
>> is an indicator that the game will be heavy on microtransactions and
>> grind, and not worth playing.

>Games as a service though, nah I don't like them and this is a good
>example as to why. Fans of Diablo aren't get a new version, they're
>getting a financial model wrapped-up in a game IP.

Well, it is Activision/Blizzard after all, a company which has
increasingly proven itself to be more interested in its finances than
creating a product with any artistry or satisfying gameplay (if any
exists in their game, it feels almost accidental rather than the
primary goal). I'd love to say I was surprised that the company pushed
forward with "Diablo Immortal"- given how extremely poorly it was
received on announcement - but it's par for the course for that
corporation. "Screw what the fans actually want; just make a game that
can milk the 'whales' for every last penny" seems to be Kotick's
watchword.

On the other hand, it's an impressive feat to make ELECTRONIC ARTS
look like a reputable publisher and workplace. ;-)

On 31/05/2022 19:02, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
> On Tue, 31 May 2022 09:06:44 +0100, JAB <noway@nochance.com> wrote:
>
>> On 30/05/2022 21:41, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
>>> Meanwhile, in less depressing and more gaming related news,
>>> Activision/Blizzard reports that "Diablo Immortal" isn't being
>>> released in Belgium or the Netherlands because - due to strong
>>> anti-lootbox legislation - the 'operating conditions' just aren't
>>> favorable to the corporation. Not being the biggest fan of the Diablo
>>> franchise, nor any particular interest in a mobile version of the
>>> games, I fail to see how that threat is in any way bad news. It just
>>> is an indicator that the game will be heavy on microtransactions and
>>> grind, and not worth playing.
>
>> Games as a service though, nah I don't like them and this is a good
>> example as to why. Fans of Diablo aren't get a new version, they're
>> getting a financial model wrapped-up in a game IP.
>
> Well, it is Activision/Blizzard after all, a company which has
> increasingly proven itself to be more interested in its finances than
> creating a product with any artistry or satisfying gameplay (if any
> exists in their game, it feels almost accidental rather than the
> primary goal). I'd love to say I was surprised that the company pushed
> forward with "Diablo Immortal"- given how extremely poorly it was
> received on announcement - but it's par for the course for that
> corporation. "Screw what the fans actually want; just make a game that
> can milk the 'whales' for every last penny" seems to be Kotick's
> watchword.
>
> On the other hand, it's an impressive feat to make ELECTRONIC ARTS
> look like a reputable publisher and workplace. ;-)
>

In many ways I do have some sympathy for the big publishers as people
will still buy it and then open their wallets whenever a shiny carrot is
dangled in front of them. As someone once said people will start
producing more secure products when people stop buying products with
poor security.

On 6/1/2022 1:28 AM, JAB wrote:
> On 31/05/2022 19:02, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
>> On Tue, 31 May 2022 09:06:44 +0100, JAB <noway@nochance.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 30/05/2022 21:41, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
>>>> Meanwhile, in less depressing and more gaming related news,
>>>> Activision/Blizzard reports that "Diablo Immortal" isn't being
>>>> released in Belgium or the Netherlands because - due to strong
>>>> anti-lootbox legislation - the 'operating conditions' just aren't
>>>> favorable to the corporation. Not being the biggest fan of the Diablo
>>>> franchise, nor any particular interest in a mobile version of the
>>>> games, I fail to see how that threat is in any way bad news. It just
>>>> is an indicator that the game will be heavy on microtransactions and
>>>> grind, and not worth playing.
>>
>>> Games as a service though, nah I don't like them and this is a good
>>> example as to why. Fans of Diablo aren't get a new version, they're
>>> getting a financial model wrapped-up in a game IP.
>>
>> Well, it is Activision/Blizzard after all, a company which has
>> increasingly proven itself to be more interested in its finances than
>> creating a product with any artistry or satisfying gameplay (if any
>> exists in their game, it feels almost accidental rather than the
>> primary goal). I'd love to say I was surprised that the company pushed
>> forward with "Diablo Immortal"- given how extremely poorly it was
>> received on announcement - but it's par for the course for that
>> corporation. "Screw what the fans actually want; just make a game that
>> can milk the 'whales' for every last penny" seems to be Kotick's
>> watchword.
>>
>> On the other hand, it's an impressive feat to make ELECTRONIC ARTS
>> look like a reputable publisher and workplace. ;-)
>>
>
> In many ways I do have some sympathy for the big publishers as people
> will still buy it and then open their wallets whenever a shiny carrot is
> dangled in front of them. As someone once said people will start
> producing more secure products when people stop buying products with
> poor security.
>
But why make something with better security when no one else is and
people are buying it anyways? ;)

--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.