Elmlea wrote:They're fucking brilliant! Â And if you pay in money before 8pm, it's credited immediately! Â And like Starbucks, they remember my name!
What an odd thing to say. So, they're not designed to cause misery, they're designed to kill, maim and destroy property. And if that happens to lead to misery, well that's not their fault...Elmlea wrote:Nobody makes cluster bombs anymore, and no arms manufacturer makes anything designed specifically to cause misery, fyi.
I think we can safely say pretty much all loss of life causes misery. I also think trying to separate 'intent' from 'almost inevitable consequences' is disingenuous.Subjectively, any loss of life has the chance to cause misery, but that's not the design intent of any weapon
Fair point.Aaroncupboard wrote:So this thread has gone slightly off-topic...
Conversely, that's what I find interesting about it. They make video games, in a lot of cases, people love those companies. I wouldn't be voting for them either, but they've done a hell of a job managing to piss people off so much.JonB wrote:but the idea of going for an entertainment provider that tried to squeeze a bit of extra money out of folk, or gave slightly iffy customer service wouldn't cross my mind.
From my own experience I don't really know how 'bad' EA are (only played a few of their games in recent years), but such is the internet and its denizens that this kind of backlash could just as easily come from a bubble-dwelling vocal minority who have a propensity to wind themselves into a frenzy about not all that much. So it ain't necessarily the case that EA have had to be all that awful to provoke such a reaction. But then again it could be. I dunno.I_R wrote:Conversely, that's what I find interesting about it. They make video games, in a lot of cases, people love those companies. I wouldn't be voting for them either, but they've done a hell of a job managing to piss people off so much.
regmcfly wrote:Are EA really worse than Zynga?
JonB wrote:Wasn't one of the reasons cluster bombs were eventually banned because of the rather large percentage of child deaths they caused, and one of the reasons cited for that that the bomblets were designed to look like colourful baubles that children would be attraced to?
Good figures, but silly figures. Â The reason EA can buy up smaller companies is because they're minted. Â The reason they're minted is that their games are popular. Â We can argue until the cows come home about cynical money-making tactics, but people are buying them. Â Large swathes of the owners of those 226.95 consoles couldn't tell you which of their games are published by EA, let alone what EA did to sell them, and wouldn't feel even vaguely aggrieved if they found out.Elmlea wrote:I can't find numbers of how many people have lost their homes due to Bank of American doing something dodgy, but EA's particularly schoolyard levels of greed affect 95.85 million Wii owners, 67.2 million Xbox 360 owners and 63.9 million PS3 owners.
I don't wish to carry this on here either. It's easy enough for anyone to Google something like 'cluster bombs look like toys' (without quotes) and read through the relevant results.Elmlea wrote:I won't drag us off topic again, but no, cluster bomblets were never designed to look like colourful baubles, nor were they ever designed to attract children! They look like little bombs, and there were some weapons that had some bomblets that acted as mines and didn't detonate immediately (runway denial weapons for example) but normal cluster bombs are all instantaneously fused and designed to detonate on impact. The smaller payload often resulted in a higher failure rate, but it's unlikely they'll randomly explode in the future if the fusing mechanism stops them detonating when they're meant to.
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!