Lightor

It’s possible it’s not an excuse. I’m in software eng. Doodles and on the fly flow charts are made all the time. It’s much easier to follow a complex topic if you have something to point to. Especially when trying to tie together concepts, like interplay between services, timing, DB, APIs, etc.

… Changing outfits in BL has often, for a long time, in most costumes, just been color changes. Not real customizing.

Yeah, not just being diffent colors of the same hero was a really nice change.

That’s a fair call on Tiny Tina being a spin off, but with it and the movie kinda tarnishing the name it seems like a bit of an uphill battle.

3 did well, but the game before and after it didn’t. Add in people having less money to throw at this stuff and it being “a real fans” price, possible exclusive deals, etc. I just think it’s putting up it’s own road blocks constantly. The franchise isn’t hot and it’s fresh off the Borderlands movie joke.

IMO They should fire this wide and fast, keep the price low and sell it everywhere, earn back that trust and good will. Make people fall in love with BL again.

I’m not sad anymore but due to a branding deal I always crave a fresh bag of Lays chips. That crispy fresh flavor with just the right amount of seasoning hits the spot every time. Lays, betcha can’t eat just one. Anyways, at least I cry less now. You wanna get some Lays?

They are objectively less popular with the newer stuff.

Tiny Tina’s Wonderland is at 25% for recent reviews, 70% overall. That’s not glowing. And with their new ELUA a lot of people are planning to boycott. I don’t think Borderlands has the pull it once did.

She’s bringing the right energy

It’s cool to be wrong bro, people are wrong all the time and they’re fine.

lol

I don’t understand what you mean, but it sounds like you hate 'merica!

Ok boomer

I’m a software dev and it should only take 7.

Yeah, Nintendo seems to think they are untouchable. They can do whatever, charge whatever, not even innovate anymore with the Switch 2, and attack fans. I’m done with Nintendo, the only way I’ll ever play any of their games is on the high seas.

I think UBI would actually solve a lot of issues, the creative communities’ financial struggle being one of them.

The cases where large companies do win won’t make news though. “Large companies settles with individual” isn’t really headline material now, is it?

Ok, and not every time a person wins there’s a headline either, this is a moot point.

Also, small companies != people. Neither me nor you are a company and even small companies have significantly more resources available to them than someone who just created the next Lord of the Rings and didn’t see a penny.

So, what is your point? People can win against big companies, even over IP. It has been done before, if you want I can list a bunch for you. I just researched to make sure I wasn’t off base. You don’t always have to have the most money to win. You know why? Because of IP law, the very thing you want to destroy.

There are significantly more companies who would rather start killing politicians than see IP law gone. They rake in billions of shareholder value, much moreso than any AI company out there.

Ok, and? Because a company makes money due to X doesn’t automatically make X a bad thing. I’ve not seen one good plan laid out on how destorying IP would help the common man, it doesn’t.

I never argued that copyright law is necessarily wrong or bad just because we went millenia without it.

No, but you are clearly implying something with “Copyright didn’t exist for millenia. It didn’t stop authors from writing books.” This ignores that those authors couldn’t have their work downloaded and spread across the globe in minutes. You are bringing this up to prove a point, but give how much things have changes over the last few hundred years, the point falls flat. It is irrelevant once you look at all the nuance and reasons why and how they were able to create.

What I am arguing is that these laws do not allow people to create intellectual works as people in the past were no less artistic than we are today - maybe even moreso.

They do allow them. They allow them to make money off of their art. Back in the day you didn’t have an interconnected global economy, you didn’t have to worry about retirement or your 401k, of course it was easier back then, late stage capitalism didn’t set in. But IP laws are what protect creators these days, so they can take a year off of work and write a book and still be able to eat.

Have you seen the impact of IP law on science? It’s horrible. No researcher sees any money from their works - rather they must pay to lose their “rights” and have papers published. Scientific journals have hampered scientific progress and will continue to do so for as long as IP law remains. I would not be surprised if millions of needless deaths could have been prevented if only every medical researcher had access to research.

Yes, absolutely a good point. But because a system is broken is not a reason to get rid of it. The legal system is broken and millionaires just get away with crimes, should we just get rid of all the laws? No. We should work to make them better.

IP law serves solely large companies and independent artists see a couple of breadcrumbs.

Source needed. Because this is a bold claim, that based on what I can find, is not true. People sell IP to companies all the time, so yes they then benefit from it, but the creator of the IP gets paid.

You brought up how lives have probably been lost because of scientific journal IP. How many lives do you think will be lost when big pharma realizes there’s no money in creating a vaccine for a new disease? Who is making that investment? The govt? lol

Abolishing IP law - or at the very least limiting it to a couple of years at most - would have hardly any impact on small artists. It would directly impart them! The small artist who had a good beat or came up with some slick lyrics would have them jacked. Every production company would be scrapping small artists looking for what they could take or steal, with 0 impact. This also goes with authors and writing books. How can they sign a book deal when a publisher can’t guarantee it won’t just get copied and given away? They now have no reason to pay authors.

They do not benefit from IP law - so why should we keep it for the top 0.1% of artists who do?

They ABOLUSTLY do benefit from it, you’re just looking at it as a “less money needs less protection” lens which I highly disagree with. A small artist can have a lot going for them and miss their opportunity because they were stolen. Or they were sampled and never for paid but the person who sampled them got rich. I mean there are dozens of ways to see why this would be a problem. The least of which is, why even make music or movies anymore? If every movie and song ever created can be legally pirated, companies just stop making them.

IP laws help everyone. EVERYONE. Just because companies make money off of them doesn’t make them bad. Just because small creators don’t make a lot of money doesn’t mean they shouldn’t own what they create. Everyone in favor of this just seems to want stuff for free without realizing the impact of that choice, it’s extremely shortsighted.

I never argued that copyright law is necessarily wrong or bad just because we went millenia without it.

Which the parents pay for… They just don’t know what words mean anymore.

Yes, I have.

But how exactly does getting rid of IP laws since that exactly? Because that’s what’s being proposed.

Small companies have defend themselves from Apple. People make money from their inventions and writings. There are tons of examples. You’re creating this idea of unbeatable huge corpos that isn’t true. They don’t always win, you can easily prove with with a 1 minute Google search.

They also don’t want it just because of AI, this would enable them to steal and mass produce any IP anyone makes. This includes physical inventions.

Also copyright didn’t exist for a long time and neither did the Internet or global trade. Times change. We went millennia without many things, it doesn’t automatically make them wrong or bad. What a silly basis.

This is a bad faith argument.

Forms of IP have existed for a long time. And back in your days you didn’t have one company that could have global reach in second.

You still ignore the fact that if I spend 5 years of my life writing a book, it could be taken away with no money to me. So people can no longer dedicate their lives to creating when they have bills to pay.

Yes, and I think this is how it should be looked at. It is a hyper focused and tailored search engine. It can provide info, but the “doing” not as well.