Freyr Oakenshield wrote:and a few posts later:
No elitism here...? Really?
Hello Freyr, I did read that one comment you made the earlier about, "one must be detached from reality if they don't realize a game will go on sale for peanuts", a comment that I felt was directed towards me really. But I avoided replying to you despite the fact that my comment is not about pricing of the game. It is in fact, about the choice of games that were chosen to be placed at a bundle where tens of thousands of users can obtain a large quantiy of the products in question, all at the same time because of a low price. However, I am questioning why these games were chosen, these are not games players will be able to grasp by obtaining them at such a fast rate, rather, it is none of my busines whether people will learn the game or not, so, I am not here to discuss that. I am here to discuss why these games were chosen. So here goes my reply, with these issues out of the way:
I'm not here to start an argument, but PLEASE stops nitpicking statements from my posts and actually quote the whole thing because you are actually changing the meaning of the whole post when you do this. My comments are nothing about elitism, and to be fair to your comment, since the reason you are replying to me is to address the issue of in your opinion, "elitism", then I shall say, yes, I've bought games (call of duty, indies, etc.) for pennies (figure of speech), and no one made a post about it. But my posts, again, are not about people buying games on sale, or cheap, which is where the whole misunderstanding is happening. Rather, my comments are really directed towards the issue on why was these particular games were chosen, and why is the whole bundle directed towards AGE games when other titles could have been added to the bundle? So is the issue really about distributing wargames to the masses, or is it about distributing these games in particular?
Whichever the answer, it doesn't matter, and to be honest my point is almost pointless now, now that something was simply about expressing an opinion, is now about an entirely different, irrelevant subject. I didn't expect for someone to make an insult at me directly when I didn't make comments at any particular persons. In fact, most of my statements are ambigious and can apply anything or anyone. That also means, technically, it can apply to no one, or nothing at all as well. But if someone really felt insulted by a statement that wasn't directed towards them the way keeveek felt then, "sorry, but not sorry", I don't understand what really he is trying to defend. Is he defending steam users or price equilibriums for games, or maybe both? Or perhaps my comment was too aggressive or harsh that he felt compelled to make a passive aggressive comment as he did? Well, does it matter if I know or not, no, not really, but I would like to know.
Revolution Under Siege Gold To End All Wars Espana 1936 Wars of Napoleon Civil War II Alea Jacta Est Birth of America II: Wars in America Thirty Years' War Pride of Nations Rise of Prussia Gold