Sep 3rd 2010 7:08PM 1. 38 studios IS a small business. This guy is a moron, if he's going to speak out against the loan, at-least speak out about the fact is 75 mil.
2. Why is this even news? All this is, is more political natter trying to take advantage of under/misinformed people.
3. Hilarious tag.
Aug 30th 2010 9:06AM Many, many times i have hijacked newbies for a joyride way above a section of the beach in the noob area in CoV. They can't die from the fall damage, but they do go down to 1hp. Surrounded by about 20 mobs.
Aug 25th 2010 9:33AM Ok you know the Trojan horse?
Basically that, in client form. Also, a helluva lot easier to fall for then a giant wooden horse.
Jun 20th 2010 10:25PM Perhaps because its something newer (not really, but from a technical standpoint) then the other games?
Jun 3rd 2010 6:06AM @LaughingTarget
Nearly every fantasy game out today has ripped off dungeons and dragons in some way, shape, or form(And even some non-fantasy games). Dungeons and dragons ripped off things before it.
That, and D&D came out in 1974. The first final fantasy came out 13 years later, in 1987
May 26th 2010 5:18PM Scratch: The Ultimate Guitar Hero
Apr 29th 2010 9:22AM lolwut
Apr 26th 2010 3:22PM Also, why was this not dismissed? The judge needs to be fired for incompetence.
Oh and:"On November 23, 2009 Datel sued Microsoft for antitrust violations. Microsoft responded with a motion to dismiss, claiming that because of a provision in a section entitled "Additional Terms and Conditions" buried in the product warranty, consumers agreed at the time of their Xbox purchase that they would not use unauthorized accessories.
In its 31-page ruling, the Court rejected this argument, finding that those terms and conditions were at best ambiguous and did not support Microsoft's contention. Indeed, if Microsoft's reading were accepted, it would be impermissible to use the Xbox with a variety of accessories not manufactured by Microsoft, including televisions and music players. The Court rejected Microsoft's reliance on Apple v. Psytar , in which Apple succeeded in dismissing antitrust claims based on a provision in the Mac OS user license restricting the use of the software to Apple computers. Unlike that case, here there is no clearly binding contractual restriction and it is not possible for a consumer to forecast all of his or her accessory needs at the time of the initial purchase."
Who the hell hired this court?