StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Satori wrote:UPS decides to drama lama, and the Stardock CEO follows suit.

My objection is more of the "adding flames to the fire doesn't help" line.

Though honestly, WHY SHOULD YOU CARE? if you like stardock games, buy from stardock, otherwise don't. one CEO's drama shouldn't matter.

CaptHawkeye wrote:Whatever Stardock. Those assholes haven't made a good game since GalCiv II anyway. If they're going to unviel themselves as easily butt hurt conservative retards then fuck em. These are the same people who laugh at the "silliness" of protest and boycotts when them damned liberals is doin it.

Brad Wardell, some choice quotes wrote:Look, I don't want to be harsh here but I don't really care whether people buy our stuff or not. I own Stardock as in 100% of it. I'm the shareholder. As you can imagine, I don't need the company at this point financially. If people boycotted Stardock to the point where it became financially unprofitable to continue making products and services then that would be the end of it and I'd do something else instead.
...
If people want to boycott my company as a result, that’s certainly their right. Of course, I suspect they assume that if their boycott were successful and I had to lay people off that I wouldn’t do so based on the ideology of the employee.
...
I could care less about UPS or anyone else boycotting Glenn Beck. I do, however, don't like the slippery slope of companies trying to bully others on political grounds.

I don't care what UPS's politics are. I do care that they are trying to force their ideology on another.

Look, I don't want to be harsh here but I don't really care whether people buy our stuff or not. I own Stardock as in 100% of it. I'm the shareholder. As you can imagine, I don't need the company at this point financially. If people boycotted Stardock to the point where it became financially unprofitable to continue making products and services then that would be the end of it and I'd do something else instead.tldr: fuck you, I have money, hahahaha

I could care less about UPS or anyone else boycotting Glenn Beck. I do, however, don't like the slippery slope of companies trying to bully people I agree with

I don't care what UPS's politics are. I do care that they have a different opinion than me.

Stark wrote:Man this is awesome. He's changed his public perception from 'developer obsessed with his fanfiction' to 'pompous conservatard' in a day.

If people want to boycott my company as a result, that’s certainly their right. Of course, I suspect they assume that if their boycott were successful and I had to lay people off that I wouldn’t do so based on the ideology of the employee.

LordOskuro wrote:So this guy is kinda like Richard Garriot, but without the funny crazyness?

No, I don't care whether you care or not. If you want to boycott Stardock products then knock yourself out.

Look, I don't want to be harsh here but I don't really care whether people buy our stuff or not. I own Stardock as in 100% of it. I'm the shareholder. As you can imagine, I don't need the company at this point financially. If people boycotted Stardock to the point where it became financially unprofitable to continue making products and services then that would be the end of it and I'd do something else instead.

A recent full-throated defense of Glenn Beck hasn't left Stardock CEO Brad Wardell with a shortage of vehemence. He lashed out at Games for Windows Live, its certification process and the payments it requires to keep games patched and running.

In an interview with Shacknews, Wardell was asked if he knew why Microsoft wasn't "showing more leadership" on the PC. Wardell - well, just let the man speak for himself. He's quite comfortable with doing so, after all.

"I started out as a big Games for Windows Live advocate. I intended for Elemental to be on Games for Windows Live, but then as we got closer, the Xbox group took it over more and more. And they have things where, oh, if you want to use Games for Windows Live to update your game, you have to go through [their] certification. And if you do it more than X number of times, you have to pay money. It's like, "My friends, you can't do that on the PC."

On the console, I don't have to update my game because an anti-virus program got an update and is now identifying my VB scripts as viruses and I have to apply an emergency patch. That would just add insult to injury. We've had to upgrade our games plenty of times over the years, not because we found some bug, but because some third-party program, or driver, or whatever screwed it up. If Games for Windows Live maintains that strategy and they take over, I'm done. I'm not making PC games. I would be done."

We've had to upgrade our games plenty of times over the years, not because we found some bug, but because some third-party program, or driver, or whatever screwed it up. If Games for Windows Live maintains that strategy and they take over, I'm done. I'm not making PC games. I would be done."

Darth Wong wrote:Why couldn't he just release emergency patches that are not certified under Windows Live, and allow the user to choose whether that matters to him?