Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ...
3
4
5
  1. #81
    Quote Originally Posted by SexyManipulator View Post
    Hahaha what a lowly answer. ANYONE who has gone to university would know that wikipedia is not a good source for anything, because anyone can edit the content of the articles. I'm not surprised that you haven't been to uni, or that that uni sucked. The logic behind this is really very simple.
    Wrong, Wikipedia is heavily monitored and sourced. You can check any source in wikipedia and if you disagree with it then fair game. Feel free to attempt to add your own.

    But Wikipedia can not just be 'edited by anyone' and it's not a bad source for simple information.

    If I go on Vladimir Putins page and delete everything and put that he's a murderous fuckface if it manages to go through it will be reversed in minutes, maybe even seconds.

    Sure it has some stuff that manages to hide but rarely.

    Wikipedia is a good source of general information, because it has a list of sources of information at the bottom of the respective page. Therefore being a collective of...sources of information.

    Now is it a good source for in-depth, specialised information? No. You won't be able to complete your degree on wikipedia, the specialised information simply isn't there.
    Last edited by Radaney; 2017-05-27 at 12:43 PM.

  2. #82
    Deleted
    Quote Originally Posted by Feardotdead View Post
    Wrong, Wikipedia is heavily monitored and sourced. You can check any source in wikipedia and if you disagree with it then fair game.

    But Wikipedia can not just be 'edited by anyone' and it's not a bad source for simple information.

    If I go on Putins page and delete everything and put that he's a murderous fuckface if it manages to go through it will be reversed in minutes.

    Sure it has some stuff that manages to hide but rarely.

    Wikipedia is a good source of information, because it has a list of sources of information at the bottom of the respective page.

    Now is it a good source ofr in-depth, specialised information? No. You won't be able to complete your degree on wikipedia, the specialised information simply isn't there.
    No. Wikipedia in many cases relies on open-source material (which can be edited by everyone, check the Burger King advertisement), and other times it is plainly incorrect. Wikipedia is meant to inform people of a certain topic, not to be the source for an argument itself. I will never accept Wikipedia as the basis of an argument, just as I won't accept DailyMail. If you want to do otherwise, you're free to do so.

  3. #83
    Quote Originally Posted by Swalload View Post
    Who is Blizzard with? Activision. Who else is in there? Bungie. What is Bungie making? Destiny 2. What is Destiny 2? MMOFPS.

    Thank me later.
    IF you look at the first art for Titan it looked way more like destiny and it was rumored to be a kind of apocalyptic earth with space travel involved....no matter what they say, it feels like the project looks way lot more like what destiny is right now, and destiny 2 coming to blizzard app....yeah. No way blizzard will build their own mmo fps someday it wont happen.

  4. #84
    Deleted
    Blizzard isn't really dominant in most genres so youre wrong. Their thing is online quick/casual games.

    They have no solo story games at all, Bethesda is really dominating there, they have no sports games, no racing games, no turn based strategy games, economy simulators etc etc. In fact, Overwatch isn't even a true FPS, it's more like Team Fortress.

  5. #85
    Quote Originally Posted by jon234 View Post
    Because understanding a merger is hard https://www.engadget.com/2009/04/12/...-not-blizzard/

    Because multiple sources https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Activision_Blizzard

    Let the article from 2009 explain what the merger did.

    Oh and Activision Blizzard buying themselves out https://thebottomline.as.ucsb.edu/20...or-8-2-billion

    So again, essentially Activision Blizzard is now completely an independent company being a publisher aspect and the other things being the dev side and their other departments.
    So, your argument is the moon is round, because the sky is blue.

    Okay!

    LOL.

  6. #86
    Blizzard will not be making another MMORPG. They have realized that the genre is dying, and is no longer close to being as financially lucrative as they once were. To give you an idea, today, it would cost $500 million to produce an new state of the art MMORPG that is advanced as WoW was when it was released. Blizzard decided to simply write off a $50 million loss, which is what they had already spent on the Titan project, rather than pursue such a project any further.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •