The Bar Trial of Jack Thompson (part 4): Take Two Attorney Testifies Against Thompson

March 21, 2008 -

Background for today's testimony: James Smith was one of two Blank Rome attorneys who testified against Jack Thompson in his November, 2007 Bar trial. Smith, along with Rebecca Ward, represented Take Two Interactive and other video game industry defendants in the $600 million Strickland vs Sony lawsuit which Thompson filed in Alabama.

It was upon a motion filed by Smith and Ward that Judge James Moore, in November, 2005 revoked Thompson's pro hac vice (visiting) right to practice law in Alabama, essentially throwing him off the Strickland case, which alleged that a 2004 triple cop killing was prompted by the 18-year-old murderer's play of Grand Theft Auto.

(Smith and Ward filed a Bar complaint against Thompson and were called to testify at his trial.  In the excerpted transcripts, SMITH is Smith. JT is Thompson, TUMA is prosecutor Sheila Tuma and DT is Judge Dava Tunis, who is presiding over the case…)

TUMA: Explain to the Court why you filed your Bar complaint in this matter against Mr. Thompson.

SMITH: [Our complaint deals] with a history of the most offensive, abusive conduct that I have ever encountered in the 25 years or so that I have been a lawyer... I continue to get e-mails. I think I got one last week from Mr. Thompson. They have the same menacing tone, the same offensive quality to them. Nothing, in my view, has stopped him and I expect that when I leave here today that he will bombard me -

JT: Your Honor -

SMITH: -and my law firm with more e-mails -

JT: Your Honor, motion to -

SMITH: -because that's what he does.

JT: Your Honor, motion to strike. That's conjecture.

DT: Overruled.

JT: Overruled?

DT: Yes, overruled. Continue.

TUMA: Can you explain to the Court what effect Mr. Thompson's conduct has had on you?



SMITH: Your Honor, I have never experienced anything like this before and I have been in some pretty tough fights... This is so far beyond the pale, it's unimaginable. This man on a routine basis accuses me of participating in fraud, in the mental molestation of minors, in the most offensive, disgusting things that you could possibly imagine, and he does it all with absolute impunity... You can't imagine what it's like - well, I guess you can, because I hear he sued you, too - but it's difficult to imagine that this could go on.

It had nothing to do with the practice of law. It's horrible. It's absolutely horrible. He makes reference to my mother and father. He makes reference to my partners. He just makes baseless, absolutely insane allegations, and he does it continually... We have a filter in our law firm now so that his e-mails only go to certain people.

JT: Your honor, move to strike because he was asked how it has affected him and then he went to using words that I'm insane, that I have sued you, and so forth. So I would ask that you move to strike his non-responsive answer. The question was, how did it affect him.

DT: Overruled.

(Thompson begins to cross-examine Smith...)

JT: Mr. Smith, let's go to, if we may, your motion to revoke [my Alabama pro hac vice admission]... (Thompson reads from Smith's motion) "Further, Thompson failed to fully inform the Court and the Alabama State Bar of the complete history of his disciplinary proceedings in his home state of Florida." What did I fail to tell [Judge Moore's] trial court and the Alabama State bar?

SMITH: Well, what we have alleged in the brief, sir... It reads: "...the true material facts regarding Thompson's history of disciplinary complaints to the Florida Bar are far more complicated than set forth in Thompson's carefully worded letter to this Court. Far from simply accepting a public [1992] reprimand for violations of Florida ethical rules, Thompson instead caused a Florida Judge and the Florida Bar to question his mental capacity, resisted efforts to hold disciplinary proceedings, engaged in abusive invective against anyone he saw as his opponent, including the Courts themselves, and attempted to absolve himself of his misconduct by casting himself as the defenseless victim of a nebulous and far reaching conspiracy headed by his political opponents.

(Thompson then focused on the mental health issue, reading several paragraphs from a letter to Judge Moore's Court...)

JT: Now, why didn't you put [what I just read] in your characterization of what I had done improperly that I was reprimanded for [in 1992]?

SMITH: Why didn't I put it in?

JT: Yes. Since you wanted the Court, I guess, to fully understand what it was I had done 13 years prior; but you didn't have anything, did you, in your motion -

SMITH: Mr. Thompson, I'm going to ask you to step back. Step back.

JT: I'll step back when the court asks me to.

DT: Let's do this. We have a podium that's pushed over... Let's have all parties utilize the podium.

SMITH: Thank you, Your Honor.

DT: All right.

JT: What were you afraid of, Mr. Smith?

DT: Okay. That's inappropriate.

JT: No. It isn't inappropriate, Judge. I don't mean to argue with you, but I'd like to know what Mr. Smith is concerned about.

DT: Mr. Thompson, I'm going to ask you to please utilize the podium as it is -

JT: I'm going to utilize the podium, Judge, but I would like to know why Mr. Smith asked me to step back.

DT: I'm not going to require him to answer that question...

JT: I think the door was open on that because -

DT: There's no door open. Please continue with the questioning.

JT: And just for the record, Judge... Mr. Smith says that this has all impacted him and it seems to me he's afraid of me. So I wanted to ask him about that.

(there was much back-and-forth and numerous objections regarding Thompson's past issues with shock radio personalities... Thompson wants to know if Smith learned of these issues in his research on Thompson's 1992 issues with the Bar...)

JT: Did you find any evidence in any news reportage suggesting or indicating that the nature of - if there was, in fact - a series of death threats received by me and my wife?

SMITH: I don't recall.

JT: Would you be surprised if that had happened?

TUMA: Objection, Your Honor.

DT: Overruled. Go ahead, sir. You can answer.

SMITH: Would I be surprised if there were death threats against you?

JT: Orchestrated by the talk show host.

SMITH: I don't have the basis to have an opinion...

(followed by more sparring about what was contained in Smith's pro hac vice revocation motion to Judge Moore...)

JT: Mr. Smith, you're asserting, are you not, that the reason that I brought and sought certain federal relief was to forestall the disciplinary proceedings. You don't know what was in my mind, do you?

SMITH: Well, it's true that I don't know what is in your mind, ever, Mr. Thompson. That is a true statement.

JT: That's clever. Now answer the question.

SMITH: But I don't. That was the question, "You don't know what's in my mind," and I answered it.

JT: How do you know that my purpose of seeking the federal action was to forestall the disciplinary proceedings as opposed to getting federal relief for what I thought were inappropriate proceedings? You don't know that.

SMITH: Because I have a brain.

JT: I beg your pardon?

SMITH: And because it's exactly the pattern that you used here.

JT: What pattern here? Where?

SMITH: Running, suing everybody in sight who doesn't agree with you, seeking -

JT: Oh, so you -

SMITH: You cut me off again.

JT: Okay, Mr. Smith. You go right ahead. I'll give you as much rope as you want.

SMITH: Is that a question?

JT: No. You go right ahead, I said.

SMITH: Okay. It's exactly what you're doing here, Mr. Thompson. Exactly.

JT: Go right ahead.

SMITH: I'm finished.

(following this are numerous pages of back-and-forth about the circumstance which led Smith to file the pro hac vice revocation motion in Alabama... there is a discussion regarding one of Thompson's television appearances, the 60 Minutes appearance with the late Ed Bradley which Thompson so often refers to...)

JT: So your position is that I violated the canons of ethics in Alabama by going on "60 Minutes" about this?

SMITH: No, Mr. Thompson... you violated [rule] 3.6 when you said what you said on "60 Minutes." When you -

JT: That was my shorthand way of -

SMITH: When you went on "60 Minutes," at that moment in time, you hadn't opened your mouth yet. It's when you opened you mouth and said the things you said -

JT: Mr. Smith, you're -

SMITH: Excuse me. You're cutting me off again.

DT: Let him finish...

JT: So your testimony is that my going on "60 Minutes" and saying what I said about the [Strickland vs. Sony] civil case was an ethics violation. Is that right?...

SMITH: To be more precise, your going on "60 Minutes" and saying what you said allowed us to present to the Court in Alabama that there was an ethical violation. It was the Court in Alabama that found that it was an ethical violation...

(after some legal arguments, Thompson moves on to Rockstar's Bully...)

JT: Is it your position, Mr. Smith, that I shouldn't communicate with the media about Take Two's Bully game?

SMITH: It was my position - and still is my position, Mr. Thompson, that you, like every other officer of the Court, are required to discharge your duties in accordance with whatever rules are applicable. Therefore, I would need to know what it is you were contemplating saying about Bully and in what context. So in a vacuum, I can't answer that question. Certainly - I'll stop here.

JT: I'm not asking you that... Were any of the letters I wrote anybody about the Bully game - which in my opinion is a Columbine simulation made by your client, and there is litigation about that here in South Florida - that the letters you have regarding that violated the Canon of Ethics in Alabama?

SMITH: Mr. Thompson, we would need to go through the letters that are attached to the appendix so that I could refresh my recollection.

JT: Okay.

SMITH: Judge, I hope you can appreciate - I get eight, 10, 12 e-mails a day from this guy. I couldn't keep track of them all.

JT: Come on. Eleven e-mails a day. Are you saying that under oath?

SMITH: Mr. Thompson, I want you to listen to me very carefully.

JT: I'm listening real carefully.

SMITH: I'm absolutely saying that under oath.

JT: Eleven e-mails a day.

SMITH: Well, I'm sure there was a day when I got 11. I didn't count them all. They were so plentiful that our law firm had to engage in a system to screen them because you thought it was appropriate to enlist my partners in your cause.

JT: Well, if you were confronted with the situation where you thought somebody's law firm was acting improperly, would you consider alerting the head of the firm to that?

SMITH: Mr. Thompson -

JT: Would you?

SMITH: The point is, there was no basis for you to make those scurrilous allegations.

JT: Why don't you answer the question?

SMITH: They were scurrilous, false accusations...

JT: If you were confronted with a situation, Mr. Smith, in which a law firm you felt was involved - and I'm asking you this hypotheticaly - in unethical, illegal conduct, would it be appropriate to alert the head of the firm to that?

SMITH: It would depend if there was a factual basis to the concern... In this case there was none, as found by Judge Moore.

JT: Move to strike.

DT: overruled.

(as he did with Judge Moore, Thompson raises the issue of a parody website site for the the PSP game GTA: Vice City Stories. Smith seems unaware of it...)

JT: This is a letter to the Judge, Judge Moore. "Judge, I told you and I told Mr. Smith weeks ago, that his client, Take Two Rockstar, was and is still targeting me on its official website as supposedly the head of the decency organization called C.U.N.T.F.L.A.P.S., which is an acronym for Citizens United Negating Technology For Life and People's Safety. How clever they are. Pornographers are smarter that the rest of us, far smarter than the people of Alabama, they think." ...Do you have an opinion as to whether or not your client had that posted at  its corporate website?

SMITH: Yes...

JT: So did they post it?

SMITH: No.

JT: They didn't have C.U.N.T.F.L.A.P.S.?

SMITH: No, Mr. Thompson, this activity had nothing to do with me certainly, my law firm and certainly my client. I don't know about these websites that you get on and you communicate with people and people communicate with you that go far beyond the control of the people that we were required to control...

JT: Are you telling me that this was not at http://www.rockstargames.com/?...

SMITH: ...I will tell you that I have no knowledge that our client was involved in it and I have absolute knowledge that neither I nor any member of my law firm had anything to do with... this distasteful, disgusting word or acronym that appears here, despite the fact that you accused me of having been involved in it...

DT: The question is, did Rockstar. Is that a corporation?

JT: That's a defendant in the case... Take Two is the parent company of its wholly-owned subsidiary, Rockstar... My question is whether or not you know even now whether or not this material was at your client's website...

SMITH: I believe it was on a website. My best recollection, Judge - is that - and Miss Ward is going to be a witness and she's more factual on all this information than I am; but my best recollection is that people were able to come on to the website and make entries and that our client was not involved in this...

JT: Do you know who Colin Powell is?

SMITH: I've heard the name.

TUMA: Objection, You Honor, to the relevancy.

(there ensues a discussion, the upshot of which is that Thompson reads into the record some of Colin Powell's thoughts on the moral degradation of society, which leads Thompson to...)

JT: My question was... to Mr. Smith whether or not his parents would be proud of what he facilitates - that is, the distribution of this stuff to children. You took offense at that. Right?

TUMA: Objection

DT: ...He doesn't need to answer the question.

JT: You were offended by my referring to your parents -

TUMA: Objection...

DT: Sustained.

(there ensues more discussion about the Alabama case, broken up by an odd interaction with another attorney in the gallery...)

JT: Should I have gone into the mental health exam demand issue by the Florida Bar?

TUMA: Objection; asked and answered.

DT: Sustained. I'm sorry. I'm going to ask anyone that's in the audience not to speak out loud.

JT: He's not in the audience. He's here assisting me. I apologize.

DT: He's in the audience.

JT: He's here to assist me.

DT: And he's in the audience.

JT: Well, I -

DT: Sir, I'm going to have to have you removed from the courtroom, which I do not want to do...

JT: He won't say anything.

DT: ...Excuse me, Mr. -

JT: [Miles] Gopman...

GOPMAN: No, no, I'm leaving.

DT: Mr. Gopman, you are welcome to -

GOPMAN: I'll leave, Your Honor. I've seen enough. I've seen enough. That's okay...

DT: Let the record reflect that Mr. Miles Gopman has chosen to leave the courtroom and the Court was going to explain to him that he's welcome to stay... as long as he does not speak out from the gallery, interrupting the proceedings.

JT: Let the record also reflect that Mr. Gopman left; and I like your bailiff, but your bailiff was moving towards him to remove him.

DT: And I told my bailiff... there's no problem with Mr. Gopman sitting here, but he cannot speak out from the gallery.

JT: And, Your Honor, I'm not allowed to stand within 10 feet of Mr. Smith because of his concern... Mr. Gopman probably didn't appreciate your bailiff, who is a very nice gentleman, coming forward... He's also got his own harassment problems from the Florida Bar. So he left, for whatever reason.

(several more pages of argument ensue before Smith wraps up. As he is leaving...)

SMITH: I don't know if it's appropriate to ask this but I'm going to ask it anyway. Is there any way we could ask for relief to stop the e-mails, at least until this hearing is over? I don't know if you have the power to order that?

JT: No, she doesn't.

DT: Sir, I need to deal with one legal matter that's in front of me at a time.

SMITH: I understand. I hope you can appreciate my -

JT: That's a nice touch, Mr. Smith. I appreciate it. Are you going to take down from your client's site the references to me as a bisexual -

DT: Mr. Thompson, stop, stop.

JT: No. Your Honor -

DT: This Court is going to be in recess for a lunch break.

JT: Your Honor, are they going to take their comments down about me being a bisexual pedophile on their client's site?

(...but the session was over.)   


Comments

First, Mr. Smith asks Jack to step back. Then, he tells him to step back. In my 'hood, the third move involves a can o' whupass.

egads... he's giving me a headache with his line of 'reasoning'.

It's obvious that the Judge has become tired of Thompson's antics. Her Ruling will be against him and his licence will be revoked. I propose that day to be the first holiday of the Church of the Gaming Gods. LAN parties and online gaming will abound! We shall revel in the joy of shared gaming! Praise the Gods, my brother gamers!

@Testocules

Everyone needs to get a copy of & play SOME Take-Two/Rockstar game. Preferably GTA or Bully would work.

This is comedy gold. Jack's madness, with all his stalking of certain people like a jilted high school girl with his numerous emails, met with cold hard reality. The real world just hit Jack HARD.

Can someone please explain how anything Jack has done in any of this has fallen even remotely into the category of "Civility", "Decency", or even "Respect due to another human being"?

Man I love this Smith guy even more then moore, is it customary for judges to be so witty?

GP: Smith did give JT all he could handle... However, Smith is not a judge. He's the lawyer for Take Two in the Alabama case...

@Jack Thompson:

You think if Mr. Smith had stepped to you, Miles woulda had ya back? I dunno. He seemed pretty quick to bail when that bailiff stepped to him. Sounds like he was his car and heading east on 836 before Judge Tunis got to, "Let the record reflect . . . ."

Did he REALLY pronounce the acronym C.U.N.T.F.L.A.P.S out loud IN the courtroom?

Is there anyway the complete transcripts will be made available?

If anyone is wondering what this whole Rockstar parody website/accusation that Thompson's a bisexual pedophile, here is the link you need:

http://gamepolitics.livejournal.com/87105.html

Not surprisingly, Thompson's basis for his complaint stems from his seeming inability to comprehend what he reads.

What the site says:

"Only last week, I was using the internet to look up some information for my 15 year old niece, who is a keen water skier and state wide sailor. Trust me when I say this - searching under the subject matter "Teenage girls water sports" is not for the faint hearted.”

How Thompson interpreted it:

"When you click on the fake e-mail… you will find that JT (Jack Thompson) likes to surf the Internet for pictures depicting deviant sex acts by teenage girls."

It's been over two years and he still doesn't get it.


Andrew Eisen

This is seriously like a freak train accident and I just can't look away. Thompson has honestly mastered the art of hitting rock bottom and continuing to dig, and "I'm sure on some planet his style is very impressive, but his weak link is...this is Earth".

@Jack Thompson:

You gotta admit, Jack, you do have a reputation for flapping your lips.

okay is it wrong that I'm almost falling out of my chair laughing at each of these posts? seriously, I'm on the edge of my seat reading this and by the end I'm laughing so hard I can barely see. Thanks for making my week better GP :)

@GP ah, I was aware of that but not thinking straight. He was super smooth about it too, Tunis didn't have a single problem with any of smith's zingers but JT was getting sustained objections up the Jack Thompson. I would like to formally request Jack Thompson be allowed to post here until he's disbarred... at least within some reasonable limit, say 500 comments a week.

@GP:

Don't you mean 'Until' he starts threatening legal action? (With him its more of a question of 'when', not 'if' ... considering he'll sue you if you look at him crosseyed -- or even if you don't.)

@cullarn:

Seconded, but maybe the muffin basket will make her(it is her, right?) feel better.

@Blackend619:

I had to go look at the story just to make sure that wasn't made up/satire... I don't know why I thought it ever would be. Maybe I forgot this is JT we're dealing with, where we've long since said bon voyage to logic, reason, and 'do unto others', and has been replaced with 'I CAN DO WHATEVER THE F*** I WANT AND F*** THE REST OF YOU.'

@Andrew Eisen:

That's cool. He's about to get it. Sometime between now and the 21st of next month. Oh, yeah. He's gonna get it, alright.

GD, this is hilarious. I'm really hoping there's a part 5... As someone mentioned in a previous entry, a re-enactment of the whole thing as a mini series would be genius comedy.

Help! I've busted my gut! Call 911!

@jab49
I would like to formally request Jack Thompson be allowed to post here until he’s disbarred… at least within some reasonable limit, say 500 comments a week.

Yeah, but what would he do with the other 6 days, 23 hours, and 30 minutes?

GP: ...and every time I relent, it inevitably deteriorates into calls to ban him and threats to have everyone sued or arrested.

@Testocules
We already have Winter-een-mas.

@DarkTetsuya
With him its more of a question of ‘when’, not ‘if’ … considering he’ll sue you if you look at him crosseyed — or even if you don’t.


I'm waiting for the epic case of Jack Thompson vs. The World vs. Jack Thompson

@Xlorep Darkhelm

Try to find computers at the local library to continue posting from a different IP

Wow. WOW. He's like a 10 year old harassing his sibling in the back seat of the car. "I'm not touching you! Not touching you!"

@JDKJ

More like flapping his

I'm still laughing my ass off at him actually using C.U.N.T.F.L.A.P.S. in a court of law, as serious as a heart attack.

God, nothing has brightened up my days this week like reading these updates. Thank you, Jack Thompson, for being such a crazy fuckwit that brings us endless entertainment, for free!

Now Class, can someone tell me what Mr. Thompson did wrong? Anyone? How was Mr. Thompson not doing things a grown up lawyer should?

@teh conspiracy
It might be easier to list the things Jack didn't do wrong. I mean, the class DOES eventually want to get the opportunity to go home, eat dinner, and play with friends...

Wow... just, wow.

Based on what we've seen so far, there's only one possible ending to this. Okay, two if you count the "big net and a straitjacket" option... but I think that's more like wishful thinking on my part!

Did anyone else notice the bitter-sweet irony that Jack's partially in trouble for . . . being on 60 Minutes with Ed Bradley?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!

...WOW!

I'm gonna get a bunch of my buddies and parody highlights of this trial lol.

Wow not only is everybody aganst him, but hes acting like a total ass in court. What kind of lawyer is he?

@Japan-has-rape-games:

Parody? Who needs parody? Just assign parts and have 'em read word-for-word from the transcript. There's no way to improve on this stuff.

What was Mr. Smith afraid of? I fucking lunatic, that's what. I would quite literally be afraid that my life was in danger if I had Jack Thompson in my face, and it was clear that he was in a foul mood and that I was the target of that foul mood.

What indeed.

*A* lunatic, lol. Not me, him :)

JT reminds me of an incompetent Lionel Hutz.

JT: If I hear the words 'objection' and 'sustained' one more time, I think I'm going to scream!

TUMA: Objection!

DT: Sustained!

JT: ARRGH!

damn, talk about getting pwned in the courtroom

@Xlorep - I'm not convinced. I think Thompson is clueless that his career is in danger, I think this is fitting quite nicely into his persecution complex and that he feels that he'll be able to demonstrate one day that the entire world is "out to get him".

@Cattleprod:

Well hopefully the Florida bar will "pull the car over and tan his hide".....

... wait for it.... Figuratively speaking, of course.

SMITH: Mr. Thompson, I want you to listen to me very carefully.
JT: I’m listening real carefully.
SMITH: I’m absolutely saying that under oath.

Best thing I've read all day.

That transcript is full of zings.

@Takuan Daikon

I agree... but at the same time, I'm always wondering if Jack HONESTLY believes this crap he spouts from his second butthole.

If JT actually looses his license to practice law (which, to my understanding, is what's at stake here) will there be a nationwide/worldwide party among gamers celebrating the event? I'd happily eat a piece of cake & some ice cream at the news that JT has been dis-barred.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9iXC6rReZVc&feature=related

The song in that link is awesome. It is as awesome as the news of JT's disbarment will be, therefore it is fitting.

Apologies if anyone takes offense at this post, I was listening to it and had a stroke of inspiration.

@BMTelle

Don't forget to play some Take-Two or Rockstar game... like GTA or Bully while you are at it.

@Tyriku - I don't think the writers for Harvey Birdman could come close to the comedy in these excerpts. I mean even Mentok couldn't take JT's mind because he'd get lost in there.

JT: How do you know that my purpose of seeking the federal action was to forestall the disciplinary proceedings as opposed to getting federal relief for what I thought were inappropriate proceedings? You don’t know that.

SMITH: Because I have a brain.

JT: I beg your pardon?


Firstly thats a great one liner from smith. Secondly, is it my imagination or did jack seem confused at the concept of a brain?


Much earlier in this saga I predicted that after the trail he'd be seen sprinting down the street, wearing a half secured straight jacket & pursued by mental health nurses whilst screaming "AHAHAHA VICTORY IS MINE, GAMES ARE DOOMED!"

At the time I was joking, now I'm not quite sure if I wasn't prophetic...

This is possibly the funniest thing I've seen all week.

"DT: Overruled.

JT: Overruled?

DT: Yes, overruled."
Jackie got OWNED!

@Xlorep - "I agree… but at the same time, I’m always wondering if Jack HONESTLY believes this crap he spouts from his second butthole."

He has to. No sane person could spout that stuff as fast and furious as he does without fundamentally deep problems.

I mean, with that kind of spontaneous and bizarre rhetoric, he could totally pwn the stand-up comedy circuit for decades if he knew it was B.S. He'd be rich enough to freakin' BUY Rockstar.
 
Forgot your password?
Username :
Password :

Poll

Should 'Hatred' have been removed from Steam Greenlight?:

Shout box

You're not permitted to post shouts.
PHX Corp@Adam802 We'll break out the popcorn in June12/19/2014 - 9:23pm
ZippyDSMleeMaskedPixelante: I'm itching to start it too but I will wait till the patch goes live. >>12/19/2014 - 7:52pm
Adam802Leland Yee and Jackson get trial date: http://sfbay.ca/2014/12/18/leland-yee-keith-jackson-get-trial-date/12/19/2014 - 5:24pm
MaskedPixelanteNevermind. Turns out when they said "the patch is now live", they meant "it's still in beta".12/19/2014 - 5:07pm
MaskedPixelanteSo I bought Dark Souls PC, and it's forcing me to log into GFWL. Did I miss something?12/19/2014 - 5:00pm
Matthew Wilsonhttp://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/12/republicans-may-have-plan-to-save-internet-providers-from-utility-rules/ this is intreasting. congress may put net nutrality in to law to avoid title 2 classification12/19/2014 - 2:45pm
Matthew Wilsonhttp://www.polygon.com/2014/12/19/7421953/bullshit-cards-against-humanity-donated-250k-sunlight-foundation I have to admit I like the choice o organization. congrats to CAH.12/19/2014 - 1:51pm
E. Zachary KnightIf you are downloading a copy in order to bypass the DRM, then you are legally in the wrong. Ethically, if you bought the game, it doesn't matter where you download it in the future.12/19/2014 - 12:06pm
InfophileEZK: Certainly better that way, though not foolproof. Makes me think though: does it count as piracy if you download a game you already paid for, just not from the place you paid for it at? Ethically, I'd say no, but legally, probably yes.12/19/2014 - 11:20am
ZippyDSMleeAnd I still spent 200$ in the last month on steam/GOG stuff sales get me nearly every time ><12/19/2014 - 10:55am
ZippyDSMleeMaskedPixelante:And this is why I'm a one legged bandit.12/19/2014 - 10:51am
ZippyDSMleeE. Zachary Knight: I buy what I can as long as I can get cracks for it...then again it I could have gotton Lords of the Fallen for 30 with DLC I would have ><12/19/2014 - 10:50am
MaskedPixelantehttp://www.joystiq.com/2014/12/19/marvel-vs-capcom-origins-leaving-online-storefronts-soon/ Speaking of "last chance to buy", Marvel vs. Capcom Origins is getting delisted from all major storefronts. Behold the wonders of the all digital future.12/19/2014 - 9:59am
MaskedPixelanteSeriously, the so-called "Last Chance" sale was up to 80% off, while this one time only return sale goes for a flat 85% off with a 90% off upgrade if you buy the whole catalogue.12/19/2014 - 9:37am
E. Zachary KnightInfophile, Tha is why I buy only DRM-free games.12/19/2014 - 9:37am
MaskedPixelanteNordic is back on GOG for one weekend only. And at 85% off no less, which is kind of a slap in the face to people who paid more during the "NORDIC IS LEAVING FOREVER BUY NOW OR FOREVER HOLD YOUR PEACE" sale, but whatever...12/19/2014 - 9:28am
InfophileRe PHX's link: This is one of the reasons the digital revolution isn't all it's cracked up to be. There's also the flip side where Sony can block access to games you've bought if they ban your account for unrelated reasons. All power is theirs.12/19/2014 - 8:52am
MaskedPixelantehttp://uplay.ubi.com/#!/en-US/events/uplay-15-days You can win FREE GAMES FOR A YEAR! Unfortunately, they're Ubisoft games.12/18/2014 - 6:29pm
Papa MidnightAh, so it was downtime. I've been seeing post appear in my RSS feed, but I was unable to access GamePolitics today across several ISPs.12/18/2014 - 6:06pm
james_fudgeSorry for the downtime today, folks.12/18/2014 - 5:54pm
 

Be Heard - Contact Your Politician