3 ms·

So now a company is required to have it in their name in order for it to be a 'back catalog', and since IBM doesn't have it in their name, the fact that they do

So now a company is required to have it in their name in order for it to be a 'back catalog', and since IBM doesn't have it in their name, the fact that they do a hell of a lot of work with older tech doesn't mean anything. It isn't about any insult, it's about the absurdity of calling GoG a backlog at all. What impresses me the most about your response is how my taking issue with a misunderstanding in the first place is pigeonholed as being insulted (because how could anyone disagree on the basis of the argument itself! of course I must be insulted).

seanflyon 12y ago
You are insisting that Good Old Games never primarily focused on old games. That is absurd. My first guess was that there was some miss-communication and tried to be extremely clear on what I was saying. Maybe I am still not understanding you. Are you actually arguing that GoG never had selling and maintaining a catalog of old games as its primary focus? My second guess was that you reaction was an emotional response to something. I am trying to understand your point of view. So far I have been unsuccessful.
- mreiland 12y ago
  As a rule of thumb, when you find yourself telling the other person what their argument is, you're generally involved in a strawman.
  - seanflyon 12y ago
    I apologize if I miss-characterized your position. Are you are insisting that Good Old Games never primarily focused on old games?
    - mreiland 12y ago
      Again with the bullshit, this conversation is over.
      - seanflyon 12y ago
        Asking what your position is is now "bullshit"? You are right, this conversation has been over for a while.