Support NeoGAF

[LuvOfThaGame]

^ another violation for using derogatory condencending statement to other Neogaf member

And you still don't answer my question

You realize you can actually get sued for defamation/making false accusations right?

Sued? Rotfl. For a forum post? Rotfl. And people say xbox fans in xbox threads are defensive. This right here is the most over the top policing ridiculousness thing posted.

 

[Airbus Jr]

Sued? Rotfl. For a forum post? Rotfl. And people say xbox fans in xbox threads are defensive. This right here is the most over the top policing ridiculousness thing posted.

You seriously gona turn your eyes and ignore everything he said on this page?

And yes you can actually get sued for defamation even on forum post

https://www.minclaw.com/legal-resou...amation/defamation-corporations-partnerships/

 

[LuvOfThaGame]

You seriously gona turn your eyes and ignore everything he said on this page?

And yes you can actually get sued for defamation

It's his personal experiences with Sony products. I've had similar problems, myself. Especially with their TVs. I sold them as well and have seen lots of defects and total incompetent customer service support. Hell, the one PS2 I had at launch had the damn drive burn out. Going all the way back to Sony Walkmans being overpriced crap. I sold and serviced Sony Vios PCs. Don't even get me started on that bloated atrocity.

And you can't get sued for a forum post. Well, you can but it would get thrown out. You are being outlandish.

 

[Airbus Jr]

It's his personal experiences with Sony products. I've had similar problems, myself. Especially with their TVs. I sold them as well and have seen lots of defects and total incompetent customer service support. Hell, the one PS2 I had at launch had the damn drive burn out. Going all the way back to Sony Walkmans being overpriced crap. I sold and serviced Sony Vios PCs. Don't even get me started on that bloated atrocity.

And you can't get sued for a forum post. Well, you can but it would get thrown out. You are being outlandish.

Actually...you still can get sued for that...

And...perhaps..a little question here...

Are you defending the guy because he's on the same side as yours?

You know...i'm just curious..

 

[LuvOfThaGame]

Actually...you still can get sued for that...

And...perhaps..a little question here

Are you defending the guy because he's on he same side as yours?

You know...i'm just curious..

No. I have shared similar experiences. Im only on my side, so sue me.
I mainly chimed in because you actually threatened someone about getting sued on a forum. I was, and still am, amused. Carry on.

 

[Airbus Jr]

No. I have shared similar experiences. Im only on my side, so sue me.
I mainly chimed in because you actually threatened someone about getting sued on a forum. I was, and still am, amused. Carry on.

I actually didn't threat anyone and just letting him know about it ( legal consequences on internet)

Hes actually the one whos attacking me making personal insults calling other member 12 years old and fool and yet you choose to ignore that part

But carry on

 

[Vtecomega]

You seriously gona turn your eyes and ignore everything he said on this page?

And yes you can actually get sued for defamation even on internet

https://www.minclaw.com/legal-resou...amation/defamation-corporations-partnerships/

You seriously gona turn your eyes and ignore everything he said on this page?

And yes you can actually get sued for defamation even on forum post

Actually...you still can get sued for that...

And...perhaps..a little question here...

Are you defending the guy because he's on the same side as yours?

You know...i'm just curious..

You don't know much about the legal system then. Go ahead and report me to sony. Show them a screenshot of my comments, and lets see how far they get.

Luvofthatgame is just sharing the same experience as I have. As I am sure many people have...

And insulted you? Is your skin that thin? How do you survive in the real world? I called you out for being ridiculous and outlandish. Threaten to sue me? Do you not see how silly that sounds? You were in fact acting like a young kid that is offended over something trivial.

 

[Airbus Jr]

If you can show what you wrote is true, then the plaintiff's cause of action will fail. If the defendant proves that the defamatory imputations carried by the matter of which the plaintiff complaints are substantially true, the defamation action is defensible."

http://www.legal.unsw.edu.au/factsheets/defamation.html

People make critical comments about businesses every day. Look up any restaurant on Eatability for examples. This is accempted as fair comment.


You don't know much about the legal system then. Go ahead and report me to sony. Show them a screenshot of my comments, and lets see how far they get.

Luvofthatgame is just sharing the same experience as I have. As I am sure many people have...

And insulted you? Is your skin that thin? How do you survive in the real world? I called you out for being ridiculous and outlandish. Threaten to sue me? Do you not see how silly that sounds? You were in fact acting like a young kid that is offended over something trivial.

Defamation of Corporations and Partnerships
A corporation is defamed if material is published about that corporation that would tend to negatively impact its standing in the business in which it operates. Although a company or corporation is not considered to have a reputation in the sense that an individual does, statements that would impact the public’s view of a company’s financial soundness or managerial integrity are generally considered defamatory to a company’s business reputation. A company or corporation may sue for defamation if such statements would tend to deter others from dealing with it.

A not-for-profit corporation may also sue for defamation if it relies on financial support from the public and published material would tend to harm that corporation’s ability to raise money from the general public.

Partnerships may be defamed in the same way as corporations—that is, published material that tends to negatively impact the partnership’s ability to do business. Just as a corporation, a partnership’s business reputation may be impacted by how the public views its financial soundness, managerial integrity and its ability to deliver goods and services.

Neither a partnership nor a corporation is necessarily defamed by statements directed against the individual partners or individual officers or stockholders. Defamatory statements may harm the individuals’ reputations and have no impact on the business, or they may harm the business’ reputation and have no impact on the individuals. Such defamatory statements may lead to separate causes of actions for the business and the individuals. These issues are addressed in several court decisions, including People’s United States Bank v. Goodwin, 167 Mo. App. 211, 149 S.W. 1148 (1912); Brayton v. Cleveland Special Police Co., 63 Ohio St. 83, 57 N.E. 1085 (1900).



Elements of a defamation claim
For a corporation or a partnership to bring a claim of defamation, the plaintiff must meet the same elements as are required in an individual defamation claim. These are:

• The statement was published by the defendant, meaning it was spoken or distributed to at least one other person other than the plaintiff;
• The statement provides enough information that the plaintiff is identifiable;
• The statement harmed the plaintiff’s reputation in some way—in this case, the business reputation of the corporation or partnership.

Defenses
Defenses of a defamation claim also are similar to those relative to an individual defamation claim. Truth is always an absolute defense, and even if a corporation or partnership suffers harm, if the statements are true, it may not collect damages.

If statements are false, but are expressed as an opinion, a defendant may have a defense. However, just as in an individual defamation claim, how the statements are presented and whether they would be understood to be an opinion by a reasonable person will be taken into consideration when determining if the statements are defamatory.




Damages
Corporations may sue for defamation if they can show that the published material has caused them or is likely to cause them financial loss. If the required elements exist, a corporate plaintiff may recover presumed damages. This means that harm is presumed—no proof is required—in the matter, and a fact finder may assess an amount he or she deems is appropriate. Brown & William Tobacco Corp. v. Jacobson, 827 F.2d 1119, 1139 (7thCir. 1987); Dun & Bradstreet, Inc. v. Greenmoss Builders, Inc., 472 U.S. 749 (1985).

Corporations and partnerships may also pursue special damages in a defamation cause of action. In such a case, the corporation must show evidence of financial loss that stems directly from reputational injury that was caused by the defamatory material. These losses could include a decline in the value of the company’s stock.

The defamation tort as it applies to corporations and partnerships is complex and can ultimately involve multiple causes of action. The experienced attorneys at Minc Law can help you determine how these laws apply to your case.



Is Defamation of a Company on the Internet Legal?
The Internet and the forms of electronic publishing and communication it facilitates have provided an economic boon to many businesses. Whereas decades ago the forms of marketing available were broad based and didn’t allow fine targeting of markets, this changed with the Internet revolution. Today, companies and businesses can market broadly on general interest sites or extremely narrowly to focused niches on social media sites or based on user profiles on search engines like Google. Likewise, individuals the Internet has revolutionized communication for individuals by providing a global potential audience for all who participates.

However, despite the economic and communication benefits typically provided by the Internet, the web and its social media sites can also act as something of a double-edged sword. While businesses and marketers can spread their message easily, so can customers who have had a bad experience, fanboys and fangirls who are invested in a rival company’s ecosystem, and others who are simply looking to flame and attack the hard work you have invested into your product and services. Likewise, malicious individuals can use social media websites and platforms to slander and attack an individual for revenge or other reasons.

Thus, individuals and organizations ranging from small businesses to large corporations often want to know the actions they can take to protect themselves or their brand against baseless defamation. Furthermore, in instances where a false and defamatory review may have resulted in lost sales and decreased revenue, they may want to know whether the site and the poster can be held accountable for their actions.

The Internet Defamation Lawyers of Minc Law can work to remove the false, malicious, or vindictive review. Furthermore, we may be able to work to hold the individual user, and in some cases, the site accountable. To schedule a free and confidential consultation call (216) 373-7706 today.


Like in the Real World, Defamation Can Lead to Damages & Civil Liability
In our culture the First Amendment holds a special and elevated place. As such, many people frequently argue that the First Amendment entitles them to say anything they want, how they want, and when they want regardless of the consequences. However, the courts have long-held that the First Amendment is subject to certain limits reflected in the famous aphorism, “You can’t yell fire in a crowded theater.” While this illustrates one limit on free speech, it does miss the point in some ways in that the text of the First Amendment reads:

Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. [emphasis added]

Thus, the First Amendment applies principally to government restraints on speech. While initially applying to only the federal government, the amendment was later incorporated through the 14th Amendment to also apply to the states. Thus, when people assert their First Amendment right to speak falsehoods publicly, they largely miss the point of the protections that are provided. Furthermore, they miss the court’s longstanding willingness to impose civil liability that has always applied to forms of defamatory speech like libel and slander.


Who Can Be Held Liable for Defamatory Online Speech
While the individual user who actually writes and posts the defamatory story, comment, or report can always potentially be held liable for a perceived defamatory statement, the analysis is more complicated when it comes to the site or platform where the comment is posted. In many if not most cases, the defamatory statements posted online are often in the comment, review, and social platform sections of websites. In other cases, the site itself may be populated entirely or predominately with user-generated content. While many people feel that the site itself should be liable, the simple fact is that Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act provides broad protections to sites that host materials. This safe harbor protects the sites themselves from liability and often results in a counterclaim being filed against any company or individual who is unaware of this fact.

For sites that do not host user-generated content and rely on a traditional editorial model or are simply the views of a single person on a personal website or a site founded for a certain purpose, traditional notions of defamation law hold true. However, potential litigants would be wise to consider the potential for collection of any judgement and furthermore their ability to prove damages. Often times, working directly with the site is more productive to secure a removal of the offending content before significant damage can occur. Using a lawyer to facilitate these negotiations can put distance between the defamed party and the alleged defamer providing perspective and keeping discussions professional. Furthermore, an attorney can assess the situation in an unbiased matter to determine the next appropriate step to take to handle the defamation.

 

[Vtecomega]

Defamation of Corporations and Partnerships
A corporation is defamed if material is published about that corporation that would tend to negatively impact its standing in the business in which it operates. Although a company or corporation is not considered to have a reputation in the sense that an individual does, statements that would impact the public’s view of a company’s financial soundness or managerial integrity are generally considered defamatory to a company’s business reputation. A company or corporation may sue for defamation if such statements would tend to deter others from dealing with it.

A not-for-profit corporation may also sue for defamation if it relies on financial support from the public and published material would tend to harm that corporation’s ability to raise money from the general public.

Partnerships may be defamed in the same way as corporations—that is, published material that tends to negatively impact the partnership’s ability to do business. Just as a corporation, a partnership’s business reputation may be impacted by how the public views its financial soundness, managerial integrity and its ability to deliver goods and services.

Neither a partnership nor a corporation is necessarily defamed by statements directed against the individual partners or individual officers or stockholders. Defamatory statements may harm the individuals’ reputations and have no impact on the business, or they may harm the business’ reputation and have no impact on the individuals. Such defamatory statements may lead to separate causes of actions for the business and the individuals. These issues are addressed in several court decisions, including People’s United States Bank v. Goodwin, 167 Mo. App. 211, 149 S.W. 1148 (1912); Brayton v. Cleveland Special Police Co., 63 Ohio St. 83, 57 N.E. 1085 (1900).



Elements of a defamation claim
For a corporation or a partnership to bring a claim of defamation, the plaintiff must meet the same elements as are required in an individual defamation claim. These are:

• The statement was published by the defendant, meaning it was spoken or distributed to at least one other person other than the plaintiff;
• The statement provides enough information that the plaintiff is identifiable;
• The statement harmed the plaintiff’s reputation in some way—in this case, the business reputation of the corporation or partnership.

Defenses
Defenses of a defamation claim also are similar to those relative to an individual defamation claim. Truth is always an absolute defense, and even if a corporation or partnership suffers harm, if the statements are true, it may not collect damages.

If statements are false, but are expressed as an opinion, a defendant may have a defense. However, just as in an individual defamation claim, how the statements are presented and whether they would be understood to be an opinion by a reasonable person will be taken into consideration when determining if the statements are defamatory.




Damages
Corporations may sue for defamation if they can show that the published material has caused them or is likely to cause them financial loss. If the required elements exist, a corporate plaintiff may recover presumed damages. This means that harm is presumed—no proof is required—in the matter, and a fact finder may assess an amount he or she deems is appropriate. Brown & William Tobacco Corp. v. Jacobson, 827 F.2d 1119, 1139 (7thCir. 1987); Dun & Bradstreet, Inc. v. Greenmoss Builders, Inc., 472 U.S. 749 (1985).

Corporations and partnerships may also pursue special damages in a defamation cause of action. In such a case, the corporation must show evidence of financial loss that stems directly from reputational injury that was caused by the defamatory material. These losses could include a decline in the value of the company’s stock.

The defamation tort as it applies to corporations and partnerships is complex and can ultimately involve multiple causes of action. The experienced attorneys at Minc Law can help you determine how these laws apply to your case.



Is Defamation of a Company on the Internet Legal?
The Internet and the forms of electronic publishing and communication it facilitates have provided an economic boon to many businesses. Whereas decades ago the forms of marketing available were broad based and didn’t allow fine targeting of markets, this changed with the Internet revolution. Today, companies and businesses can market broadly on general interest sites or extremely narrowly to focused niches on social media sites or based on user profiles on search engines like Google. Likewise, individuals the Internet has revolutionized communication for individuals by providing a global potential audience for all who participates.

However, despite the economic and communication benefits typically provided by the Internet, the web and its social media sites can also act as something of a double-edged sword. While businesses and marketers can spread their message easily, so can customers who have had a bad experience, fanboys and fangirls who are invested in a rival company’s ecosystem, and others who are simply looking to flame and attack the hard work you have invested into your product and services. Likewise, malicious individuals can use social media websites and platforms to slander and attack an individual for revenge or other reasons.

Thus, individuals and organizations ranging from small businesses to large corporations often want to know the actions they can take to protect themselves or their brand against baseless defamation. Furthermore, in instances where a false and defamatory review may have resulted in lost sales and decreased revenue, they may want to know whether the site and the poster can be held accountable for their actions.

The Internet Defamation Lawyers of Minc Law can work to remove the false, malicious, or vindictive review. Furthermore, we may be able to work to hold the individual user, and in some cases, the site accountable. To schedule a free and confidential consultation call (216) 373-7706 today.


Like in the Real World, Defamation Can Lead to Damages & Civil Liability
In our culture the First Amendment holds a special and elevated place. As such, many people frequently argue that the First Amendment entitles them to say anything they want, how they want, and when they want regardless of the consequences. However, the courts have long-held that the First Amendment is subject to certain limits reflected in the famous aphorism, “You can’t yell fire in a crowded theater.” While this illustrates one limit on free speech, it does miss the point in some ways in that the text of the First Amendment reads:

Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. [emphasis added]

Thus, the First Amendment applies principally to government restraints on speech. While initially applying to only the federal government, the amendment was later incorporated through the 14th Amendment to also apply to the states. Thus, when people assert their First Amendment right to speak falsehoods publicly, they largely miss the point of the protections that are provided. Furthermore, they miss the court’s longstanding willingness to impose civil liability that has always applied to forms of defamatory speech like libel and slander.


Who Can Be Held Liable for Defamatory Online Speech
While the individual user who actually writes and posts the defamatory story, comment, or report can always potentially be held liable for a perceived defamatory statement, the analysis is more complicated when it comes to the site or platform where the comment is posted. In many if not most cases, the defamatory statements posted online are often in the comment, review, and social platform sections of websites. In other cases, the site itself may be populated entirely or predominately with user-generated content. While many people feel that the site itself should be liable, the simple fact is that Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act provides broad protections to sites that host materials. This safe harbor protects the sites themselves from liability and often results in a counterclaim being filed against any company or individual who is unaware of this fact.

For sites that do not host user-generated content and rely on a traditional editorial model or are simply the views of a single person on a personal website or a site founded for a certain purpose, traditional notions of defamation law hold true. However, potential litigants would be wise to consider the potential for collection of any judgement and furthermore their ability to prove damages. Often times, working directly with the site is more productive to secure a removal of the offending content before significant damage can occur. Using a lawyer to facilitate these negotiations can put distance between the defamed party and the alleged defamer providing perspective and keeping discussions professional. Furthermore, an attorney can assess the situation in an unbiased matter to determine the next appropriate step to take to handle the defamation.

Mate, I think you need to go outside for a bit. If you are old enough to have a sip of vodka or whisky then I suggest you do so. You are getting bent out of shape simple because I said something negative about Sony. Get some perspective in life.

I am sure kiwifarms is having a laugh at this as we speak.This is resetera level shit, you do realize this, right?

 

[Airbus Jr]

Mate, I think you need to go outside for a bit. If you are old enough to have a sip of vodka or whisky then I suggest you do so. You are getting bent out of shape over my opinion.

I am sure kiwifarms is having a laugh at this as we speak.This is resetera level shit, you do realize this, right?

^ Another user's violation by using another derigatory condescending remarks towards other fellow Neogaf member

And you still havent answered/ explained your answer regarding these statement of yours

The media is completely biased towards Sony and mislead people into believing that Sony can do no wrong. Sony is all about producing cheap quality products to maximize profit.

^

 

[Vtecomega]

^ Another user's violation by using another derigatory condescending remarks towards other fellow Neogaf member

You know what to do, hit that report button

 

[LuvOfThaGame]

Man. Thelastword is going to be in some serious trouble, legally. As well as most people in any MS threads across the internet. Lol

 

[FranXico]

Airbus Jr you ruined this thread. Well done. Why didn't you just stop a couple of pages ago?

 

[Airbus Jr]

Airbus Jr you ruined this thread. Well done. Why didn't you just stop a couple of pages ago?

I'm actually with bitbydeath and are enthusiast with these ps5 rumours

The few xbox fanboys like Vtecomega here are actually the one ruining the thread

Just read up his post history that should explain everything

 

[TLZ]

Soooo....

Anything new from RuthenicCookie?

 

[MilkyJoe]

Name one new console, that isn't an upgraded system, that has ever been successful at that price.

Sony tried this with the PS3, and Microsoft tried this with the Xbox One. Both failed miserably, so judging by past experience, $499 is objectively an awful price tag.

Name one new console, that isn't an upgraded system, that has ever been successful at that price.

Sony tried this with the PS3, and Microsoft tried this with the Xbox One. Both failed miserably, so judging by past experience, $499 is objectively an awful price tag.

 

[farmerboy]

Question; Would the use of checkerboard rendering allow more power to be used in reaching 60fps?

I ask because it wouldn't surprise me if some of Sony's secret sauce could be something to do with making cc rendering built in. Native 4k seems a waste.

 

[Paracelsus]

Question; Would the use of checkerboard rendering allow more power to be used in reaching 60fps?

I ask because it wouldn't surprise me if some of Sony's secret sauce could be something to do with making cc rendering built in. Native 4k seems a waste.

It's shenanigans to output less pixels per frame, so yes.

 

[Coulomb_Barrier]

'It's a monster' is always the default reaction usually from people that don't understand hardware.

Monster compared to what? It's npt hard to be significantly faster than XB X for example.

A true 'monster' for me (being realistic) would be a Ryzen 8-core, 12GB GDDR6 + 4GB DDR4 for the OS, and a GPU equivalent to a 1080 Ti.

 

[Mattyp]

^ another violation for using derogatory condencending statement to other Neogaf member

You realize you can actually get sued for defamation/making false accusations right?

 

[Bill O'Rights]

OK, wow - definitely wandered into uncharted waters here. Bygones be bygones, going through the thread and people seem to have given and received barbs and jabs back so let's just draw a line in the sand. The tangential discussion around defamation is probably best moved to another thread, maybe in OT. We're all adults so let's get the topic back on track. Thread bans will be issued henceforth, from horseback for the extra flair for those posters unable to stay on topic or trying to derail/troll as a sidequest.


Thanks

 

[Barnabot]

Will wait for either a "pro version" of it or the following PS5's gran turismo game. Pretty sure either one of these is gonna happen and I'm not going to bother buying one anytime soon.

 

[onQ123]

I'm putting you guys on the news

 

[Gamernyc78]

Looks like Microsoft is considering acquiring IO interactive after the commercial flop Hitman 2 was. makes sense since I doubt WB will publish Hitman 3 or any game they have at this point.


that would be 8 studios for Microsoft this gen, -3 for Sony. looks like am going to buy my first xbox ever next gen. maybe even before a PS5. since am a large advocate of many diverse good games rather than extremely large budget few titles.


Sony should absolutely jump on IO, But we know how corporations work, unfortunately they hired a dude that cares about cloud gaming a the CEO of playstation and in general this iteration of playstation executives are a bunch of wackos. Phil Spencer is the guy, he said he will do things, and yes xbox this generation is a failure. but hes doing things. even if half of these studio's games are good they would already be matching Sony's first party output.

I dont understand this line of thinking. Sony hasnt been acquiring new studios because they already have enough and not only that those studios output hit after hit. Yeah your going to run and get an xbox and are downplaying Sonys first party portfolio because Microsoft just acquired somestudios, some of which have recently been failing, none of which output the first party caliber of say GOW, Tlou, Astrobot, eyc lol Mictosoft studios needed to do that because their first party output is abysmal and even the ones they have put out and touted have mostly been meh at best besides Forza. You can mention same old Gears and Halo but most feel those are stagnant and have been going downhill.

On top of that you criticize Sony for focusing on Cloud gaming lol but what is Microsoft doing? They all have eggs in different baskets. Sony now is not only focusing on Cloud but also on Psvr which they are doing great at imo, PS5, first party games as usual and bringing profit in which they have knocked out the park this generation.. Microsoft on the other end are righting their wrongs, doing anything to get market share back and that's great as well.

I cant wait for the PS5 I'm sure it will be a great console. Scarlet as well as Mivrosoft is out to prove themselves. Good time to be a gamer.

 

[Ogbert]

No chance the PS5 is getting anywhere near 4K at 60.

 

[ANIMAL1975]

'It's a monster' is always the default reaction usually from people that don't understand hardware.

Monster compared to what? It's npt hard to be significantly faster than XB X for example.

A true 'monster' for me (being realistic) would be a Ryzen 8-core, 12GB GDDR6 + 4GB DDR4 for the OS, and a GPU equivalent to a 1080 Ti.

It's a monster compared to the beast of course

 

[ANIMAL1975]

I'm putting you guys on the news

I was here too lurking, please tell them!

 

[LostDonkey]

Will wait for either a "pro version" of it or the following PS5's gran turismo game. Pretty sure either one of these is gonna happen and I'm not going to bother buying one anytime soon.

I always say ill wait for GT but I end up biting sooner.

 

[onQ123]

No chance the PS5 is getting anywhere near 4K at 60.

This is a flat out stupid thing to say

 

[Coulomb_Barrier]

This is a flat out stupid thing to say

It is. 4K 60fps is possible with even the most demanding AAA titles using a GTX 1080 and turning settings down slightly. Seeing as Navi/Arcturus is apparently going to be around GTX 1080 level, and the large performance uplift enjoyed by being in a unified system without Windows performance penalty, 4K 60fps will be trivially achieved if the devs aim for that.

 

[Whitecrow]

It is. 4K 60fps is possible with even the most demanding AAA titles using a GTX 1080 and turning settings down slightly. Seeing as Navi/Arcturus is apparently going to be around GTX 1080 level, and the large performance uplift enjoyed by being in a unified system without Windows performance penalty, 4K 60fps will be trivially achieved if the devs aim for that.

I hope devs dont buy the trend of 30fps being unplayable and still make games at 30fps with all the bells and whistles they wish.

 

[mckmas8808]

No chance the PS5 is getting anywhere near 4K at 60.

There are games that do this NOW! What are you talking about?

I hope devs dont buy the trend of 30fps being unplayable and still make games at 30fps with all the bells and whistles they wish.

I agree. I love 30 fps games where everything is turned up to 11.

 

[Dokku]

I was probably a bigger Sony fan than you and everyone else in the forum combined. The difference with me, I woke up.


4 ps4 pros that had disc drive failures. DS4 controllers with faulty thumb sticks. Overrated cinematic games that for over a decade I had to convince my self I was having a good time playing.

A sony XBR bravia tv I purchased in 2007 end up having dead pixels and clouding issues. I had to return it for a Panasonic plasma.

A sony x900b tv I purchased in 2014 only lasted 4 years until the tv LED started flashing red and wouldn't turn on. It also had a blown speaker. Turned out the power board failed. I called a TV tech to repair the tv which cost me $700 as I was out of warranty, funnily enough he told me that 90% of tv's he repairs are Sony.

The media is completely biased towards Sony and mislead people into believing that Sony can do no wrong. Sony is all about producing cheap quality products to maximize profit.

The only good exclusive title sony has had in the past decade is Bloodborne. The last of us, god of war, Uncharted, infamous are all objectively boring as fuck with dreadful gameplay. But hey, they look pretty and are cinematic so 11/10!

I purchased my first xbox X only last week and I have been having a fucking ball going through all the gears of wars, Halo and Forza series and far superior third party games in 4k. I also purcahsed the xbox elite controller and I could NEVER go back to that flimsy DS4. Hell, I could never go back to the playstation ecosystem after I have experienced a premium console that offers game pass and actually fun games.

Soon people will open their eyes. Mark my words.

A word of advice, if you want people to believe your fanboy fallacies you're better off playing it conservatively. For example-

TWO of my ps4 pros failed rather than EVERY SINGLE THING I EVER PURCHASED FROM SONY CAUGHT FIRE AND GAVE ME HERPES.

 

[Dibils2k]

i hate when rumors are like "4K/60 stable"

like... NO ONE can guarentee that, some devs will wanna use the power elsewhere, and is that 4k/60 for games that will be pretty much what we have now? in which case it would be very lame

 

[Dokku]

Defamation of Corporations and Partnerships
A corporation is defamed if material is published about that corporation that would tend to negatively impact its standing in the business in which it operates. Although a company or corporation is not considered to have a reputation in the sense that an individual does, statements that would impact the public’s view of a company’s financial soundness or managerial integrity are generally considered defamatory to a company’s business reputation. A company or corporation may sue for defamation if such statements would tend to deter others from dealing with it.

A not-for-profit corporation may also sue for defamation if it relies on financial support from the public and published material would tend to harm that corporation’s ability to raise money from the general public.

Partnerships may be defamed in the same way as corporations—that is, published material that tends to negatively impact the partnership’s ability to do business. Just as a corporation, a partnership’s business reputation may be impacted by how the public views its financial soundness, managerial integrity and its ability to deliver goods and services.

Neither a partnership nor a corporation is necessarily defamed by statements directed against the individual partners or individual officers or stockholders. Defamatory statements may harm the individuals’ reputations and have no impact on the business, or they may harm the business’ reputation and have no impact on the individuals. Such defamatory statements may lead to separate causes of actions for the business and the individuals. These issues are addressed in several court decisions, including People’s United States Bank v. Goodwin, 167 Mo. App. 211, 149 S.W. 1148 (1912); Brayton v. Cleveland Special Police Co., 63 Ohio St. 83, 57 N.E. 1085 (1900).



Elements of a defamation claim
For a corporation or a partnership to bring a claim of defamation, the plaintiff must meet the same elements as are required in an individual defamation claim. These are:

• The statement was published by the defendant, meaning it was spoken or distributed to at least one other person other than the plaintiff;
• The statement provides enough information that the plaintiff is identifiable;
• The statement harmed the plaintiff’s reputation in some way—in this case, the business reputation of the corporation or partnership.

Defenses
Defenses of a defamation claim also are similar to those relative to an individual defamation claim. Truth is always an absolute defense, and even if a corporation or partnership suffers harm, if the statements are true, it may not collect damages.

If statements are false, but are expressed as an opinion, a defendant may have a defense. However, just as in an individual defamation claim, how the statements are presented and whether they would be understood to be an opinion by a reasonable person will be taken into consideration when determining if the statements are defamatory.




Damages
Corporations may sue for defamation if they can show that the published material has caused them or is likely to cause them financial loss. If the required elements exist, a corporate plaintiff may recover presumed damages. This means that harm is presumed—no proof is required—in the matter, and a fact finder may assess an amount he or she deems is appropriate. Brown & William Tobacco Corp. v. Jacobson, 827 F.2d 1119, 1139 (7thCir. 1987); Dun & Bradstreet, Inc. v. Greenmoss Builders, Inc., 472 U.S. 749 (1985).

Corporations and partnerships may also pursue special damages in a defamation cause of action. In such a case, the corporation must show evidence of financial loss that stems directly from reputational injury that was caused by the defamatory material. These losses could include a decline in the value of the company’s stock.

The defamation tort as it applies to corporations and partnerships is complex and can ultimately involve multiple causes of action. The experienced attorneys at Minc Law can help you determine how these laws apply to your case.



Is Defamation of a Company on the Internet Legal?
The Internet and the forms of electronic publishing and communication it facilitates have provided an economic boon to many businesses. Whereas decades ago the forms of marketing available were broad based and didn’t allow fine targeting of markets, this changed with the Internet revolution. Today, companies and businesses can market broadly on general interest sites or extremely narrowly to focused niches on social media sites or based on user profiles on search engines like Google. Likewise, individuals the Internet has revolutionized communication for individuals by providing a global potential audience for all who participates.

However, despite the economic and communication benefits typically provided by the Internet, the web and its social media sites can also act as something of a double-edged sword. While businesses and marketers can spread their message easily, so can customers who have had a bad experience, fanboys and fangirls who are invested in a rival company’s ecosystem, and others who are simply looking to flame and attack the hard work you have invested into your product and services. Likewise, malicious individuals can use social media websites and platforms to slander and attack an individual for revenge or other reasons.

Thus, individuals and organizations ranging from small businesses to large corporations often want to know the actions they can take to protect themselves or their brand against baseless defamation. Furthermore, in instances where a false and defamatory review may have resulted in lost sales and decreased revenue, they may want to know whether the site and the poster can be held accountable for their actions.

The Internet Defamation Lawyers of Minc Law can work to remove the false, malicious, or vindictive review. Furthermore, we may be able to work to hold the individual user, and in some cases, the site accountable. To schedule a free and confidential consultation call (216) 373-7706 today.


Like in the Real World, Defamation Can Lead to Damages & Civil Liability
In our culture the First Amendment holds a special and elevated place. As such, many people frequently argue that the First Amendment entitles them to say anything they want, how they want, and when they want regardless of the consequences. However, the courts have long-held that the First Amendment is subject to certain limits reflected in the famous aphorism, “You can’t yell fire in a crowded theater.” While this illustrates one limit on free speech, it does miss the point in some ways in that the text of the First Amendment reads:

Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. [emphasis added]

Thus, the First Amendment applies principally to government restraints on speech. While initially applying to only the federal government, the amendment was later incorporated through the 14th Amendment to also apply to the states. Thus, when people assert their First Amendment right to speak falsehoods publicly, they largely miss the point of the protections that are provided. Furthermore, they miss the court’s longstanding willingness to impose civil liability that has always applied to forms of defamatory speech like libel and slander.


Who Can Be Held Liable for Defamatory Online Speech
While the individual user who actually writes and posts the defamatory story, comment, or report can always potentially be held liable for a perceived defamatory statement, the analysis is more complicated when it comes to the site or platform where the comment is posted. In many if not most cases, the defamatory statements posted online are often in the comment, review, and social platform sections of websites. In other cases, the site itself may be populated entirely or predominately with user-generated content. While many people feel that the site itself should be liable, the simple fact is that Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act provides broad protections to sites that host materials. This safe harbor protects the sites themselves from liability and often results in a counterclaim being filed against any company or individual who is unaware of this fact.

For sites that do not host user-generated content and rely on a traditional editorial model or are simply the views of a single person on a personal website or a site founded for a certain purpose, traditional notions of defamation law hold true. However, potential litigants would be wise to consider the potential for collection of any judgement and furthermore their ability to prove damages. Often times, working directly with the site is more productive to secure a removal of the offending content before significant damage can occur. Using a lawyer to facilitate these negotiations can put distance between the defamed party and the alleged defamer providing perspective and keeping discussions professional. Furthermore, an attorney can assess the situation in an unbiased matter to determine the next appropriate step to take to handle the defamation.

.... dude. Seriously? Both my feet are firmly planted in camp Sony but you're just spewing crap. That means that everybody who takes to the internet to complain about anything can be sued for doing so. 95% of the internet is composed of people complaining about shit on a public forum and usually what happens is that they're given free stuff to appease them.

 

[Ogbert]

This is a flat out stupid thing to say

For 500 bucks?

FPS will never be prioritised by consoles.

 

[Ogbert]

Defamation of Corporations and Partnerships
A corporation is defamed if material is published about that corporation that would tend to negatively impact its standing in the business in which it operates. Although a company or corporation is not considered to have a reputation in the sense that an individual does, statements that would impact the public’s view of a company’s financial soundness or managerial integrity are generally considered defamatory to a company’s business reputation. A company or corporation may sue for defamation if such statements would tend to deter others from dealing with it.

A not-for-profit corporation may also sue for defamation if it relies on financial support from the public and published material would tend to harm that corporation’s ability to raise money from the general public.

Partnerships may be defamed in the same way as corporations—that is, published material that tends to negatively impact the partnership’s ability to do business. Just as a corporation, a partnership’s business reputation may be impacted by how the public views its financial soundness, managerial integrity and its ability to deliver goods and services.

Neither a partnership nor a corporation is necessarily defamed by statements directed against the individual partners or individual officers or stockholders. Defamatory statements may harm the individuals’ reputations and have no impact on the business, or they may harm the business’ reputation and have no impact on the individuals. Such defamatory statements may lead to separate causes of actions for the business and the individuals. These issues are addressed in several court decisions, including People’s United States Bank v. Goodwin, 167 Mo. App. 211, 149 S.W. 1148 (1912); Brayton v. Cleveland Special Police Co., 63 Ohio St. 83, 57 N.E. 1085 (1900).



Elements of a defamation claim
For a corporation or a partnership to bring a claim of defamation, the plaintiff must meet the same elements as are required in an individual defamation claim. These are:

• The statement was published by the defendant, meaning it was spoken or distributed to at least one other person other than the plaintiff;
• The statement provides enough information that the plaintiff is identifiable;
• The statement harmed the plaintiff’s reputation in some way—in this case, the business reputation of the corporation or partnership.

Defenses
Defenses of a defamation claim also are similar to those relative to an individual defamation claim. Truth is always an absolute defense, and even if a corporation or partnership suffers harm, if the statements are true, it may not collect damages.

If statements are false, but are expressed as an opinion, a defendant may have a defense. However, just as in an individual defamation claim, how the statements are presented and whether they would be understood to be an opinion by a reasonable person will be taken into consideration when determining if the statements are defamatory.




Damages
Corporations may sue for defamation if they can show that the published material has caused them or is likely to cause them financial loss. If the required elements exist, a corporate plaintiff may recover presumed damages. This means that harm is presumed—no proof is required—in the matter, and a fact finder may assess an amount he or she deems is appropriate. Brown & William Tobacco Corp. v. Jacobson, 827 F.2d 1119, 1139 (7thCir. 1987); Dun & Bradstreet, Inc. v. Greenmoss Builders, Inc., 472 U.S. 749 (1985).

Corporations and partnerships may also pursue special damages in a defamation cause of action. In such a case, the corporation must show evidence of financial loss that stems directly from reputational injury that was caused by the defamatory material. These losses could include a decline in the value of the company’s stock.

The defamation tort as it applies to corporations and partnerships is complex and can ultimately involve multiple causes of action. The experienced attorneys at Minc Law can help you determine how these laws apply to your case.



Is Defamation of a Company on the Internet Legal?
The Internet and the forms of electronic publishing and communication it facilitates have provided an economic boon to many businesses. Whereas decades ago the forms of marketing available were broad based and didn’t allow fine targeting of markets, this changed with the Internet revolution. Today, companies and businesses can market broadly on general interest sites or extremely narrowly to focused niches on social media sites or based on user profiles on search engines like Google. Likewise, individuals the Internet has revolutionized communication for individuals by providing a global potential audience for all who participates.

However, despite the economic and communication benefits typically provided by the Internet, the web and its social media sites can also act as something of a double-edged sword. While businesses and marketers can spread their message easily, so can customers who have had a bad experience, fanboys and fangirls who are invested in a rival company’s ecosystem, and others who are simply looking to flame and attack the hard work you have invested into your product and services. Likewise, malicious individuals can use social media websites and platforms to slander and attack an individual for revenge or other reasons.

Thus, individuals and organizations ranging from small businesses to large corporations often want to know the actions they can take to protect themselves or their brand against baseless defamation. Furthermore, in instances where a false and defamatory review may have resulted in lost sales and decreased revenue, they may want to know whether the site and the poster can be held accountable for their actions.

The Internet Defamation Lawyers of Minc Law can work to remove the false, malicious, or vindictive review. Furthermore, we may be able to work to hold the individual user, and in some cases, the site accountable. To schedule a free and confidential consultation call (216) 373-7706 today.


Like in the Real World, Defamation Can Lead to Damages & Civil Liability
In our culture the First Amendment holds a special and elevated place. As such, many people frequently argue that the First Amendment entitles them to say anything they want, how they want, and when they want regardless of the consequences. However, the courts have long-held that the First Amendment is subject to certain limits reflected in the famous aphorism, “You can’t yell fire in a crowded theater.” While this illustrates one limit on free speech, it does miss the point in some ways in that the text of the First Amendment reads:

Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. [emphasis added]

Thus, the First Amendment applies principally to government restraints on speech. While initially applying to only the federal government, the amendment was later incorporated through the 14th Amendment to also apply to the states. Thus, when people assert their First Amendment right to speak falsehoods publicly, they largely miss the point of the protections that are provided. Furthermore, they miss the court’s longstanding willingness to impose civil liability that has always applied to forms of defamatory speech like libel and slander.


Who Can Be Held Liable for Defamatory Online Speech
While the individual user who actually writes and posts the defamatory story, comment, or report can always potentially be held liable for a perceived defamatory statement, the analysis is more complicated when it comes to the site or platform where the comment is posted. In many if not most cases, the defamatory statements posted online are often in the comment, review, and social platform sections of websites. In other cases, the site itself may be populated entirely or predominately with user-generated content. While many people feel that the site itself should be liable, the simple fact is that Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act provides broad protections to sites that host materials. This safe harbor protects the sites themselves from liability and often results in a counterclaim being filed against any company or individual who is unaware of this fact.

For sites that do not host user-generated content and rely on a traditional editorial model or are simply the views of a single person on a personal website or a site founded for a certain purpose, traditional notions of defamation law hold true. However, potential litigants would be wise to consider the potential for collection of any judgement and furthermore their ability to prove damages. Often times, working directly with the site is more productive to secure a removal of the offending content before significant damage can occur. Using a lawyer to facilitate these negotiations can put distance between the defamed party and the alleged defamer providing perspective and keeping discussions professional. Furthermore, an attorney can assess the situation in an unbiased matter to determine the next appropriate step to take to handle the defamation.

Good heavens man.

Any defamation case is subject to a reasonableness Test. A pube on an Internet forum can’t defame a tech giant.

 

[LordOfChaos]

No chance the PS5 is getting anywhere near 4K at 60.

Just like the claim in the OP, the counter here is equally meaningless. The question is "Doing what?". The PS4 Pro can already run some stuff at 4K 60fps, whether developers want to spend the extra power targeting that or doing much more simulation at lower framerates is the question, and history shows they usually go for what they can show rather than what you have to feel.

 

[joe_zazen]

Good heavens man.

Any defamation case is subject to a reasonableness Test. A pube on an Internet forum can’t defame a tech giant.

Corps are like cops, if they want to fuck you over, they can—not that they care about forum posts all that much.

 

[SlashBringingHasher]

I dont understand this line of thinking. Sony hasnt been acquiring new studios because they already have enough and not only that those studios output hit after hit. Yeah your going to run and get an xbox and are downplaying Sonys first party portfolio because Microsoft just acquired somestudios, some of which have recently been failing, none of which output the first party caliber of say GOW, Tlou, Astrobot, eyc lol Mictosoft studios needed to do that because their first party output is abysmal and even the ones they have put out and touted have mostly been meh at best besides Forza. You can mention same old Gears and Halo but most feel those are stagnant and have been going downhill.

On top of that you criticize Sony for focusing on Cloud gaming lol but what is Microsoft doing? They all have eggs in different baskets. Sony now is not only focusing on Cloud but also on Psvr which they are doing great at imo, PS5, first party games as usual and bringing profit in which they have knocked out the park this generation.. Microsoft on the other end are righting their wrongs, doing anything to get market share back and that's great as well.

I cant wait for the PS5 I'm sure it will be a great console. Scarlet as well as Mivrosoft is out to prove themselves. Good time to be a gamer.

really dont care about your fanboyish thinking. more is better. Sony output is very monotonic atm

 

[mckmas8808]

really dont care about your fanboyish thinking. more is better. Sony output is very monotonic atm

Monotonic. What? That's literally not true at all.

 

[SlashBringingHasher]

Monotonic. What? That's literally not true at all.

3rd person cinematic games all over. even god of war moved from a character action game o a cinematic 3rd person game

if you don't see that then quite frank its usless talking to you because that should be common knowledge

 

[mckmas8808]

3rd person cinematic games all over. even god of war moved from a character action game o a cinematic 3rd person game

if you don't see that then quite frank its usless talking to you because that should be common knowledge

But those aren't the only games Sony makes, hence why I was confused.

 

[onQ123]

3rd person cinematic games all over. even god of war moved from a character action game o a cinematic 3rd person game

if you don't see that then quite frank its usless talking to you because that should be common knowledge

 

[SlashBringingHasher]

one out of many. also this is a tool. not a game. am not gonna count it. if it was an lbp game i woulda counted it because that has a 10 hour story mode. not a 2-3 hour tutorial.

 

[SlashBringingHasher]

But those aren't the only games Sony makes, hence why I was confused.

am talking about the first party output. the upcoming games are all third person cinematic games.

and what else? astrobot and polyphonys horrible aging GT formula?


Sony doesn't make JRPGs anymore. or even real rpgs. horizon isn't one

Sony doesn't make character action games anymore


besides astrobot. Sony doesn't make platformers anymore


Sony doesn't make first person shooters anymore

Sony doesn't make arcade racing games anymore


what is left?

Naughty dog has infected the entire Sony first party studios into oblivion. every game has to be last of us esque for some reason. every damn game.

if you don't realize hat then your lying to yourself. you have the recent games and the upcoming games to look at and consider it yourself. its just a fact, not an opinion

 

[Rest]

I hope devs dont buy the trend of 30fps being unplayable and still make games at 30fps with all the bells and whistles they wish.

Like I said earlier, people on sites like this have been whining about 60fps for over a decade. The public at large doesn't care. Publishers don't care. Developers don't care. Developers are going to continue to push boundaries in other ways to make games look, feel and play better, and frame rate will slowly creep up as there is room for it, just like always.

 

[onQ123]

one out of many. also this is a tool. not a game. am not gonna count it. if it was an lbp game i woulda counted it because that has a 10 hour story mode. not a 2-3 hour tutorial.

 

[SlashBringingHasher]

oh one fucking game in 5 years that I have to shell out 200 for an external device for. thats fantastic. one game in years


Let me show you the exclusives ps4 had and will have


Knack

Knack 2


The order 1886

Horizon ZD

KZ shadow fall

Infamous SS

Ghost of tushima

Spiderman

Uncharted 4

TLOU 2

The last guardian

Gravity Rush 2

Days gone

Astrobot

GTR

R&C

Until dawn

God of war

Detroit

Bloodborne


literally less than a page in the PSN store. I might have forgot one or two. but those are most of them. as you see I only mention AA and AAA exclusives. the really small stuff is mostly multiplat

now lets look at the PS3


Resistance FoM

Resistance 2

Resistance 3

Ratchet Tools of destruction

Ratchet a crack in time

Ratchet into the nexus

Ratchet all 4 one

Ratchet full frontal assault

Infamous

Infamous 2

Killzone 2

Killzone 3

Demon's Souls

Folklore

GT5

GT6

Puppeteer

White knight chronicles I

White Knight chronicles 2

3D Dot game heroes

Motorstorm

Motorstorm pacific rift

Motorstorm apocalypse

Twisted metal 2012

starhawk

warhawk

Socom 4

Socom navy seals

Sly thieves in time

Siren Blood curse

Heavenly sword

God of war 3

God of war ascension

Untold legends dark knigdom

little big planet 1

little big planet 2

LBP karting

Katamari forever

modnation racers

ridge racer 7

PSASBR

MAG

Uncharted 1

uncharted 2

unacharted 3

the last of us

Heavy Rain

Beyond two souls

invizimals lost kingdom




I might have missed more here. I didn't even include a single playstation move game or a single shitty game . could have doubled this list.

its not even close. its like less than half the ps3 exclusives. And I didn't mention shitty games like knack 1 and 2.

thank jesus I sold my ps4 not that long ago. its gonna take two generations to get a full gen lineup for exclusives. because they are unwilling to invest money in more studios or 3rd party exclusives like they used to. just riding the PS+ money like microsoft did with the 360.

idc if games take longer to make. get more studios, you are making more money than ever.

 

[mckmas8808]

am talking about the first party output. the upcoming games are all third person cinematic games.

and what else? astrobot and polyphonys horrible aging GT formula?


Sony doesn't make JRPGs anymore. or even real rpgs. horizon isn't one

Sony doesn't make character action games anymore


besides astrobot. Sony doesn't make platformers anymore


Sony doesn't make first person shooters anymore

Sony doesn't make arcade racing games anymore


what is left?

Naughty dog has infected the entire Sony first party studios into oblivion. every game has to be last of us esque for some reason. every damn game.

if you don't realize hat then your lying to yourself. you have the recent games and the upcoming games to look at and consider it yourself. its just a fact, not an opinion

Horizon is a RPG though. It's just may not be your "type" of RPG. And it's not fair that you get to eliminate actual games from Sony's 1st party output because of "reasons".

Oh and these games do exist.