Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Do you mean 
Reply
PlayStation MVP
Registered: 12/24/2007
Online
15234 posts
 

Re: online passes

Sep 16, 2012

a_striped_lombax wrote:
I'm surprised no one has mentioned the perfect way to bypass the need for online passes and used games in general! Surely I'm not alone in thinking this?!?

LOWER THE PRICE OF DOWNLOADABLE GAME TO REFLECT THE AGE OF IT!!!!!

You know, for Bioshock, that game should not be any more than 15 bucks on PSN! Why would any right thinking person get a game via PSN download when a used copy is 50-75% cheaper?!? Seriously, this is where Sony and Microsoft BOTH drop the ball. One more example: Halo Wars on Xbox Marketplace, 29.99... I mean **bleep**?!? I can buy a used copy that Microsoft would receive ZERO royalties from at Gamestop for 19.99, or Amazon for 14. Why would I ever download that game? Convenience is not worth double the price.

You're using the "Steam" concept aren't ya?

Cognitive Dissonance - The ability to understand multiple viewpoints even if they conflict with one another - and still use critical thinking, logical thought, and common sense to come to the realization that only ONE is the correct one and the others are wrong.

Furiously Chaosing
Please use plain text.
Message 31 of 36 (115 Views)
Reply
0 Likes
First Son
Registered: 01/12/2012
Offline
12 posts
 

Re: online passes

Sep 16, 2012
never used steam, so I don't know... perhaps? I'm taking the common sense approach
Please use plain text.
Message 32 of 36 (114 Views)
Reply
0 Likes
First Son
Registered: 09/13/2012
Offline
24 posts
 

Re: online passes

Sep 16, 2012

CaptainAlbator wrote:
They did not "block out single player content". You are getting a full game with, and I can't stress this enough, BONUS content for buying it new. Consumers get bonuses for buying products all the time. Go to a ball game and get a free hat. Buy a loaf of bread and you get a half dozen bagels for free. This is not any different like so many gamers want to believe "because it's video games". As far as the codes expiring, codes have expiration dates spanning YEARS. The code for Arkham City has a shelf life of TEN YEARS. So unless you're a severe procrastinator, that excuse is, as I've been saying, completely and utterly invalid. 

As far as "screwing over people with no internet connection", that's an argument that I fully and inequivocally reject and is completely invalid. "Gamers" like yourself have tried to use this before, and this is when I take the time to point out that according to the Nielsen Company, the people who compile ratings and statistics, three out of four people in the United States have internet access. Roughly only 20% of Americans do not use the internet according to the Pew Research Center. 

http://www.pcworld.com/article/253807/1_in_5_americans_are_internet_innocents.html

Even if you were part of what is now the minority in the United States, unless it's bolted down you could still bring your console to a friends house who does have internet access, and download your content there. I would have bought this as a valid reason in 1995, and maybe even 2001, but in 2012 it's become a myth that gamers have clung to for far too long. It simply isn't true. "Gamers" keep using these excuses, and time and time again they are proven to be invalid. 

Your arguments amounts to little more than saying "it's this way because it is", much like your claim that not everyone has the internet, which I have proven is invalid. You've provided only opinions, and I have backed mine with hard evidence, and now that you've run out of excuses and no longer any valid arguments to bring to the table, you've decide to take a shot at me. Let me remind you that this is a two way street. You're putting it out there, and I can take a shot at that any time I want.

What you believe, or what you WANT to believe, and reality are seemingly at odds with each other. Despite whatever insults you want to hurl my way, to paraphrase Stephen Colbert the "truth" has an inherent bias to it. 


Really? What evidence did you ever show that online passes somehow help the gaming community as a whole? Sure, you have shown evidence that buying new is indeed a better option than buying used, but that isn't what the argument is about now, is it? It's about using one-time use 21-digit codes (or extra $10 fees if the game was bought used) in games to block out what used to be standard features that everyone had access to without having to pay extra for or redeem codes for prior to 2009 when THQ invented the online pass. You've only provided opinions on that one as well. I know fully well that used game sales have no profit going to the publisher of said games.

 

From an earlier message you sent:

 

"Sony, and developed by their in-house programmers. Second, if you're basing it on that quote then you're going under the assumption that ALL games are published by Sony, which they are not."

 

I never made that assumption. Why would I not be talking about Sony-published games on a SONY FORUM? My goal, obviously, is for Sony to get rid of its online pass system, so I wouldn't be talking about games that Sony Doesn't publish. They cannot dictate other publishers to use online passes. I couldn't care less if EA, THQ, or Ubisoft stopped using the online pass because I don't like to buy their products. I only use examples by those companies to provide points against online passes in general.

 

Not all online passes take "years and years" to expire, by the way.

http://www.examiner.com/article/online-passes-expire-on-new-games

(I am willing to withdraw this point, however, if Sony's Online passes have no expiration date)

 

Also, about your examples with Arkham City and L.A. Noire: When I heard that both of these games were releasing complete editions with all DLC on one disc with no extra codes to redeem for gameplay content, do you know what I did? I went out and bought them NEW because I knew:

1: That I would be getting my money's worth on both games

2: That the publishers of both of these games were treating me with respect by not forcing me to enter a 21-digit code and wait for a download in order to obtain content that should be readily available without having to do so

3: That, most importantly, I want to support companies who treat customers with respect, make quality products, and who give people their money's worth on games they sell.

I'd be willing to bet money that I'm not the only one who did so.

(Now of course I am well aware that Arkham City GOTY Edition does have a DLC code for the Batman: Year One movie, and I don't mind that. Why? Because it isn't a part of the game and it has been available on DVD for a while now. THAT is the definition of giving something extra to those who buy new, not gating off part of the actual game. Another example would be Portal 2. Does it gate off any gameplay content with an online pass to those who buy used? No. Those who bought it new got a free download code for the Steam PC version: I.E., something that actually IS extra, not a portion of the initial game that was finished and then taken out before it launched.)

 

Also, I would like to present some food for thought:

gameplaytoday.com/features/general-features/5084-video-game-online-passes-suck-and-well-tell-you-why/" target=_blank>http://gameplaytoday.com/features/general-features/5084-video-game-online-passes-suck-and-well-tell-...

http://www.g4tv.com/thefeed/blog/post/720357/why-online-passes-wont-stop-used-game-sales-sesslers-so...

 

I may or may not agree with all of the points made in these articles and they may or may not be completely opinion-based, but it's something to consider at least.

 

Once more, I cannot stress this point enough:

 

A GAME HAS TO BE BOUGHT NEW AT SOME POINT IN ORDER TO BE SOLD USED AT ALL.

Please use plain text.
Message 33 of 36 (109 Views)
Reply
0 Likes
PlayStation MVP
Registered: 12/08/2000
Online
24407 posts
 

Re: online passes

Sep 16, 2012

forest1903 wrote:

CaptainAlbator wrote:
They did not "block out single player content". You are getting a full game with, and I can't stress this enough, BONUS content for buying it new. Consumers get bonuses for buying products all the time. Go to a ball game and get a free hat. Buy a loaf of bread and you get a half dozen bagels for free. This is not any different like so many gamers want to believe "because it's video games". As far as the codes expiring, codes have expiration dates spanning YEARS. The code for Arkham City has a shelf life of TEN YEARS. So unless you're a severe procrastinator, that excuse is, as I've been saying, completely and utterly invalid. 

As far as "screwing over people with no internet connection", that's an argument that I fully and inequivocally reject and is completely invalid. "Gamers" like yourself have tried to use this before, and this is when I take the time to point out that according to the Nielsen Company, the people who compile ratings and statistics, three out of four people in the United States have internet access. Roughly only 20% of Americans do not use the internet according to the Pew Research Center. 

http://www.pcworld.com/article/253807/1_in_5_americans_are_internet_innocents.html

Even if you were part of what is now the minority in the United States, unless it's bolted down you could still bring your console to a friends house who does have internet access, and download your content there. I would have bought this as a valid reason in 1995, and maybe even 2001, but in 2012 it's become a myth that gamers have clung to for far too long. It simply isn't true. "Gamers" keep using these excuses, and time and time again they are proven to be invalid. 

Your arguments amounts to little more than saying "it's this way because it is", much like your claim that not everyone has the internet, which I have proven is invalid. You've provided only opinions, and I have backed mine with hard evidence, and now that you've run out of excuses and no longer any valid arguments to bring to the table, you've decide to take a shot at me. Let me remind you that this is a two way street. You're putting it out there, and I can take a shot at that any time I want.

What you believe, or what you WANT to believe, and reality are seemingly at odds with each other. Despite whatever insults you want to hurl my way, to paraphrase Stephen Colbert the "truth" has an inherent bias to it. 


Really? What evidence did you ever show that online passes somehow help the gaming community as a whole? Sure, you have shown evidence that buying new is indeed a better option than buying used, but that isn't what the argument is about now, is it? It's about using one-time use 21-digit codes (or extra $10 fees if the game was bought used) in games to block out what used to be standard features that everyone had access to without having to pay extra for or redeem codes for prior to 2009 when THQ invented the online pass. You've only provided opinions on that one as well. I know fully well that used game sales have no profit going to the publisher of said games.

(I know that "opinions" and "facts" are one in the same to many people in the 21st century, but they are not. I have provided evidence countering your arguments.) 

 

From an earlier message you sent:

 

"Sony, and developed by their in-house programmers. Second, if you're basing it on that quote then you're going under the assumption that ALL games are published by Sony, which they are not."

 

I never made that assumption. Why would I not be talking about Sony-published games on a SONY FORUM? My goal, obviously, is for Sony to get rid of its online pass system, so I wouldn't be talking about games that Sony Doesn't publish. They cannot dictate other publishers to use online passes. I couldn't care less if EA, THQ, or Ubisoft stopped using the online pass because I don't like to buy their products. I only use examples by those companies to provide points against online passes in general.

(This is a Playstation 3 forum, regarding all things Playstation 3. It looks like you're behind so now you're attempting to change the terms of the discussion by altering your original stance)

 

Not all online passes take "years and years" to expire, by the way.

http://www.examiner.com/article/online-passes-expire-on-new-games

(I am willing to withdraw this point, however, if Sony's Online passes have no expiration date)

 

("This was revealed by people on multiple forums"? That's your source? Invalid)

 

Also, about your examples with Arkham City and L.A. Noire: When I heard that both of these games were releasing complete editions with all DLC on one disc with no extra codes to redeem for gameplay content, do you know what I did? I went out and bought them NEW because I knew:

 

1: That I would be getting my money's worth on both games

(You would have gotten your "money's worth" by buying the game new, as the Catwoman levels were a downloadable bonus, and retailers like Best Buy were offering the Robin Challenge maps as a free download for pre-ordering)

2: That the publishers of both of these games were treating me with respect by not forcing me to enter a 21-digit code and wait for a download in order to obtain content that should be readily available without having to do so

(They "treated you with respect" by packaging an old game that sales had dropped of on, with extra content so they could make more money on a year old game? How is that "respect", unless there's a very different "gamer" definition of the word?)

3: That, most importantly, I want to support companies who treat customers with respect, make quality products, and who give people their money's worth on games they sell.

(Ever hear the phrase, "Nothing personal, this is business". They are not in the business to be swell guys, they are in business to make money. If you really followed the so-called "capitlaist rule" you orignally purported, you would know that).

 

I'd be willing to bet money that I'm not the only one who did so.

(Now of course I am well aware that Arkham City GOTY Edition does have a DLC code for the Batman: Year One movie, and I don't mind that. Why? Because it isn't a part of the game and it has been available on DVD for a while now. THAT is the definition of giving something extra to those who buy new, not gating off part of the actual game.

(Again, they didn't "gate off" any gameplay, the Catwoman levels were available as a 218 mb DOWNLOAD off the PSN Store.  Same as L.A. Noire. The fact that they gave you a download for free that wasn't selling anymore doesn't make them "swell guys", no matter how you try to convolute the argument)

 

Another example would be Portal 2. Does it gate off any gameplay content with an online pass to those who buy used? No. Those who bought it new got a free download code for the Steam PC version: I.E., something that actually IS extra, not a portion of the initial game that was finished and then taken out before it launched.)

(I've always believed that Valve and Steam operate under what's known as "McDonaldization". It's a practice where you give people a lot of something at a cheap price, and they become convinced they are getting "quality". They aren't. 

 

Also, I would like to present some food for thought:

gameplaytoday.com/features/general-features/5084-video-game-online-passes-suck-and-well-tell-you-why/" target=_blank>http://gameplaytoday.com/features/general-features/5084-video-game-online-passes-suck-and-well-tell-...

http://www.g4tv.com/thefeed/blog/post/720357/why-online-passes-wont-stop-used-game-sales-sesslers-so...

 

(That's an opinion piece, however EA Sports are a bad example to use. EA Sports games are updated every  year. Who doesn't know this? Even so, after double checking the online pass I have for Madden, I was unable to find an expiration date on it. )

 

I may or may not agree with all of the points made in these articles and they may or may not be completely opinion-based, but it's something to consider at least.

(They are not "articles", they are opinion pieces.)

 

Once more, I cannot stress this point enough:

 

A GAME HAS TO BE BOUGHT NEW AT SOME POINT IN ORDER TO BE SOLD USED AT ALL.

 

(Which is then resold an infinite number of times, giving people who haven't paid for the online service through the retail price access to the multiplayer, in effect "jumping the turnstyle", and  not one cent of that money is seen by developers or publishers. And that's the entire crux of the argument you seem to be ignoring. Support for a game has gone from zero, to YEARS. Someone has to pay for it. Do you really think that the people who make the downloads and maintain the servers all work for free? If you never once considered that there are actual human beings behind games, and that they are paid money for their efforts, then that is completely naive.)


 

Please use plain text.
Message 34 of 36 (104 Views)
Reply
0 Likes
First Son
Registered: 09/13/2012
Offline
24 posts
 

Re: online passes

[ Edited ]
Sep 16, 2012

CaptainAlbator wrote:


forest1903 wrote:

CaptainAlbator wrote:

(I know that "opinions" and "facts" are one in the same to many people in the 21st century, but they are not. I have provided evidence countering your arguments.)

Really, because I don't recall you ever providing facts for whether or not online passes are good for the industry. Here are the only facts you've provided:

1. Buying new is often cheaper than buying used depending on the seller

2. 20% of all Americans have no internet connection

3. Profits off of used games do not go to the publisher while profits made off of selling $10 online passes to those who buy games used do go directly to the publisher (Something that even opponents to the online pass have always known)

I never denied that I've only been giving out opinions. If you would be so kind as to show me your source for why you think online passes are good for the gaming community as a whole, then that would be fine.

 

 

Another example would be Portal 2. Does it gate off any gameplay content with an online pass to those who buy used? No. Those who bought it new got a free download code for the Steam PC version: I.E., something that actually IS extra, not a portion of the initial game that was finished and then taken out before it launched.)

"I've always believed that Valve and Steam operate under what's known as "McDonaldization". It's a practice where you give people a lot of something at a cheap price, and they become convinced they are getting "quality". They aren't."-Completely opinion-based.

 

Once more, I cannot stress this point enough:

 

A GAME HAS TO BE BOUGHT NEW AT SOME POINT IN ORDER TO BE SOLD USED AT ALL.

 

(Which is then resold an infinite number of times,

-Actually, no it usually isn't. One used game being sold to a customer does not entail an "infinite number" of resellings. When a person buys a game with an online multiplayer portion, they are effectively buying one online space. When they sell that game used, they are selling that online space. It's not like the original customer is still online after selling it. And are you really expecting me to believe that any game with no online pass is going to be sold an infinite number of times between people as if everyone will go out of their way to buy it used, and that online passes are absolutely necessary for the survival of an online game even though the Call of Duty games, Uncharted 2, Halo, LittleBigPlanet, and many others have proven otherwise?

giving people who haven't paid for the online service through the retail price access to the multiplayer, in effect "jumping the turnstyle", and  not one cent of that money is seen by developers or publishers. And that's the entire crux of the argument you seem to be ignoring. Support for a game has gone from zero, to YEARS.

-Online multiplayer is not a "new" thing. It wasn't until 2009 that the online pass was first used by THQ. Before that, we've had the undeniable success of the original Xbox Live, the SOCOM PS2 games, Uncharted 2, Killzone 2, every single Halo game since Halo 2, Super Smash Bros. Brawl, and hundreds of others including those games I mentioned above. Uncharted 2, for example, was a major success with no online pass, after all.

Someone has to pay for it. Do you really think that the people who make the downloads and maintain the servers all work for free? If you never once considered that there are actual human beings behind games, and that they are paid money for their efforts, then that is completely naive.)

-This whole online pass argument has nothing to do with not wanting to support publishers and developers, It's about wanting to enjoy content provided to us at a fair and reasonable price without feeling like we've been cheated out of our money. I know perfectly well that servers cost money to maintain, and I am more than willing to buy new in order to support them, I just don't want to feel like I've been cheated for it. After all, other companies like Rockstar, Atlus, Nintendo, Bethesda, Sega, 2K, Square Enix, Capcom, and hundreds of others have made successful online multiplayer games without needing to resort to cheap and greedy tactics like the online pass in order to do so. (That doesn't necessarily excuse them from some of the other greedy tactics they've tried, but that's beside the point) They recognize that the online pass is a major inconvenience to the player, (something which is important to consider when trying to build a loyal fanbase) is more trouble that it is worth, and that people very often rely upon resale value of old games in order to buy more new games, something which online passes directly inhibit.

 

Go on Google right now and type "Video game online passes" in the searchbar. What do you find? Nothing but pages and pages of people complaining and saying that online passes are bad for the industry. I think it should be obvious at this point that the vast majority of people who play and enjoy video games and are not obviously either paid spokespeople or company fantards generally think that the online pass is very bad form for any publisher/developer.

Please use plain text.
Message 35 of 36 (87 Views)
Reply
0 Likes
PlayStation MVP
Registered: 12/24/2007
Online
15234 posts
 

Re: online passes

Sep 16, 2012

forest1903 wrote:

CaptainAlbator wrote:


forest1903 wrote:

CaptainAlbator wrote:

(I know that "opinions" and "facts" are one in the same to many people in the 21st century, but they are not. I have provided evidence countering your arguments.)

Really, because I don't recall you ever providing facts for whether or not online passes are good for the industry. Here are the only facts you've provided:

1. Buying new is often cheaper than buying used depending on the seller

2. 20% of all Americans have no internet connection

3. Profits off of used games do not go to the publisher while profits made off of selling $10 online passes to those who buy games new do go directly to the publisher (Something that even opponents to the online pass have always known)

I never denied that I've only been giving out opinions. If you would be so kind as to show me your source for why you think online passes are good for the gaming community as a whole, then that would be fine.


Of course the "fee" goes to the publisher..... often-times the publisher is the one who is providing the online service and not the developer. Developers dont get a "free pass" to the publishers services...... How else do you think publishers make so much money while developers are only given "budgets" to work with? There was never any secret to this. 

 

Another example would be Portal 2. Does it gate off any gameplay content with an online pass to those who buy used? No. Those who bought it new got a free download code for the Steam PC version: I.E., something that actually IS extra, not a portion of the initial game that was finished and then taken out before it launched.)

"I've always believed that Valve and Steam operate under what's known as "McDonaldization". It's a practice where you give people a lot of something at a cheap price, and they become convinced they are getting "quality". They aren't."-Completely opinion-based.


No, its actually true..... have you bothered to see the correlation between games sold on Steam, at retail and their overall sales figures and reviews? They all are affected by one another. Steam only instills the word "value" when a game doesnt sell well, and to increase sales they promote discounts and "bonuses" which only cheapens the game even more. Steam's "best sellers" tend not to be given as many "deals" as other games nor as often.

 

Once more, I cannot stress this point enough:

 

A GAME HAS TO BE BOUGHT NEW AT SOME POINT IN ORDER TO BE SOLD USED AT ALL.

 

(Which is then resold an infinite number of times,

-Actually, no it usually isn't. One used game being sold to a customer does not entail an "infinite number" of resellings. When a person buys a game with an online multiplayer portion, they are effectively buying one online space. When they sell that game used, they are selling that online space. It's not like the original customer is still online after selling it. And are you really expecting me to believe that any game with no online pass is going to be sold an infinite number of times between people as if everyone will go out of their way to buy it used, and that online passes are absolutely necessary for the survival of an online game even though the Call of Duty games, Uncharted 2, Halo, LittleBigPlanet, and many others have proven otherwise?

Im fairly certain when he said "infinite number of times" he was referring to the sale and resale of a copy of the game in which the seller is the one who is profitting from the sale and the pub/dev is not seeing ANY proceeds at all, no matter how many times a game is sold and resold. Selling the game does not equate to "selling an online space"... that would suggest the person is also selling their user account, which is not the case. Whomever holds and "online pass" still holds an "online space" should the user ever decide to re-purchase the game, especially when an online pass has vitrually no expiration date inside the "supported" time table which is an average of 1-2 years and even a game that is not dependent on dedicated servers and relies on a p2p client, which in this case, applies to most games that you've previously mentioned.

 

giving people who haven't paid for the online service through the retail price access to the multiplayer, in effect "jumping the turnstyle", and  not one cent of that money is seen by developers or publishers. And that's the entire crux of the argument you seem to be ignoring. Support for a game has gone from zero, to YEARS.

-Online multiplayer is not a "new" thing. It wasn't until 2009 that the online pass was first used by THQ. Before that, we've had the undeniable success of the original Xbox Live, the SOCOM PS2 games, Uncharted 2, Killzone 2, every single Halo game since Halo 2, Super Smash Bros. Brawl, and hundreds of others including those games I mentioned above. Uncharted 2, for -example, was a major success with no online pass, after all.

 


That was BEFORE, publishers and developers alike had no idea how popular online console gaming would be when it came in the form of Socom on the PS2 or the Xbox..... in actuality, Xbox live was still in "beta" during Xbox1's days as there wasn't such a large number of games that had any sort of online multiplayer component, outside the ability for people to communicate with each other even IF the game supported Live, as the "Live" label was an indication that it had SOME sort of online capability even if it was just for talking to each other or comparing stats. Especially when the number of people even ONLINE at the time was less than a few hundred-thousand TOTAL, server maintenance costs were actually reasonable.
Fast forward to the current generation where its not out of the realm of possibility to have well over 1 million users on any game on any given time globally, and you have a larger load put on the servers with a seemingly unlimited amount of possible outcomes as to how the enviroment would react to having such a large load on server capacity and capabilities.
You also forget that even some highly anticipated online games like Phantasy Star Online, originally on the Dreamcast, required a monthly subscription service ON TOP of your internet subscription, and slowly moved to the PS3 and Xbox and Gamecube... STILL with the subscription fee. And thats to do with the games high attendance rate coupled with Sega's dwindling console sales. 

 

Did you not also forget the part where people had/still have to pay a subscription service to play a game online or even go free-to-play with an internal economic structure that ensures developers still get paid by selling digital content for the game? Why do you think that is?


 

Someone has to pay for it. Do you really think that the people who make the downloads and maintain the servers all work for free? If you never once considered that there are actual human beings behind games, and that they are paid money for their efforts, then that is completely naive.)

-This whole online pass argument has nothing to do with not wanting to support publishers and developers, It's about wanting to enjoy content provided to us at a fair and reasonable price without feeling like we've been cheated out of our money. I know perfectly well that servers cost money to maintain, and I am more than willing to buy new in order to support them, I just don't want to feel like I've been cheated for it. After all, other companies like Rockstar, Atlus, Nintendo, Bethesda, Sega, 2K, Square Enix, Capcom, and hundreds of others have made successful online multiplayer games without needing to resort to cheap and greedy tactics like the online pass in order to do so. (That doesn't necessarily excuse them from some of the other greedy tactics they've tried, but that's beside the point) They recognize that the online pass is a major inconvenience to the player, (something which is important to consider when trying to build a loyal fanbase) is more trouble that it is worth, and that people very often rely upon resale value of old games in order to buy more new games, something which online passes directly inhibit.

 

Go on Google right now and type "Video game online passes" in the searchbar. What do you find? Nothing but pages and pages of people complaining and saying that online passes are bad for the industry. I think it should be obvious at this point that the vast majority of people who play and enjoy video games and are not obviously either paid spokespeople or company fantards generally think that the online pass is very bad form for any publisher/developer.

 

Obviously people are going to be upset..... people are always willing to cry and moan about having to spend money to have access for premium content.  
Your opinion that "search google and you'll find many links to people being upset" is still based on opinion. Most of the people who discuss their distaste for it are basing their frustration from an unfounded opinion. And I can tell you that the same amount of results, would also yeild the same results as to WHY they are issuing these "online passes" in the first place.

 

You simply just dont get it. Its ok if you just say "I just don't get it" and not continue an uphill debate without a paddle. 

Its fine for you to have an opinion..... but basing your opinion on a false pretense that its "bad business" just because you have to spend more money is becoming the issue at hand.

 

 

 


 

Cognitive Dissonance - The ability to understand multiple viewpoints even if they conflict with one another - and still use critical thinking, logical thought, and common sense to come to the realization that only ONE is the correct one and the others are wrong.

Furiously Chaosing
Please use plain text.
Message 36 of 36 (79 Views)
Reply
0 Likes