Why are some people upset over the boodborne pc petition?

[ffronw]

It's a very similar attitude to the one you see displayed in most MMOs when content gets nerfed or made easier to access. "Oh, they removed the keying requirements from Tempest Keep, now everyone is getting welfare epics and cheapening our awesomeness."

There's a definite attitude among some folks that they can't enjoy their games unless they're actively lording something over other players while they do it.

I think you misunderstand the point of difficulty in a rpg.

Difficulty adds to the experience, you remember a boss fight because it was tough not because it was shiny, you remember the pain of wiping more then the victory itself, nerfing content means the people who get to see it now, no longer get to experience it.

And also the gear level drops (more people with the same gear means that gear is worth less, eve online is a prime example of the value of items based on accessibility), so eventually they will have to release a new gear level, because everyone has the previous one due to the nerf, and it starts all over again.

While I'm not super familiar with EVE, I have seen how this plays out in games like WoW.

Nerfing content doesn't diminish the value of the content. What it does do is allow more people to experience that content, which is the whole reason the nerf / keying requirement removal happens. Development teams spend lots of time, and therefore lots of money, making raid content. A perfect example is the removal of the keying requirements for Serpentshrine Cavern and Tempest Keep in WoW, which came along with a slight nerf to the content therein. There was a minuscule fraction of the population who had seen that content, and Blizzard wanted more people in there to justify the investment they had made.

Letting more people see the content didn't diminish the achievements of the guilds who had already rolled through there. It's not like the people who got in after the keying was removed didn't know that they only got in because of the nerf. Furthermore, you still weren't just waltzing through with just any old group. You still had to beat the content as presented. Granted, it was easier, but it wasn't like you were overleveling a 5-man in there.

More importantly, nothing that was done there diminished what the guilds who did it before had done. It's not like people who went through after the nerf were out pointing fingers at other guilds and talking trash. Heck, you knew who the elite guilds were. You could tell because when the post-nerf people were starting SSC, those elite guilds were in bleeding edge content. These types of nerfs almost never affect the guilds who are complaining about them. They just don't like the idea of other people running around in the cool gear.

There is literally no good reason to not let as many people as possible see the content. By the time a nerf like that goes in, all the elite guilds are well past that content anyway, and the people it helps probably would never have seen it otherwise. You're right that difficulty and success is a reward all its own, but if you never even get the chance to wipe on it, you've really missed out.

 

[Def25]

I'm amazed that you can have such an informed opinion on Bloodborne considering you hate the souls series. Do you routinely play games that you hate? As to the review scores- maybe reviewers just have a lot of fun playing it? I mean hell, I know a lot of PC gamers obsess about graphics and physics engines and rightfully so, but isn't gameplay the most important thing in any game?

Ad hominem, infact it is because i hate the series that i put so much time into checking up the gameplay mechanics, if you love a series then you cant be objective about it, you love it despite being the same crap over and over and over again, good example assasin's creed. I spent enough time in dark souls and in 2 to see how similar the games are, my argument isnt that the game is bad, but that it gets a free pass when every other game gets the "not quite next gen" and "same thing as last 2 times" whcih is effectively what this game is.

 

[Rattja]

I don't get it...
"You think Bloodborne is a good game right?"
"Yes"
"Would you like it if more people, like me for example, played it and got to experience how good it is?"
"Sure"
"Mind if I play it on this other machine right here?"
"NO!!"

From the posts here I see a lot of people thinking this and guessing that. What I would like is to hear directly from one of these supposedly upset people and hear their exact reasoning as to why they don't want it on PC, anyone got a link to something like that?
I'd really want to know how exactly someone playing a game you like (or hate for that matter) on another system affects you in any way shape or form, because it really should not.

 

[MHR]

They're wasting their time with this dumb petition. Sony has their dirty hands all over the development of this game, they aren't going to port it for all the tentacle pr0n in Japan. They'd be better off forgetting all about that game. Would I buy it if it was on PC? In a freakin' heartbeat, but it's not, so it doesn't exist.

But if I were a console peasant and thought PC players were trying to get it ported to PC? I'd be pretty pissed, yeah. Pretty much my only legit reason to own a console is being taken away! If I didn't have the console exclusives I'd be left with nothing but a bottle of liquor, self-loathing, and a pistol. It's pretty understandable, really.

 

[Azure23]

I'm amazed that you can have such an informed opinion on Bloodborne considering you hate the souls series. Do you routinely play games that you hate? As to the review scores- maybe reviewers just have a lot of fun playing it? I mean hell, I know a lot of PC gamers obsess about graphics and physics engines and rightfully so, but isn't gameplay the most important thing in any game?

Ad hominem, infact it is because i hate the series that i put so much time into checking up the gameplay mechanics, if you love a series then you cant be objective about it, you love it despite being the same crap over and over and over again, good example assasin's creed. I spent enough time in dark souls and in 2 to see how similar the games are, my argument isnt that the game is bad, but that it gets a free pass when every other game gets the "not quite next gen" and "same thing as last 2 times" whcih is effectively what this game is.

Ad Hominem? You thought that was an attack on your person? How long have you been on the internet? I'm sincerely asking, much like I was sincerely asking how informed your opinion on Bloodborne was. What does "not quite next gen" mean? Where are all the reviewers saying games "aren't next gen enough?" I'm gonna guess that you're a PC player, and, presumably being a PC player, you know that next gen as it pertains to consoles is kind of a joke. Is next gen a certain number of polygons in your models? Is it a certain amount of content? How much have you played Bloodborne? And finally, what aspects of it do you see being the same as Dks1 and 2? As for the complaint that dks1 and 2 are similar; yes, yes they are. 2 is a direct sequel. That's like saying that all God of War 2 does is add some new areas, bosses, and weapons, because the gameplay is functionally identical.

 

[Def25]

Ad Hominem? You thought that was an attack on your person? How long have you been on the internet? I'm sincerely asking, much like I was sincerely asking how informed your opinion on Bloodborne was. What does "not quite next gen" mean? Where are all the reviewers saying games "aren't next gen enough?" I'm gonna guess that you're a PC player, and, presumably being a PC player, you know that next gen as it pertains to consoles is kind of a joke. Is next gen a certain number of polygons in your models? Is it a certain amount of content? How much have you played Bloodborne? And finally, what aspects of it do you see being the same as Dks1 and 2? As for the complaint that dks1 and 2 are similar; yes, yes they are. 2 is a direct sequel. That's like saying that all God of War 2 does is add some new areas, bosses, and weapons, because the gameplay is functionally identical.

Well you do seem to have a hostile attack on me and painting me with a brush, so yeah it is ad hominem, yes i am a pc gamer as well as console gamer. Why even bother asking that? I am quite clear with what i mean, reviews lately say that games are not quite new or revolutionary aka "next gen" and they are the same games we have been playing for years and that sequels like say far cry 4 are not new games just the same games with some extras. From what i have seen bloodborne fits that perfectly. Same animations, same slashing sounds, same physics, same health system (and no the fact you get health back from criticals doesnt make it a whole new game) same ai that stills tries to hit you through walls, same bad hit detection, same white fog when you enter a bossbatle. You cant really call it a new game, it feels like dark souls 2.5. Infact i wouldnt say dark souls 2 is more than dark souls 1.5.

It is funny how they got tired of other games but when dark souls 3 comes out, it is still held at the same regard as dark souls 1 and 2 as if it is brand new and the irony here is that bloodborne isnt a sequel but a new ip.

As for how informed my opinion is on bloodborne and dark souls? i finished dark souls 1, i stopped playing dark souls 2 after a while and i have watched bloodborne on streams, enough to know that the patch really changes the damage output, attack speed and item drop.

So no unlike "fanboys" i cant make a detailed analysis and comparison, but its nothing new, it is like dark souls 2 that we played a few months ago and ironicly lords of the fallen which is based on dark souls feels more "diffirent"

But lords of the fallen gets horrible ratings and bloodborne gets super duper high ratings as if it revolutionized gaming and is the first true next gen game. To which i would like to point out most dark souls fans consider dark souls 2 to be vastly inferior yet the game is just as highly rated as the first one, infact more.

So yeah i cant quite figure what is going on with this game's ratings. Seems to me just by being souls, the game gets the ratings without any comparison to the predecessors or other games in the market or any critisism on hit detection, low perfomance,dated graphics,unoriginal gameplay etc etc. Infact isnt it shorter than the last 2 games?

 

[Azure23]

Ad Hominem? You thought that was an attack on your person? How long have you been on the internet? I'm sincerely asking, much like I was sincerely asking how informed your opinion on Bloodborne was. What does "not quite next gen" mean? Where are all the reviewers saying games "aren't next gen enough?" I'm gonna guess that you're a PC player, and, presumably being a PC player, you know that next gen as it pertains to consoles is kind of a joke. Is next gen a certain number of polygons in your models? Is it a certain amount of content? How much have you played Bloodborne? And finally, what aspects of it do you see being the same as Dks1 and 2? As for the complaint that dks1 and 2 are similar; yes, yes they are. 2 is a direct sequel. That's like saying that all God of War 2 does is add some new areas, bosses, and weapons, because the gameplay is functionally identical.

Well you do seem to have a hostile attack on me and painting me with a brush, so yeah it is ad hominem, yes i am a pc gamer as well as console gamer. Why even bother asking that? I am quite clear with what i mean, reviews lately say that games are not quite new or revolutionary aka "next gen" and they are the same games we have been playing for years and that sequels like say far cry 4 are not new games just the same games with some extras. From what i have seen bloodborne fits that perfectly. Same animations, same slashing sounds, same physics, same health system (and no the fact you get health back from criticals doesnt make it a whole new game) same ai that stills tries to hit you through walls, same bad hit detection, same white fog when you enter a bossbatle. You cant really call it a new game, it feels like dark souls 2.5. Infact i wouldnt say dark souls 2 is more than dark souls 1.5.

It is funny how they got tired of other games but when dark souls 3 comes out, it is still held at the same regard as dark souls 1 and 2 as if it is brand new and the irony here is that bloodborne isnt a sequel but a new ip.

As for how informed my opinion is on bloodborne and dark souls? i finished dark souls 1, i stopped playing dark souls 2 after a while and i have watched bloodborne on streams, enough to know that the patch really changes the damage output, attack speed and item drop.

So no unlike "fanboys" i cant make a detailed analysis and comparison, but its nothing new, it is like dark souls 2 that we played a few months ago and ironicly lords of the fallen which is based on dark souls feels more "diffirent"

But lords of the fallen gets horrible ratings and bloodborne gets super duper high ratings as if it revolutionized gaming and is the first true next gen game. To which i would like to point out most dark souls fans consider dark souls 2 to be vastly inferior yet the game is just as highly rated as the first one, infact more.

So yeah i cant quite figure what is going on with this game's ratings. Seems to me just by being souls, the game gets the ratings without any comparison to the predecessors or other games in the market or any critisism on hit detection, low perfomance,dated graphics,unoriginal gameplay etc etc. Infact isnt it shorter than the last 2 games?

I brought the PC gamer thing up because presumably, owning a PC, you know that "next gen" consoles are kind of a joke. A joke in that the increase in performance isn't really that substantial, because pc's have been there for years. That was the relevance, it's right there, in my previous post.

Look, full disclosure, I am a big fan of From software games in general and the souls series in particular. I wouldn't say I'm a fanboy, I have a lot of criticisms about dks2. As you said I find it to be a weaker game then dks1. That said, it's still a pretty great game, and much better than a lot of other games that came out that year. It got good reviews because it was ambitious and difficult and had an interesting world and satisfying gameplay. Lords of the fallen didn't get as good reviews because it had a bland and uninspired art style, tanky feel that invalidated quicker playstyles, and a boring story with a boring protagonist. There was also no build diversity, which is something that characterized the souls series.

I'm not really in the business of game criticism but I've spent a lot of time breaking down what I felt was wrong with dks2 with friends and it seems that, Bloodborne addressed most of those grievances. It's combat is fast paced and very aggressive as opposed to the passivity and turtling that was a lot of dks2's base combat (pvp was a very different affair). It's an interconnected world that makes sense and feels as if it's areas are placed with purpose and care (no takin an elevator up form the top of a fortress and ending up in a volcanic basin ala iron peak). I have had no problem with hit detection- certainly not the the extent that phantom hits were ubiquitous in dks2 pvp- and I've done a fair amount of pvp in BB. Likewise the game looks absolutely glorious on my big screen- the atmosphere shines and is genuinely scary. Sure it's not up to the cutting edge of PC capabilities- it never will be, it's a console game. It's getting good review scores because it's a good game. "It has the same health system" in that you have health and it goes down as you get hit? You have healing items which drop from enemies and no estus system. You have the regain system which provides a brief period of time after getting hit when you can heal the damage done by damaging enemies- this ties into the game's theme that Yharnam blood is a healing medium. And, if you spec your character correctly, you can heal damage anytime by doing a riposte or backstab. And, although you may feel that this is a bit of an unfair argument to make- you can watch all the streams you want (I certainly do, MrIwont4get is a favorite) but unless you actually play the game you really don't know how the combat feels. It's a fun game- it drips atmosphere and is filled with eldritch abominations and very inventive enemy designs in general. It can be very difficult but is always satisfying. Honestly this entire debate just seems like you don't understand how a series you don't personally like can consistently garner high review scores- and that's fine by the way, I think the Halo series is one of the most boring, uninspired scifi universes around but people seem to like it, I don't get it, but you don't see me carrying on about how it doesn't deserve any of it's accolades.

 

[StorkV]

Another day another internet drama thingie...

 

[Pheo1386]

I would honestly love it to come to PC, but with linked servers so people can play each other across platforms (a la FF14). I've not had any p&p or co-op action as of yet which is a little disappointing.

But with some manner of hacking/mod restriction. One reason I stopped playing DS1 online on the PC was because of those insufferable people who gave themselves infinite health and invaded your game. They can go suck a fat one.

 

[Def25]

I brought the PC gamer thing up because presumably, owning a PC, you know that "next gen" consoles are kind of a joke. A joke in that the increase in performance isn't really that substantial, because pc's have been there for years. That was the relevance, it's right there, in my previous post.

Look, full disclosure, I am a big fan of From software games in general and the souls series in particular. I wouldn't say I'm a fanboy, I have a lot of criticisms about dks2. As you said I find it to be a weaker game then dks1. That said, it's still a pretty great game, and much better than a lot of other games that came out that year. It got good reviews because it was ambitious and difficult and had an interesting world and satisfying gameplay. Lords of the fallen didn't get as good reviews because it had a bland and uninspired art style, tanky feel that invalidated quicker playstyles, and a boring story with a boring protagonist. There was also no build diversity, which is something that characterized the souls series.

I'm not really in the business of game criticism but I've spent a lot of time breaking down what I felt was wrong with dks2 with friends and it seems that, Bloodborne addressed most of those grievances. It's combat is fast paced and very aggressive as opposed to the passivity and turtling that was a lot of dks2's base combat (pvp was a very different affair). It's an interconnected world that makes sense and feels as if it's areas are placed with purpose and care (no takin an elevator up form the top of a fortress and ending up in a volcanic basin ala iron peak). I have had no problem with hit detection- certainly not the the extent that phantom hits were ubiquitous in dks2 pvp- and I've done a fair amount of pvp in BB. Likewise the game looks absolutely glorious on my big screen- the atmosphere shines and is genuinely scary. Sure it's not up to the cutting edge of PC capabilities- it never will be, it's a console game. It's getting good review scores because it's a good game. "It has the same health system" in that you have health and it goes down as you get hit? You have healing items which drop from enemies and no estus system. You have the regain system which provides a brief period of time after getting hit when you can heal the damage done by damaging enemies- this ties into the game's theme that Yharnam blood is a healing medium. And, if you spec your character correctly, you can heal damage anytime by doing a riposte or backstab. And, although you may feel that this is a bit of an unfair argument to make- you can watch all the streams you want (I certainly do, MrIwont4get is a favorite) but unless you actually play the game you really don't know how the combat feels. It's a fun game- it drips atmosphere and is filled with eldritch abominations and very inventive enemy designs in general. It can be very difficult but is always satisfying. Honestly this entire debate just seems like you don't understand how a series you don't personally like can consistently garner high review scores- and that's fine by the way, I think the Halo series is one of the most boring, uninspired scifi universes around but people seem to like it, I don't get it, but you don't see me carrying on about how it doesn't deserve any of it's accolades.

When the framerate hits 20 fps with unimpressive graphics it is not a matter of consoles being weak but the game being unoptimized,i heard various critisisms about he game like how the hit detection is even worse than dark souls 2 or how when you fall down the enemies can still damage you and kill you while in the previous games you had a second that you couldnt take damage to avoid getting hit. It doesnt have the same variety of enviroments and enemies and in the end it is sad to me that a game that has obvious problems and perfomance issues/ glitches and doesnt do anyhing new gets high scores at the "next gen" era. It is not a problem of the game itself, it is a problem with the game journalism, that you see most games get "not quite next gen" and "same thing" and they gave some pretty bad ratings in games in 2014 when arguably alot of those were better than games in 2013 and 2012 that they rated higher. Seems to me, just like you pointed out with halo, that souls gets high scores solely for being souls and just like halo they dont improve much.

I find that unfair...FOR ANY franchise.

It keeps saying "yeah you like this game, well the new one is just as amazing as the previous game and must have go get it" discouraging people from trying new games instead. At this point does it even need to be said that souls will be souls and halo will be halo?

Then you got the other side that doesnt like those games that keeps wondering why they get such high scores. It is not like the scores matter that much or a series with mixed scores dont get high scores, look at assasin creed or sillent hill.

 

[Azure23]

When the framerate hits 20 fps with unimpressive graphics it is not a matter of consoles being weak but the game being unoptimized,i heard various critisisms about he game like how the hit detection is even worse than dark souls 2 or how when you fall down the enemies can still damage you and kill you while in the previous games you had a second that you couldnt take damage to avoid getting hit. It doesnt have the same variety of enviroments and enemies and in the end it is sad to me that a game that has obvious problems and perfomance issues/ glitches and doesnt do anyhing new gets high scores at the "next gen" era. It is not a problem of the game itself, it is a problem with the game journalism, that you see most games get "not quite next gen" and "same thing" and they gave some pretty bad ratings in games in 2014 when arguably alot of those were better than games in 2013 and 2012 that they rated higher. Seems to me, just like you pointed out with halo, that souls gets high scores solely for being souls and just like halo they dont improve much.

I find that unfair...FOR ANY franchise.

It keeps saying "yeah you like this game, well the new one is just as amazing as the previous game and must have go get it" discouraging people from trying new games instead. At this point does it even need to be said that souls will be souls and halo will be halo?

Then you got the other side that doesnt like those games that keeps wondering why they get such high scores. It is not like the scores matter that much or a series with mixed scores dont get high scores, look at assasin creed or sillent hill.

The only framerate drops I've seen in the entire game was a rare glitch that occurred when some people went through a fog gate, this was fixed with a patch on day one. The people who suffered it had early copies. Certainly nothing comparable to say, Blight town. I understand what you've heard but once again I've actually played the game and can say that I've had no problems with hit detection in either pve or pvp. If anything they seem to have completely fixed their incredibly ubiquitous phantom hit problem (not that I don't have problems with the pvp, the bell maiden system is rather restrictive) and I've been able to play over 50 pvp matches. Yes you have less I frames when you get knocked down, you can also dodge roll out of the knockdown as soon as those I frames end, so it's really a moot point if the player is paying attention and frantically trying to get out of the way of the next attack. As for the graphics? Well that's just like- your opinion man. Seriously though, cutting edge graphics have never been all that important in a souls game. They do their job, they don't break the carefully constructed atmosphere, and I'd say the Bloodborne has a lot of really beautifully crafted environments, in that they were consistent and careful with their world building. The environments are varied, the color palette shifts with events in game, transitioning from an warm afternoon sun to a dark night to a warped purple and red sky that bathes everything in a surreal and uncomfortable glow. I still haven't beaten the game but there's apparently at least one more shift.

Point making time: it's very possible Dark Souls 2 shouldn't have been rated so highly, it's not as carefully thought out, it was created by apprentice developers and in some areas it shows. Hell the shaded woods literally feel and look unfinished. A lot of the gripes people had with it were addressed in the very good dlc trilogy (which was consistently the best pve content they put out) but I believe that the game should be judged by the base content. However- it's still a great game, I put hundreds of hours into the pvp aspect and although I was occasionally frustrated it was still one of the best experiences last gen. A lot of people have an itch for this kinda game- I can understand that itch as well as why these games are popular, you don't really have another series filling the niche. Whereas there are dozens of sci if shooters with similar gameplay. The Souls series doesn't need to drastically change because it's already the only one of its kind (not counting LoTF, which frankly, isn't very good). Look, I could sit here all day and go point counterpoint with you, refuting your claims as you make them, but in the end it's a great game that you seem dead set on nitpicking into oblivion. Im obviously not going to change your mind and unfortunately that's really to your own detriment. So I'd like to politely ask that we end our discussion here. You are more then welcome to respond and I will absolutely read what you have to say, but if the content is in line with your previous posts I most likely won't respond. Please don't take this the wrong way, as I've enjoyed our discussion, I just feel like it's kind of run it's course and anything further would just be each of us talking past the other.

 

[Blazing Hero]

I'll be honest Bloodborne was the game that made me buy a PS4. I like the souls series THAT much and have already logged 40 hours on this game. When going to the store I had to hold my nose when spending all of this money for just one game. Yet I did it because it was specifically marketed as an exclusive that would only ever be on the PS4. Demon Souls never was brought to the PC from PS3 after all. If it was ported to PC I would absolutely be angry, but not at the PC users or other gamers. Instead I would be angry at Sony for lying to me about an exclusive and getting me to buy a PS4 which I wouldn't have wanted otherwise. Would it be my fault for spending so much money? Yes However, I still would have a reason to be pissed after being lied too.

 

[00slash00]

you see there are many different groups of people that are fighting a retarded e-war in defense of their favorite multinational multimillion dollar corporation and are looking for any ammunition that they can use to fight against other groups of people that are trying to defend their favorite multimillion dollar corporation I can imagine how that conversation would have gone

lol beggar master race how's it feel like having no geams and having to beg for our scraps

fuck you sonypony enjoy your 30 fps movies XD

Hahaha, I don't know if Sony pony is an actual insult, but I really want it to be

 

[Mutant1988]

I think that consoles and console exclusivity is an outdated concept that only persist because some companies insist on making all the money by forcing you to choose between two options (Pretending like PC can't play games) and stay loyal to keep getting great "exclusives".

I just want to play any game I want on any system I want. If it's not on PC, then you can expect to wait a LOOONG time to get my money.

I own a PC already and I'm not in a rush to buy a PC with an inferior operating system and a monopolized digital marketplace.

Where's that petition by the way, I would love to sign it.

 

[Gengisgame]

The answer to the OP's question is that some people treat gaming systems like a sportsteam, they want the team they support to do the best, there choice I suppose, my loyalty is more dependent on what's best for me. I wouldn't mind BB reaching more people who are willing to support it.

 

[Def25]

I guess because of the PC gaming master race? They literally can't allow a single good game to be a console exclusive, because how else would they justify their $3,000+ 'rig'?
You'll sooner see an Xbone, 360 and PS3 release.

a 500$ PC wipes the floor with both consoles actually and pc has more games than all consoles combined. Now on exlusives? Well obviously it is not gonna come out on anything else than ps4 since sony owns the ip, but thatsd the thing about exlusive they are anti consumer, all pc gamers want is to play bloodborne without having to suffer through framerate drops to 18 fps and 48 second load screens.

 

[Johnny Impact]

People enjoy getting upset. That is the long, the short, and the in between of it. If nothing exists that any rational person could find upsetting, they'll find a way to be upset irrationally.

Personally I'd like to play Bloodborne but will not purchase a PS4 to do it. I have a PS3 I hardly use. I think I'm done with consoles.

 

[Silentpony_v1legacy]

I guess because of the PC gaming master race? They literally can't allow a single good game to be a console exclusive, because how else would they justify their $3,000+ 'rig'?
You'll sooner see an Xbone, 360 and PS3 release.

a 500$ PC wipes the floor with both consoles actually and pc has more games than all consoles combined. Now on exlusives? Well obviously it is not gonna come out on anything else than ps4 since sony owns the ip, but thatsd the thing about exlusive they are anti consumer, all pc gamers want is to play bloodborne without having to suffer through framerate drops to 18 fps and 48 second load screens.

Funnily enough, there were a few articles not too long ago detailing just how much a true gaming PC would cost.
Here's one for GTA V at full spec. Cost was around $4,000:

http://bgr.com/2015/04/16/gta-5-4k-resolution-pc/

And here's another on what it'd cost to get up to Xbone/PS4 spec and then to keep upgrading to keep up with new games. Up front cost was $600-$700, with roughly $100-$200 upkeep for new parts every few months.

http://www.digitaltrends.com/computing/pc-vs-ps4-xbox-one-how-to-upgrade-pc/

So I wasn't too far off with my $3k snarky quip.