Talk:SD Bhaal: Difference between revisions
Black Wolf (talk | contribs) m Created page with "Holy Futbuckery that's pretty. Textures '''look''' like FSKing, but that's probably not enough for a proper credit. ~~~~" |
Ethical concerns with the Bhaal |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Holy Futbuckery that's pretty. Textures '''look''' like FSKing, but that's probably not enough for a proper credit. [[User:Black Wolf|Black Wolf]] 07:24, 1 October 2012 (UTC) | Holy Futbuckery that's pretty. Textures '''look''' like FSKing, but that's probably not enough for a proper credit. [[User:Black Wolf|Black Wolf]] 07:24, 1 October 2012 (UTC) | ||
This model was leaked without authorization, and ED internal is currently pretty crushed. This was intended to be a very secret asset. While I'm not a big fan of exclusive assets myself, as a member of the ED I feel the need to voice this. The model's creator worked incredibly hard on it and hoped dearly that it would be a surprise. I can't imagine how disappointed he must be right now. [[User:General Battuta|General Battuta]] 17:39, 1 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 17:39, 1 October 2012
Holy Futbuckery that's pretty. Textures look like FSKing, but that's probably not enough for a proper credit. Black Wolf 07:24, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
This model was leaked without authorization, and ED internal is currently pretty crushed. This was intended to be a very secret asset. While I'm not a big fan of exclusive assets myself, as a member of the ED I feel the need to voice this. The model's creator worked incredibly hard on it and hoped dearly that it would be a surprise. I can't imagine how disappointed he must be right now. General Battuta 17:39, 1 October 2012 (UTC)