You need a good alternative to Battlefield that's true competition. Unfortunately, I'm not sure one exists. I've seen plenty other good FPS's but nothing that's got the same feature-set. That said, the only two Battlefield games I've purchased were 1942 and BC2. Both only to play with friends, and both purchases I consider mistakes. As AAA games go, the Battlefield series have always been some of the most buggy games upon release ever.
What makes it even worse for gamers like you is that going forward, you really don't have a choice. With the elimination of dedicated server hosting by outside entities, EA now has full control over the multiplayer. You can bet within a year of releasing BF4 they'll be shutting down the servers for BF3.
So why hasn't someone developed some true competition for the Battlefield series? Or if they have, why isn't it popular and why haven't I heard about it?
The downhill slide was apparent to me the moment WW got bought out by EA. Even RA2: Yuri's Revenge (the first EA C&C release) wasn't as fun for me as base RA2. Just like every other studio/franchise they've acquired. It just wasn't as noticeable back then, because they were just starting their downward spiral. The high point for EA IMO was back around the turn of the millenium, about the time they released Need for Speed: Porsche Unleashed. Everything since then has generally been slightly less fun and slightly more buggy than its predecessor (if one existed). Their first in-house project that really exemplified the future of their QA was Battlefield 1942. Until then, there had never been a high-profile FPS that was more bug-ridden and unplayable upon release. Of course, since then they've managed to top themselves with virtually every new Battlefield release, but it somehow hasn't seemed to matter.
Bottom line, I've seen this coming for a long long time.
And as long as their shitty business practices keep them the most profitable video game company in the world, why shouldn't they?
Personally I've been waiting for the masses to discover that EA has been getting more and more shitty for over a decade. Still waiting. I guess that's why the term "sheeple" exists.
I see a strong market for a gaming box that requires "always on, high bandwidth, no caps don't even bother if you don't have a great connection".
Yeah... for now. How big do you think the market is going to be for a gaming box that is going to be literally useless after about 2-5 years once the next gen console comes out? They can get away with it for one or two generations, but then people will start to catch on, and the portion who aren't ok with planned obsolescence will quit buying.
Why not? I have plenty of PC games I can play without internet. And those were the ones I was playing for three weeks in March while I didn't have internet.
Which is all bunk, because you're presuming to speak for all gun designers with your claims of guns having a "design goal to kill".
It's been posted on this story before, but apparently it needs to be repeated because you didn't get it the first time. The design goal of guns is to propel a small projectile at high velocity. That's it. Whether or not that projectile is aimed at killing a target is entirely up to the user, just as with a car.
Far and away most guns sold in the US today are designed for the express purpose of sport-shooting, and many *are* specifically designed for shooting inanimate targets. Yes, many are also designed specifically for hunting game, but lumping that in with murdering people doesn't help your argument at all.
Yeah I agree, he got hit a lot harder than he should have. His case is tricky because it's right on that tipping point where it'd be pretty hard to prove one way or the other. On the one hand the prosecutor was probably right - he very likely did know those specific compartments were going to be used for drug-running and he built them anyway. But on the other hand, he did obey the letter of the law - he never actually saw them being used for drugs and was never specifically told that was what they would be used for. So sure, it could have gone either way, but it's still not arbitrary. He got in trouble because he saw evidence that specific customer was probably using the compartments illegally and still built more for him. That said, I'd come down on the side that he probably didn't violate the law and as such should have been given a not-guilty verdict, and if they want what he did to be illegal they probably need to rewrite the law a bit.
And ironically, those cars that are designed and used for "simple transportation" cause far more deaths than the faster, higher-powered cars designed for sport, even per mile driven. They also cause more deaths than firearms.
But by your logic we should ban all cars designed purely for sport, because they are dangerous machines that can be used for lethal purposes and have no practical use.
And yes, 200hp is way more than a sedan needs (and most have even more than that now). Most sedans with 200hp engines could easily hit 80MPH with half that much hp.
None of this changes the fact that the car has way more power than necessary and can indeed be effectively used for the purpose of running down someone to kill them.
Suppose you're a drug manufacturer. Suppose you make and sell an anti-inflammatory that can also be misused to get high. Suppose there's a law against using the drug for that purpose where you are selling it. Suppose you have a customer you know is using that particular drug (manufactured by you and sold to him) for that purpose. If you keep selling that drug to that customer, you are now liable as well.
It's not arbitrary at all. Re-read my post. It's about the specific item and the specific individual and whether or not there is a law against what you know (or have good reason to believe) your item will be used for by that individual. Your "example" is very vague and thus completely irrelevant.
Making a specific item for a specific individual whom you have good reason to believe is going to do something illegal with that specific item is in fact criminal. It makes you an accomplice.
This is actually a very good point. Almost all vehicles on the road today in the US have way more power than is necessary. A typical car weighing 3000-5000 pounds can easily reach highway speeds(~75MPH) with 100-150 hp.
To be honest, if so many people are breaking a law that you have to assume everyone is always breaking it, its probably the law that's wrong, not the people...
Physical goods are much harder to copy for the average person. And many people won't even know that the license is what they're selling. Many of the ones who do won't care.
I'm not saying I agree with the judge, I'm saying I think copyright law is way outdated for what is possible today.
I'm also of the opinion that digital goods probably should not be resellable but in light of that, should be priced much lower.
I think the biggest problem though is that no one really knows exactly how the law applies here and that no one knows exactly what consumers are buying when they buy a digital copy of something.
Maybe, maybe not. It might be he's trying to focus the spotlight on how outdated copyright law is in the digital era, and he may be trying to force change. Because he has a point. What's stopping you from duplicating a non-DRM MP3 and then reselling as many copies as you wish via this service? For that matter, what's stopping someone from making a copy via the analog hole and then reselling a DRM'd copy?
The fact is that digital goods simply cannot be treated the same as physical goods, and this must be considered in ALL respects. This includes everything from first sale rights, to the fact that infringement is not theft, to the whole concept of licensing vs selling, and recognizing that a license to use a digital copy is worth less than the physical version of the same good.
Slashdot Mirror
Seriously? You think Origin is the worst thing they do? No wonder they still make bucketloads of money.
Just tried to find what studio you're talking about and came up with nothing. Care to elaborate?
You need a good alternative to Battlefield that's true competition. Unfortunately, I'm not sure one exists. I've seen plenty other good FPS's but nothing that's got the same feature-set. That said, the only two Battlefield games I've purchased were 1942 and BC2. Both only to play with friends, and both purchases I consider mistakes. As AAA games go, the Battlefield series have always been some of the most buggy games upon release ever.
What makes it even worse for gamers like you is that going forward, you really don't have a choice. With the elimination of dedicated server hosting by outside entities, EA now has full control over the multiplayer. You can bet within a year of releasing BF4 they'll be shutting down the servers for BF3.
So why hasn't someone developed some true competition for the Battlefield series? Or if they have, why isn't it popular and why haven't I heard about it?
The downhill slide was apparent to me the moment WW got bought out by EA. Even RA2: Yuri's Revenge (the first EA C&C release) wasn't as fun for me as base RA2. Just like every other studio/franchise they've acquired. It just wasn't as noticeable back then, because they were just starting their downward spiral. The high point for EA IMO was back around the turn of the millenium, about the time they released Need for Speed: Porsche Unleashed. Everything since then has generally been slightly less fun and slightly more buggy than its predecessor (if one existed). Their first in-house project that really exemplified the future of their QA was Battlefield 1942. Until then, there had never been a high-profile FPS that was more bug-ridden and unplayable upon release. Of course, since then they've managed to top themselves with virtually every new Battlefield release, but it somehow hasn't seemed to matter.
Bottom line, I've seen this coming for a long long time.
Thats what i hear every time i start an ea game...
every time i start an ea game...
So don't. Duh?
And as long as their shitty business practices keep them the most profitable video game company in the world, why shouldn't they?
Personally I've been waiting for the masses to discover that EA has been getting more and more shitty for over a decade. Still waiting. I guess that's why the term "sheeple" exists.
I see a strong market for a gaming box that requires "always on, high bandwidth, no caps don't even bother if you don't have a great connection".
Yeah... for now. How big do you think the market is going to be for a gaming box that is going to be literally useless after about 2-5 years once the next gen console comes out? They can get away with it for one or two generations, but then people will start to catch on, and the portion who aren't ok with planned obsolescence will quit buying.
Simple. It's just like having a car that requires a constant internet connection. If you lose connection your engine cuts off.
It is for me. I don't need a console; I have plenty of selections for my PC.
Why not? I have plenty of PC games I can play without internet. And those were the ones I was playing for three weeks in March while I didn't have internet.
That's about it.
Don't want a gaming console that requires a persistent internet connection? Don't get one!
I was wondering how long it would take somene to suggest a VM. That was my first thought as well.
Ok, so was the movie Zombieland about zombies or not?
Which is all bunk, because you're presuming to speak for all gun designers with your claims of guns having a "design goal to kill".
It's been posted on this story before, but apparently it needs to be repeated because you didn't get it the first time. The design goal of guns is to propel a small projectile at high velocity. That's it. Whether or not that projectile is aimed at killing a target is entirely up to the user, just as with a car.
Far and away most guns sold in the US today are designed for the express purpose of sport-shooting, and many *are* specifically designed for shooting inanimate targets. Yes, many are also designed specifically for hunting game, but lumping that in with murdering people doesn't help your argument at all.
Yeah I agree, he got hit a lot harder than he should have. His case is tricky because it's right on that tipping point where it'd be pretty hard to prove one way or the other. On the one hand the prosecutor was probably right - he very likely did know those specific compartments were going to be used for drug-running and he built them anyway. But on the other hand, he did obey the letter of the law - he never actually saw them being used for drugs and was never specifically told that was what they would be used for. So sure, it could have gone either way, but it's still not arbitrary. He got in trouble because he saw evidence that specific customer was probably using the compartments illegally and still built more for him. That said, I'd come down on the side that he probably didn't violate the law and as such should have been given a not-guilty verdict, and if they want what he did to be illegal they probably need to rewrite the law a bit.
And ironically, those cars that are designed and used for "simple transportation" cause far more deaths than the faster, higher-powered cars designed for sport, even per mile driven. They also cause more deaths than firearms.
But by your logic we should ban all cars designed purely for sport, because they are dangerous machines that can be used for lethal purposes and have no practical use.
And yes, 200hp is way more than a sedan needs (and most have even more than that now). Most sedans with 200hp engines could easily hit 80MPH with half that much hp.
None of this changes the fact that the car has way more power than necessary and can indeed be effectively used for the purpose of running down someone to kill them.
Suppose you're a drug manufacturer. Suppose you make and sell an anti-inflammatory that can also be misused to get high. Suppose there's a law against using the drug for that purpose where you are selling it. Suppose you have a customer you know is using that particular drug (manufactured by you and sold to him) for that purpose. If you keep selling that drug to that customer, you are now liable as well.
It's not arbitrary at all. Re-read my post. It's about the specific item and the specific individual and whether or not there is a law against what you know (or have good reason to believe) your item will be used for by that individual. Your "example" is very vague and thus completely irrelevant.
A 9 mm is neither made for hunting nor commonly used to hunt.
Most 9 mm firearms in the US are purchased for sport and only ever fired at an inanimate target in a firing range.
Making a specific item for a specific individual whom you have good reason to believe is going to do something illegal with that specific item is in fact criminal. It makes you an accomplice.
This is actually a very good point. Almost all vehicles on the road today in the US have way more power than is necessary. A typical car weighing 3000-5000 pounds can easily reach highway speeds(~75MPH) with 100-150 hp.
To be honest, if so many people are breaking a law that you have to assume everyone is always breaking it, its probably the law that's wrong, not the people...
Agreed 100%.
Physical goods are much harder to copy for the average person. And many people won't even know that the license is what they're selling. Many of the ones who do won't care.
I'm not saying I agree with the judge, I'm saying I think copyright law is way outdated for what is possible today.
I'm also of the opinion that digital goods probably should not be resellable but in light of that, should be priced much lower.
I think the biggest problem though is that no one really knows exactly how the law applies here and that no one knows exactly what consumers are buying when they buy a digital copy of something.
Maybe, maybe not. It might be he's trying to focus the spotlight on how outdated copyright law is in the digital era, and he may be trying to force change. Because he has a point. What's stopping you from duplicating a non-DRM MP3 and then reselling as many copies as you wish via this service? For that matter, what's stopping someone from making a copy via the analog hole and then reselling a DRM'd copy?
The fact is that digital goods simply cannot be treated the same as physical goods, and this must be considered in ALL respects. This includes everything from first sale rights, to the fact that infringement is not theft, to the whole concept of licensing vs selling, and recognizing that a license to use a digital copy is worth less than the physical version of the same good.