I think the author fails to acknowledge some of the changes that are already coming down the pipe in this respect.
It may seem unrelated but I think web sites like MySpace and YouTube have opened a LOT of eyes (read: pocketbooks) in terms of understanding how much people want to contribute to an online community. Look at Sony's upcoming entries, Home and LittleBigPlanet.
For those who don't know, LittleBigPlanet for the PS3 is a 2D side-scrolling platformer where every level is built with an included level editor and shared, YouTube style, with the player community at large. Home is a similar concept wherein you create a 3D environment for you and your buddy-list to hang out at, a la The Sims Online.
That's just a couple of examples of a changing attitude towards community gaming.
I believe that WoW represents the last giant of a dying breed. The term "WoW-Killer" is used a lot, but I don't see WoW being killed, just dying off slowly as it's replaced by more evolved options.
In fact, I'd like to explore the theory that Jack is actually on some under-the-table payroll of Take-Two and other video game publishers. His job? Act like a total asshat thus doing immeasurable damage to the true "anti-gaming" policy pushers out there.
Falsified court documents? I didn't read anything about that, although it would seem to be well within Jack's MO.
I get the funny feeling he'll file suits in other states if he gets shut down here. There's something that doesn't seem to work quite right in his brain. He's like a super-villain from a cartoon...
What are the outcome options here? Would T2's success in this suit stop JT's current lawsuits completely? Would he be able to re-file them after the games came out? Can you be liable in Civil or Criminal Court for excessive frivolous lawsuits?
Yea, that's kind of exactly what I was saying. "...by allowing players to cheat Blizzard is being injured..." so providing players with a cool way to cheat wouldn't be another use, that's the exact use I was talking about.
As for the product review analogy there are torts such as libel that keep "reviewers" in line with certain rules of conduct. On the flip side, courts have ruled plenty of times protecting free speech to make opinionated reviews which is where I would argue my Amazon.com review lies. The courts could also rule still that Glider is within their rights to make this product as well, that just seems like an unlikely outcome.
Often time people do sue over competitiveness. Thats what anti-trust suits are all about.
My very very summarized counter-point is if Blizzard can't come up with some pretty concrete numbers their case becomes more difficult. It's not a tort if there are no damages.
Also remember civil cases are different than criminal. They don't have to "prove malicious intent". This isn't a beyond a reasonable doubt kind of thing. Glider has to convince the court that their software has a perfectly reasonable use that isn't meant to encourage users to violate the TOS and cause Blizzard damages. In fact, they'd have to convince the court that using Glider to violate the TOS is a complete misappropriation of the intent of the software. Anything less is liability that Glider has.
To answer your legal questions about Glider's liability the answer is very broadly yes.
First of all, these are civil issues not criminal, so it gets a little trickier. If Blizzard can prove that by allowing players to cheat Blizzard is being "injured" (in this case fiscally) then they have a strong argument that Glider is liable for the "injuries". Glider would need to prove to the court's satisfaction that their software had significant use and/or purpose other than circumventing Blizzard's TOS and causing this "injury". It's similar to the problems that the P2P software manufacturers face.
As a counter-point to your "suing nitrous manufacturers" example, try this analogy. You tell your violent friend the man his wife is sleeping with is in the other room and then give him a loaded gun which he uses to go kill that man. In civil court you could almost certainly be found partially responsible in a wrongful death suit.
I'm being rather vague here since I don't know the law particularly well, and a lot depends on what state this all happens in.
But there is a point at which is doesn't benefit Blizzard to make it harder. It's a parabola, not a liner graph. At a certain point it's too hard and players begin to stop playing/paying. Blizzard has to find that sweet spot between hard enough and too hard.
Not to make too fine a point on it, but they appear to have been successful in that venture.
You're missing the point, as far as the U.S. Mint is concerned.
They don't really care how convenient it is for you to use. They care about the fact that right now, it costs less than 5 cents to make a nickel. That means the Mint makes money on every nickel they sell to the banks. Introducing replacement nickels into the economy makes money for the mint.
Currently, the cost to produce a Penny is rising above the face value of the coin. Very soon it will cost the Mint to introduce replacement pennies into the economy. At that point, they will phase out the penny. It may not be overtly related to the cost factor, but that will be the driving factor. No sane economy would spend money to produce currency.
As for the paper bills, they're just harder to counterfeit. $5 is too valuable to turn into an easy-to-replicate coin. $1 is at the breaking point, which is why they are trying to replace it, but people seem attached to $1 paper bills so they're having trouble getting rid of that. Remember, we've got a country full of automated machines that take $1 paper bills but have no idea what to do with a $1 coin. Replacing all of that infrastructure is no easy task.
Isn't this just a bigger sheet of LCD? I don't know much about this stuff, but the px/square inch are fewer than the 30" Dell which maxes out at 2560x1600
Inputs also.
1080p TVs generally don't have a DVI or VGA input, which is what most desktop systems put out. Monitors on the other hand do have those inputs.
I'm the anonymous coward from earlier in this thread, figured I'd go to the effort of setting up a real account.
I'm embarrassed to admit I never played Halo 2 so I'm unfamiliar with the system but a co-worker here was just describing it to me and it sounds pretty perfect.
As for griefers and boosters, I can't imagine that they're that big of an issue. If you DO end up in a match against them, you'll whomp on them, they'll lose rank, little of of your time will be wasted and you won't lose any rank for beating them. As far as ladders and other absolute rankings go, there are way to combine Trueskill with win/loss and a little bit of booster monitoring to avoid anyone cheating the system at the upper tiers. "Bragging Rights" can't really be discounted by cheaters. If you feel your accomplishments mean less because a cheater achieved them via shortcut then you are only doing yourself a disservice and giving the cheater exactly what he wants.
I think my biggest problem is that setting up blind matches like this really punishes the majority of us who want to play fairly and cleanly with our friends. They're making the game less fun (and really, this ain't The Olympics, it's a game) especially for the regular players and I doubt they're going to influence the boosters much in any way.
Slashdot Mirror
I also can't stand the PS/PS2/PS3 controller. It's small, cramped, and more interested in being symmetrical than having things in the right spot.
I LOVED the DC controller. Everyone I knew hated it, but it was my favorite. The 360 is a close second, and I gotta say the Wavebird was hot too.
LAWL!
I think the author fails to acknowledge some of the changes that are already coming down the pipe in this respect.
It may seem unrelated but I think web sites like MySpace and YouTube have opened a LOT of eyes (read: pocketbooks) in terms of understanding how much people want to contribute to an online community. Look at Sony's upcoming entries, Home and LittleBigPlanet.
For those who don't know, LittleBigPlanet for the PS3 is a 2D side-scrolling platformer where every level is built with an included level editor and shared, YouTube style, with the player community at large. Home is a similar concept wherein you create a 3D environment for you and your buddy-list to hang out at, a la The Sims Online.
That's just a couple of examples of a changing attitude towards community gaming.
I believe that WoW represents the last giant of a dying breed. The term "WoW-Killer" is used a lot, but I don't see WoW being killed, just dying off slowly as it's replaced by more evolved options.
I agree completely.
In fact, I'd like to explore the theory that Jack is actually on some under-the-table payroll of Take-Two and other video game publishers. His job? Act like a total asshat thus doing immeasurable damage to the true "anti-gaming" policy pushers out there.
Sounds reasonable to me...
Falsified court documents? I didn't read anything about that, although it would seem to be well within Jack's MO. I get the funny feeling he'll file suits in other states if he gets shut down here. There's something that doesn't seem to work quite right in his brain. He's like a super-villain from a cartoon...
What are the outcome options here? Would T2's success in this suit stop JT's current lawsuits completely? Would he be able to re-file them after the games came out? Can you be liable in Civil or Criminal Court for excessive frivolous lawsuits?
New York is also pretty harsh on Non-Competes like this. Often in NY the court will throw out the whole contract for one invalid clause.
Yea, that's kind of exactly what I was saying. "...by allowing players to cheat Blizzard is being injured..." so providing players with a cool way to cheat wouldn't be another use, that's the exact use I was talking about.
As for the product review analogy there are torts such as libel that keep "reviewers" in line with certain rules of conduct. On the flip side, courts have ruled plenty of times protecting free speech to make opinionated reviews which is where I would argue my Amazon.com review lies. The courts could also rule still that Glider is within their rights to make this product as well, that just seems like an unlikely outcome.
Often time people do sue over competitiveness. Thats what anti-trust suits are all about.
My very very summarized counter-point is if Blizzard can't come up with some pretty concrete numbers their case becomes more difficult. It's not a tort if there are no damages.
Also remember civil cases are different than criminal. They don't have to "prove malicious intent". This isn't a beyond a reasonable doubt kind of thing. Glider has to convince the court that their software has a perfectly reasonable use that isn't meant to encourage users to violate the TOS and cause Blizzard damages. In fact, they'd have to convince the court that using Glider to violate the TOS is a complete misappropriation of the intent of the software. Anything less is liability that Glider has.
To answer your legal questions about Glider's liability the answer is very broadly yes.
First of all, these are civil issues not criminal, so it gets a little trickier. If Blizzard can prove that by allowing players to cheat Blizzard is being "injured" (in this case fiscally) then they have a strong argument that Glider is liable for the "injuries". Glider would need to prove to the court's satisfaction that their software had significant use and/or purpose other than circumventing Blizzard's TOS and causing this "injury". It's similar to the problems that the P2P software manufacturers face.
As a counter-point to your "suing nitrous manufacturers" example, try this analogy. You tell your violent friend the man his wife is sleeping with is in the other room and then give him a loaded gun which he uses to go kill that man. In civil court you could almost certainly be found partially responsible in a wrongful death suit.
I'm being rather vague here since I don't know the law particularly well, and a lot depends on what state this all happens in.
But there is a point at which is doesn't benefit Blizzard to make it harder. It's a parabola, not a liner graph. At a certain point it's too hard and players begin to stop playing/paying. Blizzard has to find that sweet spot between hard enough and too hard.
Not to make too fine a point on it, but they appear to have been successful in that venture.
You're missing the point, as far as the U.S. Mint is concerned. They don't really care how convenient it is for you to use. They care about the fact that right now, it costs less than 5 cents to make a nickel. That means the Mint makes money on every nickel they sell to the banks. Introducing replacement nickels into the economy makes money for the mint. Currently, the cost to produce a Penny is rising above the face value of the coin. Very soon it will cost the Mint to introduce replacement pennies into the economy. At that point, they will phase out the penny. It may not be overtly related to the cost factor, but that will be the driving factor. No sane economy would spend money to produce currency. As for the paper bills, they're just harder to counterfeit. $5 is too valuable to turn into an easy-to-replicate coin. $1 is at the breaking point, which is why they are trying to replace it, but people seem attached to $1 paper bills so they're having trouble getting rid of that. Remember, we've got a country full of automated machines that take $1 paper bills but have no idea what to do with a $1 coin. Replacing all of that infrastructure is no easy task.
Isn't this just a bigger sheet of LCD? I don't know much about this stuff, but the px/square inch are fewer than the 30" Dell which maxes out at 2560x1600
Inputs also. 1080p TVs generally don't have a DVI or VGA input, which is what most desktop systems put out. Monitors on the other hand do have those inputs.
I'm the anonymous coward from earlier in this thread, figured I'd go to the effort of setting up a real account. I'm embarrassed to admit I never played Halo 2 so I'm unfamiliar with the system but a co-worker here was just describing it to me and it sounds pretty perfect. As for griefers and boosters, I can't imagine that they're that big of an issue. If you DO end up in a match against them, you'll whomp on them, they'll lose rank, little of of your time will be wasted and you won't lose any rank for beating them. As far as ladders and other absolute rankings go, there are way to combine Trueskill with win/loss and a little bit of booster monitoring to avoid anyone cheating the system at the upper tiers. "Bragging Rights" can't really be discounted by cheaters. If you feel your accomplishments mean less because a cheater achieved them via shortcut then you are only doing yourself a disservice and giving the cheater exactly what he wants. I think my biggest problem is that setting up blind matches like this really punishes the majority of us who want to play fairly and cleanly with our friends. They're making the game less fun (and really, this ain't The Olympics, it's a game) especially for the regular players and I doubt they're going to influence the boosters much in any way.
I agree with him, GoW is a pretty "un-fleshed-out" game. Particularly the MP. And I DID finish the game on Insane :)
R6: Vegas FTW!