If anything, WoW harms the PC gaming market more than it supports it. Gamers spending all their time (and money) on WoW are less likely to buy other PC games.
Yes, as I implied with, "or at least very loose definitions of it."
Their stated intentions have always been of a trade show for the industry, even if it didn't really end up that way, as you have pointed out.
They definitely needed to tighten the policy, but I think the invite-only solution was too extreme in that direction and made the show a lot less useful than it could have been.
I don't know about anyone else, but I will NEVER be buying a call-home-during-install game again. I can't play Half-Life 2 because I can't make the updates over a modem, and I can't just play the damned game (even from my Steam backups!) Valve, pay attention - I will NOT be paying for Half-Life 3 if you keep this shit up, and I know you will.
Sadly, your threats don't carry any weight -- Valve doesn't want you as a customer. They would ideally like to get out of retail and move entirely to digital distribution. They cut out the middlemen and have far greater margins that way.
The parent is correct. Their games do require you to run their Impulse client to download game updates.
A recent update to Impulse did actually install background services without asking the user's permission. This was their solution to slow app launch times, by invisibly launching the service at boot time, rather than actually fixing the problem.
Yeah, it is free now. Check the forums though, there might not be anyone playing Universe At War online anymore so long after release. (Particularly given the GFWL mess).
GTA IV already used XBox Live on the 360. Given that the PC port was most likely from the 360 codebase, it would have taken more effort to not use GFWL than to use it. Of course the PR spin won't mention this.
This is not about saving or helping the pc market. It's about selling windows.
And poorly.
GFWL was originally Vista-only. The multiplayer support also used to have a yearly fee (aside from the gimped Silver plan), while disallowing developers to have any game features they considered competitive to GFWL's (eg. voice communication and achievements).
So they release a multiplayer-only game ported from a console version (Shadowrun) using GFWL Vista-only, pay-to-play multiplayer. Surprise, surprise, it doesn't sell.
They've back-pedalled somewhat now, making GFWL free and supporting XP, but they seriously shot themselves in the foot, and will have a long way to go before they reverse the damage done to the GFWL name in the minds of gamers.
The games the article refers to are typically peer-peer, not client-server, and do not use dedicated servers. In fact, a two player game will perform worse with a dedicated server since the traffic has to go via two links rather than a single, "direct" one.
The point being that without dedicated servers, it doesn't matter where the matchmaking server is, because game play does not go through it. Segregating users geographically makes it easier to find players near you, but the same can be done with ranking them by latency.
Yeah.. like increasing the speed of light. Good luck with that.
From the article, it looks like they're also confused between bandwidth and latency. Slightly simplified, it's the latency that makes it impossible to do real-time melee games well.
Do they only "not look" because they are worried that someone will see them look? But in the privacy of their homes, no one will know they are checking out other people's houses?
While I know it is a touchy subject in general, I find their reason odd. If no one wanted to look because of morals, they wouldn't look when they couldn't get caught either. That kind of defeats their higher moral ground argument.
Slashdot Mirror
.. but he still needs the cane.
PC gaming is.
If anything, WoW harms the PC gaming market more than it supports it. Gamers spending all their time (and money) on WoW are less likely to buy other PC games.
Yes, as I implied with, "or at least very loose definitions of it."
Their stated intentions have always been of a trade show for the industry, even if it didn't really end up that way, as you have pointed out.
They definitely needed to tighten the policy, but I think the invite-only solution was too extreme in that direction and made the show a lot less useful than it could have been.
Just let them try to top PAX.
They won't be trying to. PAX is for gamers.
E3 is (and always was) for the game industry, or at least very loose definitions of it anyway.
We won't know until the official announcement, but I'd lean more toward G4's version.
Seriously, no FireWire?
Not to say I agree, but Steve's response to this was:
"Actually, all of the new HD camcorders of the past few years use USB 2."
http://arstechnica.com/journals/apple.ars/2008/10/17/steve-jobs-concisely-answers-the-macbook-firewire-question
Personally, I would miss the Target Disk Mode that FireWire offered.
I don't know about anyone else, but I will NEVER be buying a call-home-during-install game again. I can't play Half-Life 2 because I can't make the updates over a modem, and I can't just play the damned game (even from my Steam backups!) Valve, pay attention - I will NOT be paying for Half-Life 3 if you keep this shit up, and I know you will.
Sadly, your threats don't carry any weight -- Valve doesn't want you as a customer. They would ideally like to get out of retail and move entirely to digital distribution. They cut out the middlemen and have far greater margins that way.
As dialup user, you don't fit with their plans.
The parent is correct. Their games do require you to run their Impulse client to download game updates.
A recent update to Impulse did actually install background services without asking the user's permission. This was their solution to slow app launch times, by invisibly launching the service at boot time, rather than actually fixing the problem.
Majority of customers of a Windows-only publisher want them to do Windows software? Now that's a startling revelation.
So what you're saying is that famous programmers are strongly-typed?
Yeah, it is free now. Check the forums though, there might not be anyone playing Universe At War online anymore so long after release. (Particularly given the GFWL mess).
GTA IV already used XBox Live on the 360. Given that the PC port was most likely from the 360 codebase, it would have taken more effort to not use GFWL than to use it. Of course the PR spin won't mention this.
GFW Live is free. Website quote time:
He already said that at the end of his comment:
I think they dropped the subscriptions recently, but it still has the stigma of being Xbox LIVE, for Windows.
This is not about saving or helping the pc market. It's about selling windows.
And poorly.
GFWL was originally Vista-only. The multiplayer support also used to have a yearly fee (aside from the gimped Silver plan), while disallowing developers to have any game features they considered competitive to GFWL's (eg. voice communication and achievements).
So they release a multiplayer-only game ported from a console version (Shadowrun) using GFWL Vista-only, pay-to-play multiplayer. Surprise, surprise, it doesn't sell.
They've back-pedalled somewhat now, making GFWL free and supporting XP, but they seriously shot themselves in the foot, and will have a long way to go before they reverse the damage done to the GFWL name in the minds of gamers.
Automation for-the-loose.
After all, you've just told them the app uses plain text, then you tell them to use the app to change the password. :)
That said, the friends and relatives probably use machines running key loggers anyway.
Registrars and name registries (ICANN, Nominet, etc) should also have more power to immediately terminate scam domains.
I'm sure they have that power already, but why would they terminate their biggest customers?
Arbitrage. The differences tend to resolve themselves as an equilibrium is reached.
Yes, I know Stuart. However, as great as his contributions to networking have been, Bolo still tops the list.
The games the article refers to are typically peer-peer, not client-server, and do not use dedicated servers. In fact, a two player game will perform worse with a dedicated server since the traffic has to go via two links rather than a single, "direct" one.
The point being that without dedicated servers, it doesn't matter where the matchmaking server is, because game play does not go through it. Segregating users geographically makes it easier to find players near you, but the same can be done with ranking them by latency.
Yeah.. like increasing the speed of light. Good luck with that.
From the article, it looks like they're also confused between bandwidth and latency. Slightly simplified, it's the latency that makes it impossible to do real-time melee games well.
The natural parallels with MMO gold-farming are interesting.. and depressing. The world is broken.
"Play When You Want, as Much as You Want -- Gleemax Never Closes"
Heh. You know your marketing sucks when you have target demographic like that, yet Slashot hasn't heard of the site until it closes.
Perhaps you had an inherently cynical and pessimistic nature to begin with, and that is what attracted you to your profession?
Sometimes it can be subtle. Try digging for clues earlier in your life.
Sweet!
Do they only "not look" because they are worried that someone will see them look? But in the privacy of their homes, no one will know they are checking out other people's houses?
While I know it is a touchy subject in general, I find their reason odd. If no one wanted to look because of morals, they wouldn't look when they couldn't get caught either. That kind of defeats their higher moral ground argument.