For some reason, I feel like Bioware should have something to say about this. If most of the people who played Mass Effect didn't finish it, I will shit a brick. The type of game and how it's presented matters a great deal more than length. Failing to finish a Rockstar game is no surprise whatsoever; they're not necessarily bad, but an open-world game almost always has that one goddamn mission that makes you really want to quit it. I think San Andreas was the only one I've ever finished myself, and I don't have anything to do with my time but play videogames.
They won't be denied that ability. All these games with "always-on" DRM wind up with server emulators in pretty short order. For the people that NEED to play offline, the option will be available within a month of release, if not before it. For everyone that actually has a decent connection, this is pointless griping. There are many games where this would be nothing more than anti-consumer encroachment, but anyone who both played Diablo II and had any sense realized that there was absolutely no reason to play offline in the first place. Even if you always played alone, forever, and had no interest whatsoever in trading (which I can't really fathom once you need just one more piece of that awesome set you've been collecting) playing an offline character was dumb since it cut you off from the best items in the game.
To understand how much the playerbase is kneejerking here, take a look at the other thing they're so massively butthurt about: the cash auctions. Once again, if you played Diablo II and had any sense, you've always wanted this and found it senseless that Blizzard never put it in. With this sort of game there will be a real-money economy, and if it's not dev-supported, it will be a nest of vipers that damages the experience for people who have nothing to do with it as well. If the actual implementation is anything like what they're claiming it will be, it's even the best support I've seen yet. Most devs just sell crap directly to the players, which makes the black market even more problematic. Furthermore, it pushes the devs to be senselessly jackbooted, because that market is now actively pressing on one of their revenue streams. With D3, it'll be players selling to players, so there won't be any need for any of this garbage, and there will be a way to get a real sense of how much things are worth, whether or not somebody wants to deal with the real money aspect.
They are just about the most boring technology we have today. They will not revolutionize anything. They take forever, cost too much, and have hilariously limited capabilities, and they've been that way for years, putting them way behind the curve of technological process. They only thing they might eventually be good for is specialized prototyping; currently, you're still better off just making the junk yourself.
And yet for some reason, at least two or three times a year, some idiot in charge of a slow news day decides to compare these things to awesome magical nanotech as though they're in any way new or interesting. Just... shut up. God.
Wouldn't that mean over several views, not several sites?
And even more importantly, how does this qualify as "tracking?" I don't see anything in the description of this thing that suggests it looks at what other sites you go to (aside from how you got to theirs, which is hardly an issue) or what you do on them.
This sounds to me like just a way for devs to examine how their site is used so they can make it more efficient and useful. Calling it "tracking" is practically a smear unless the summary is wholly inaccurate.
There is a rather simple way to see that it is not.
Young people, brought up on the Internet: currently less likely to vote, yes, but not generally given to being mired in the standard polarizing bullshit that boomers ruin the world over, are they?
Given that it is well-known that the American political system currently runs on spite, it should be wonderful news that our nations' youth have found a much less destructive place to vent their spleen.
As soon as G+ includes such an option, Zynga has literally no reason to play ball with them. Do you know nothing about their business model whatsoever? Hint: they don't make games, they make advertising campaigns which people pay to propagate.
How beautifully short-sighted of them. Throwing away the market share they were starting to gain against IE in favor of what appears to be street cred is so good for the Internet.
Meh, nonsense anyway. Everyone knows that real open source projects never have version numbers greater than 0.999
I mean, after all, isn't Microsoft pretty much the only company in existence that could afford to hire him at this point? They should just try to do that.
Things with even more obvious similarity are used to promote commercial work all the time, and protected as parody. That "tribute" hasn't received the same solidity of protection is simply a matter of case law being behind the zeitgeist of democratized creation and publishing.
It doesn't matter that the leak had results that may have been positive. I might be on Manning's side if his intention had even been whistleblowing in the first place, but it was actually just self-aggrandizement, same as that prick Assange. For that, he needs to be made an example of. Breaking one of the most important laws there is for fame comes with a steep price.
You're out of your gourd, and if you seriously believe that even House Republicans are stupid enough to believe that, then they are, too. The only argument I've ever heard from those guys against net neutrality is the one that's actually sincerely against it, i.e., the telecom companies own these lines, and that matters more than our right to do things the way we want. I don't agree, but it's probably the one piece of politics in existence where the arguments of the side I oppose have anything to do with reality, so it's a breath of fresh air. I really don't appreciate you turning it into more ANSI standard scare-mongering by talking about some completely random foilhat bullshit that I haven't even heard Faux News burping up.
Yeah, I was just thinking that they should've waited until next year. The only way the result of this will be good is if it ends up being the big, scary 2012 disaster we've all been waiting for.:|
The average person doesn't care because they've never actually heard the difference. With integrated sound you lose general quality, volume, bass, and a whole bunch of other refinements I don't know anything about but can still hear. (Good gravy is EAX awesome.) This is on top of the fact that Realtek tends to be buggy as hell; when I used it, all manner of programs would crash constantly.
The main thing I'd like to know is why this article didn't even consider the OG of sound cards, which until now was still the only one I was even aware was still in the business: Creative. How can you claim to know anything about the state of the industry if you pointedly ignore its 900 lb gorilla? I have an X-Fi and it's awesome.
Slashdot Mirror
For some reason, I feel like Bioware should have something to say about this. If most of the people who played Mass Effect didn't finish it, I will shit a brick. The type of game and how it's presented matters a great deal more than length. Failing to finish a Rockstar game is no surprise whatsoever; they're not necessarily bad, but an open-world game almost always has that one goddamn mission that makes you really want to quit it. I think San Andreas was the only one I've ever finished myself, and I don't have anything to do with my time but play videogames.
Wake me when EVE has 419 scams.
The fact that EVE players enjoy making themselves vulnerable to theft in the same way others would enjoy getting some sun and a nap?
They won't be denied that ability. All these games with "always-on" DRM wind up with server emulators in pretty short order. For the people that NEED to play offline, the option will be available within a month of release, if not before it. For everyone that actually has a decent connection, this is pointless griping. There are many games where this would be nothing more than anti-consumer encroachment, but anyone who both played Diablo II and had any sense realized that there was absolutely no reason to play offline in the first place. Even if you always played alone, forever, and had no interest whatsoever in trading (which I can't really fathom once you need just one more piece of that awesome set you've been collecting) playing an offline character was dumb since it cut you off from the best items in the game.
To understand how much the playerbase is kneejerking here, take a look at the other thing they're so massively butthurt about: the cash auctions. Once again, if you played Diablo II and had any sense, you've always wanted this and found it senseless that Blizzard never put it in. With this sort of game there will be a real-money economy, and if it's not dev-supported, it will be a nest of vipers that damages the experience for people who have nothing to do with it as well. If the actual implementation is anything like what they're claiming it will be, it's even the best support I've seen yet. Most devs just sell crap directly to the players, which makes the black market even more problematic. Furthermore, it pushes the devs to be senselessly jackbooted, because that market is now actively pressing on one of their revenue streams. With D3, it'll be players selling to players, so there won't be any need for any of this garbage, and there will be a way to get a real sense of how much things are worth, whether or not somebody wants to deal with the real money aspect.
They are just about the most boring technology we have today. They will not revolutionize anything. They take forever, cost too much, and have hilariously limited capabilities, and they've been that way for years, putting them way behind the curve of technological process. They only thing they might eventually be good for is specialized prototyping; currently, you're still better off just making the junk yourself.
And yet for some reason, at least two or three times a year, some idiot in charge of a slow news day decides to compare these things to awesome magical nanotech as though they're in any way new or interesting. Just... shut up. God.
Wouldn't that mean over several views, not several sites?
And even more importantly, how does this qualify as "tracking?" I don't see anything in the description of this thing that suggests it looks at what other sites you go to (aside from how you got to theirs, which is hardly an issue) or what you do on them.
This sounds to me like just a way for devs to examine how their site is used so they can make it more efficient and useful. Calling it "tracking" is practically a smear unless the summary is wholly inaccurate.
There is a rather simple way to see that it is not.
Young people, brought up on the Internet: currently less likely to vote, yes, but not generally given to being mired in the standard polarizing bullshit that boomers ruin the world over, are they?
Given that it is well-known that the American political system currently runs on spite, it should be wonderful news that our nations' youth have found a much less destructive place to vent their spleen.
As soon as G+ includes such an option, Zynga has literally no reason to play ball with them. Do you know nothing about their business model whatsoever? Hint: they don't make games, they make advertising campaigns which people pay to propagate.
Tell Mark Zuckerburg that he can get away with being an even bigger asshole. Thanks for that. This was a great idea.
This is the judicial equivalent of saying "cry about it."
Please, just wake me up when somebody actually starts killing Senators. I'm done with this.
How beautifully short-sighted of them. Throwing away the market share they were starting to gain against IE in favor of what appears to be street cred is so good for the Internet.
Meh, nonsense anyway. Everyone knows that real open source projects never have version numbers greater than 0.999
Actually, now that I think of it, you're right. And I know what the logical conclusion here is.
What will the world look like when Wal-Mart hires Bill Gates? *shudder*
I mean, after all, isn't Microsoft pretty much the only company in existence that could afford to hire him at this point? They should just try to do that.
The article doesn't say it wasn't. The upshot of all this is that input prediction isn't just for arcade fighter bosses anymore.
When it hit slashdot, half the comments would be "and nothing existent was lost?"
Things with even more obvious similarity are used to promote commercial work all the time, and protected as parody. That "tribute" hasn't received the same solidity of protection is simply a matter of case law being behind the zeitgeist of democratized creation and publishing.
*looks at the trend in value of bitcoins*
Yes.
You're telling me that indiscriminate thieves have a mercenary attitude which makes them prone to turn on their partners in crime?
Mind blown.
Now we'll never have to worry about the Chinese stealing all our secrets that cost ten dollars and a ball of pocket lint to make.
Since his website was long since turned over to federal agents, I don't think his opinion is very relevant.
When the machines can recognize our emotions, the first one they'll develop is schadenfreude.
It doesn't matter that the leak had results that may have been positive. I might be on Manning's side if his intention had even been whistleblowing in the first place, but it was actually just self-aggrandizement, same as that prick Assange. For that, he needs to be made an example of. Breaking one of the most important laws there is for fame comes with a steep price.
You're out of your gourd, and if you seriously believe that even House Republicans are stupid enough to believe that, then they are, too. The only argument I've ever heard from those guys against net neutrality is the one that's actually sincerely against it, i.e., the telecom companies own these lines, and that matters more than our right to do things the way we want. I don't agree, but it's probably the one piece of politics in existence where the arguments of the side I oppose have anything to do with reality, so it's a breath of fresh air. I really don't appreciate you turning it into more ANSI standard scare-mongering by talking about some completely random foilhat bullshit that I haven't even heard Faux News burping up.
Yeah, I was just thinking that they should've waited until next year. The only way the result of this will be good is if it ends up being the big, scary 2012 disaster we've all been waiting for. :|
The average person doesn't care because they've never actually heard the difference. With integrated sound you lose general quality, volume, bass, and a whole bunch of other refinements I don't know anything about but can still hear. (Good gravy is EAX awesome.) This is on top of the fact that Realtek tends to be buggy as hell; when I used it, all manner of programs would crash constantly.
The main thing I'd like to know is why this article didn't even consider the OG of sound cards, which until now was still the only one I was even aware was still in the business: Creative. How can you claim to know anything about the state of the industry if you pointedly ignore its 900 lb gorilla? I have an X-Fi and it's awesome.