decent price? 16 bucks for a re-re-release on a system where you can emulate the original or probably the re-release too.
It's worth noting that Square Enix has been either making or at least publishing other full-fledged RPGs, and earlier in iOS' lifetime, there was Chaos Rings, which was about as high budget as the platform could hold at the time. From what I understand, it actually was well received, but surprise surprise, no one wanted to pay that much for a game on their phone.
They're not completely insane, though, so they haven't done anything other than cheaper ports or other kinds of games since (and more recent games are IAP-riddled in hilarious ways).
What I want to know is: If a piracy site wants to pay to place their ads in this box, will Google allow it?
Probably, but I guess those on the anti-piracy side figure they'll now have more of a paper trail to follow to find and deal with those paying to get those ads up.
There is a way to "self censor" the app, which is to download it, mark it 1 star and give a crappy review. Enough people do that, and the app fades into obscurity.
Depending on how the store works, downloading to crappy rate it may just boost it's popularity, which gives it more visibility, not less.
At least, that's how it works on the Apple App Store (which I believe has popularity which uses downloads/time, and grossing which uses revenue/time). Not sure if Android's equivalents use that or just have lists that are just based of ranking alone.
The 5 and 5s have the exact same dimensions so cases are interchangeable.
Same dimensions, not necessarily same button positions.
At least, the 4th gen iPod Touch I had doesn't have the same volume button positioning as the new 5C. Perhaps the 4/4S iPhones match the 5's, but the subtle difference in my case meant the case couldn't be closed without attempting to crush the volume buttons (which would be quite worthless).
(Pardon the terrible wikipedia page; the point is in the concept, not necessarily the content of the page, and all Google is returning for me is Canadian pages that seem to be too Canadian-centric.)
I disagree. Moderators who must be identified would just lead to harassment of moderators. There's always going to be asshats who moderate stuff down they disagree with (and I doubt every asshat who does that being exposed for doing that would change their tune), but I'd foresee that exposing the handles of moderators would be like not allowing anonymous posting; it'd try to cut down on the problem, but also cut out a lot of moderation that doesn't follow the conventional groupthink.
Much like commenting, at least the choice of moderating anonymously should still be kept (at least for Slashdot's method). Similar to non-anonymous posting, though, non-anonymous moderations being weighted differently could be a possible avenue for improvement.
The link he posted showed a grand total of 23 games.
For what it's worth, that search link doesn't filter at all when viewing the page with NoScript (it just shows a list of... all of the games on steam, I think?).
How did the parent get to +5 Informative? The GP said...
almost all their newer games like Portal 2 and Counter-Strike: Global Offensive weren't available on Linux
...which is two of Valve's five most recent games, and they're not on this list.
When the only recent games a company releases on a platform are a free-to-play game and a sequel, I think it's safe to say said company isn't taking the platform seriously.
It is illegal for a person (call him Fred) to drink while driving, but nobody would argue that giving Fred (who is over 21) sealed beer to take home with him with the intent of him drinking them later, and then Fred choosing to drink the beer while in the car on the way makes you liable.
It's almost a perfect analogy of the original scenario, and it shows how this DOES in fact, strip the actual person responsible of their moral responsibility.
Except this isn't a perfect analogy.
The judge ruled:
that a person sending text messages has a duty not to text someone who is driving if the texter knows, or has special reason to know, the recipient will view the text while driving.
The key is "if the texter knows, or has special reason to know, the recipient will view the text while driving." As in, you know or have reason to know that you are putting the recipient at risk.
So the perfect analogy would be as you describe only if you add the knowledge that the gifting person knows Fred has a history of drinking and driving and knows that he will do so with the beer you've provided, or that Fred mentioned he will drink it as he's driving.
Knowledge that the risk is (or almost certainly is) increased is key. This does go hand in hand with reducing the responsibility for a given party to less than 100%, but it is not the completely stripping it that you have stated.
But when the first caveman skinned a bear and sat on it he didn't make anyone else's arse any colder.
Except for... you know, the bear.
For some people, that doesn't matter. For others, there's concerns about the long-term that may not be obvious; for example, the survivability of the bison... I mean bear.
If a video of somebody playing a game is a good, or even adequate, substitute for that game, I think that it's fair to say that the game must really suck, badly.
Some games aren't trying to be good games, or at the very least aren't defined by good gameplay. The Uncharted series is a good example; a lot of people don't care about the gameplay, but the story (and it's execution while playing) is considering quite enjoyable. Watching a video of a game will never be a perfect substitute for playing it, but it can be good enough for some people, and that shouldn't speak poorly of the game itself if it's trying to be entertainment outside of just being game-y.
Erm, there may be a whole host of differences, but there's no point ignoring the fact that: [...] - it's pretty easy to find lots of pairs of cases where the circumstances are very similar, but the punishments are different, and the black kid gets the more severe punishment
If it's so easy, why do we get stories like this one that compare non-violent punished case to resulted-in-death non-punished case? If we're supposed to compare apples to apples, we've got some really different fruits here, at best.
With all the negative PR that this whole mess is generating, wouldn't Microsoft want to publicly contradict what he said if it wasn't true?
But then anything they don't publicly contradict you'd know (or at least rightfully assume) is true. That's why companies don't want to comment on speculation or rumor; they have little to gain for positive news and much to lose for negative news.
Not when there's sufficient risk they will cost others, yes (stealing to support habit, health insurance costs, psychological issues for friends/family).
In theory, letting people do whatever to themselves is fine. In practice, connections run deeper than that.
The long answer is probably no, as you need a certain mix of incredibly talented people with very specific attributes. Valve is notorious for only hiring the absolute best, going for those with wide specialist knowledge (but shallow knowledge of all other aspects of game development... some kind of "T" metaphor is used by them?), and ensuring everyone they hire can be an effective leader/is capable of following an effective leader when needs be. And you can't just have a few people with those attributes; everyone in the company has to be like that.
If you can hire only people that meet the above qualifications, then sure, you could make another Valve. But it's a very difficult (or at least expensive) proposition, and no doubt incredibly challenging to scale.
You have to have the combination of love of creating things, along with the desire to know fiddly technical details of things, and then also on top of that constantly be solving problems layered in other problems.
That sounds like an abstract, but adequate, description of how many genres of games function, though (4X, simulation, puzzle, RPG, to name a few).
I ended up as a Game Designer. It's what I really enjoy doing (even though I didn't know it was a valid career path until right at the end of high school), but I would have definitely considered programming if I knew it was an actual thing, especially since their pay/job security is way better than my career path...
There is only one group that benefits from the console system today, the game publishers.
And, you know, game makers, since a more stable and known platform to make things for makes for less development headaches for supporting whatever bizarre way people could have their PC set up for.
So after you add that to publishers, and as other people who've replied to you have noted advantages for consumer consumption (larger screen for viewing, subjectively better controls, less upgrade costs over time to stay on top)... doesn't everyone benefit from consoles, aside from people who just don't like consoles? And that segment of "everyone" (while not of course being everyone) is more than enough of people that they're a useful construct?
Perhaps we are seeing the difference between the product as conceived by a visionary and the product as delivered by Marketing.
Being a game developer myself, I think it's more likely that he's just used to the "code name" version/spelling than anything. It's sorta hard to change what you call the thing you've been working on for months/years to something that probably was decided much closer to the end of that period.
That, or maybe it's his spelling that he likes to use, even if it didn't get traction with many others/anyone else in the company. Just means that he's also wrong, not absolved of all wrongdoing just because he was part of the creation process.
Actually, the thing I hate, in any modern game on any platform, is 'press start'. Why the fuck do games still have video arcade-style attract screens?
Off the top of my head, Prototype 2 did it right; it loads your most recent save and starts playing it in the background under the menu. When you click 'continue,' the menu simply goes away and there you are.
To my knowledge, it's because it's a standard mandated by one (or more) console holders. Since publishers don't like paying for platform-specific stuff they don't need to, the convention holds... and in all honesty, I think the main three all have some kind of guideline along those lines anyways.
There is some seriously inane shit platform holders will call you on to certify the game will be allowed to run on their device.
If you stumble onto a defect in an information system while developing an application front-end to that system, there is no unauthorised access.
The issue is, according to TFA:
Two days later, Mr. Al-Khabaz decided to run a software program called Acunetix, designed to test for vulnerabilities in websites, to ensure that the issues he and Mija had identified had been corrected.
Harsh? Yes. Despite that, he should have tread more carefully, I'd say. As nice as finding and communicating the issue is, he should have known that trying to access whatever it was when he was obviously known by said company (and as such being watched) was going to put that company on edge.
Why would you need cooperative multiplayer for this curricular? None of the actual goals seem to need it and the article doesn't even hint at Minecraft being played on a server.
The summary mentioned "city planning". For the intent of what they probably want to teach students, it seems likely that they'll do something similar to what I did in the Art Institute, where coordinating with an entire class to make a small town. While this seems very simple, you learn a lot when coordinating the style of buildings, ensuring you have a roadwork that everyone can work with (and fit their buildings with), and so forth.
There is no feedback from Minecraft regarding any of these topics, where as any Sim City will inform you of results caused by your (good/poor) planning, sims will complaint about environmental conditions and even get mad when you start chopping down woodlands, etc.
There's no direct feedback, in many cases, but again, I think the focus in this case is more about interpersonal relationships. Such as, if you knock down all the trees in the area for wood and don't replant, other people will get pissed off at you for making their life harder (or at least view more ugly). Similar for people playing with fire too much; imagine what happens when someone's fireplace isn't properly insulated, and they burn down an entire city block.
There's surprisingly large value in seeing how doing your grunt work affects others, and coordinating to achieve the best result. That's something that Sim City can't achieve, and the emergent aspects for things like resource acquisition make it better suited than Lego.
I suggest your experience will prove to be atypical.
In most cases rounding will go UP by a penny or four, because of the tendency to price things at xxx.99.
Because taxes do wonder things to multiplying x.99 to things that also end in values that need to be rounded up. Sure.
To be clear, I'm being sarcastic.
[...] because retailers will round ALL prices up to the next nickle, whether payment is by cash, credit, or check.
Yes, I know the definition of rounding, but mark my words, nobody will be rounding down.
Except that rounding only happens for cash transactions. Debit/credit/etc pays the same not-rounded-to-a-nickle amount as before, regardless to whether the user would have saved or spent a few pennies more.
Hell, because of that rule, Canadians have more power to save money. Just debit when you'd have to round up, and pay cash when it rounds down!
The term "piracy" (still a specific legal term in the U.S. and other places as well) refers only to a subset of "copying". In particular, the term "piracy" refers to people who copy authorized works (usually in quantity), FOR PROFIT. It is the latter part that many people tend to leave out, which causes confusion.
I think it's quite safe to assume that the site ran ads, so yes, piracy would be appropriate term.
Money can come from a lot of places. It doesn't have to be from the person procuring the goods (otherwise, why would things like Facebook be so "successful"?).
In order for it to be piracy, as opposed to simple copyright infringement, one has to be copying, distributing, AND selling.
Slashdot Mirror
decent price? 16 bucks for a re-re-release on a system where you can emulate the original or probably the re-release too.
It's worth noting that Square Enix has been either making or at least publishing other full-fledged RPGs, and earlier in iOS' lifetime, there was Chaos Rings, which was about as high budget as the platform could hold at the time. From what I understand, it actually was well received, but surprise surprise, no one wanted to pay that much for a game on their phone.
They're not completely insane, though, so they haven't done anything other than cheaper ports or other kinds of games since (and more recent games are IAP-riddled in hilarious ways).
What I want to know is: If a piracy site wants to pay to place their ads in this box, will Google allow it?
Probably, but I guess those on the anti-piracy side figure they'll now have more of a paper trail to follow to find and deal with those paying to get those ads up.
There is a way to "self censor" the app, which is to download it, mark it 1 star and give a crappy review. Enough people do that, and the app fades into obscurity.
Depending on how the store works, downloading to crappy rate it may just boost it's popularity, which gives it more visibility, not less.
At least, that's how it works on the Apple App Store (which I believe has popularity which uses downloads/time, and grossing which uses revenue/time). Not sure if Android's equivalents use that or just have lists that are just based of ranking alone.
Apple has sold over 600 million ios Devices.
I'm sorry, you were saying?
600 million devices in the states? Or worldwide?
The 5 and 5s have the exact same dimensions so cases are interchangeable.
Same dimensions, not necessarily same button positions.
At least, the 4th gen iPod Touch I had doesn't have the same volume button positioning as the new 5C. Perhaps the 4/4S iPhones match the 5's, but the subtle difference in my case meant the case couldn't be closed without attempting to crush the volume buttons (which would be quite worthless).
There isn't anyone better than the parent to decide what his/her kid can handle.
Is that so? I don't think you're as categorically correct as you state.
(Pardon the terrible wikipedia page; the point is in the concept, not necessarily the content of the page, and all Google is returning for me is Canadian pages that seem to be too Canadian-centric.)
Moderators should be identified.
I disagree. Moderators who must be identified would just lead to harassment of moderators. There's always going to be asshats who moderate stuff down they disagree with (and I doubt every asshat who does that being exposed for doing that would change their tune), but I'd foresee that exposing the handles of moderators would be like not allowing anonymous posting; it'd try to cut down on the problem, but also cut out a lot of moderation that doesn't follow the conventional groupthink.
Much like commenting, at least the choice of moderating anonymously should still be kept (at least for Slashdot's method). Similar to non-anonymous posting, though, non-anonymous moderations being weighted differently could be a possible avenue for improvement.
The link he posted showed a grand total of 23 games.
For what it's worth, that search link doesn't filter at all when viewing the page with NoScript (it just shows a list of... all of the games on steam, I think?).
complete list of valve linux games on steam
How did the parent get to +5 Informative? The GP said...
almost all their newer games like Portal 2 and Counter-Strike: Global Offensive weren't available on Linux
...which is two of Valve's five most recent games, and they're not on this list.
When the only recent games a company releases on a platform are a free-to-play game and a sequel, I think it's safe to say said company isn't taking the platform seriously.
How about this:
It is illegal for a person (call him Fred) to drink while driving, but nobody would argue that giving Fred (who is over 21) sealed beer to take home with him with the intent of him drinking them later, and then Fred choosing to drink the beer while in the car on the way makes you liable.
It's almost a perfect analogy of the original scenario, and it shows how this DOES in fact, strip the actual person responsible of their moral responsibility.
Except this isn't a perfect analogy.
The judge ruled:
that a person sending text messages has a duty not to text someone who is driving if the texter knows, or has special reason to know, the recipient will view the text while driving.
The key is "if the texter knows, or has special reason to know, the recipient will view the text while driving." As in, you know or have reason to know that you are putting the recipient at risk.
So the perfect analogy would be as you describe only if you add the knowledge that the gifting person knows Fred has a history of drinking and driving and knows that he will do so with the beer you've provided, or that Fred mentioned he will drink it as he's driving.
Knowledge that the risk is (or almost certainly is) increased is key. This does go hand in hand with reducing the responsibility for a given party to less than 100%, but it is not the completely stripping it that you have stated.
Well clearly it requires materials and effort.
But when the first caveman skinned a bear and sat on it he didn't make anyone else's arse any colder.
Except for... you know, the bear.
For some people, that doesn't matter. For others, there's concerns about the long-term that may not be obvious; for example, the survivability of the bison... I mean bear.
If a video of somebody playing a game is a good, or even adequate, substitute for that game, I think that it's fair to say that the game must really suck, badly.
Some games aren't trying to be good games, or at the very least aren't defined by good gameplay. The Uncharted series is a good example; a lot of people don't care about the gameplay, but the story (and it's execution while playing) is considering quite enjoyable. Watching a video of a game will never be a perfect substitute for playing it, but it can be good enough for some people, and that shouldn't speak poorly of the game itself if it's trying to be entertainment outside of just being game-y.
Erm, there may be a whole host of differences, but there's no point ignoring the fact that:
[...]
- it's pretty easy to find lots of pairs of cases where the circumstances are very similar, but the punishments are different, and the black kid gets the more severe punishment
If it's so easy, why do we get stories like this one that compare non-violent punished case to resulted-in-death non-punished case? If we're supposed to compare apples to apples, we've got some really different fruits here, at best.
With all the negative PR that this whole mess is generating, wouldn't Microsoft want to publicly contradict what he said if it wasn't true?
But then anything they don't publicly contradict you'd know (or at least rightfully assume) is true. That's why companies don't want to comment on speculation or rumor; they have little to gain for positive news and much to lose for negative news.
Can't let people hurt themselves, now can we?
Not when there's sufficient risk they will cost others, yes (stealing to support habit, health insurance costs, psychological issues for friends/family).
In theory, letting people do whatever to themselves is fine. In practice, connections run deeper than that.
The short answer is no.
The long answer is probably no, as you need a certain mix of incredibly talented people with very specific attributes. Valve is notorious for only hiring the absolute best, going for those with wide specialist knowledge (but shallow knowledge of all other aspects of game development... some kind of "T" metaphor is used by them?), and ensuring everyone they hire can be an effective leader/is capable of following an effective leader when needs be. And you can't just have a few people with those attributes; everyone in the company has to be like that.
If you can hire only people that meet the above qualifications, then sure, you could make another Valve. But it's a very difficult (or at least expensive) proposition, and no doubt incredibly challenging to scale.
You have to have the combination of love of creating things, along with the desire to know fiddly technical details of things, and then also on top of that constantly be solving problems layered in other problems.
That sounds like an abstract, but adequate, description of how many genres of games function, though (4X, simulation, puzzle, RPG, to name a few).
I ended up as a Game Designer. It's what I really enjoy doing (even though I didn't know it was a valid career path until right at the end of high school), but I would have definitely considered programming if I knew it was an actual thing, especially since their pay/job security is way better than my career path...
Having said that, if they really wanted to solve the problem, they'd try to educate Human Resources better[...]
That is what their proposal of teaching kids from school basic programming would do, yes?
I know lots of people view HR as an obstacle, but they are people too, you know. :P
There is only one group that benefits from the console system today, the game publishers.
And, you know, game makers, since a more stable and known platform to make things for makes for less development headaches for supporting whatever bizarre way people could have their PC set up for.
So after you add that to publishers, and as other people who've replied to you have noted advantages for consumer consumption (larger screen for viewing, subjectively better controls, less upgrade costs over time to stay on top)... doesn't everyone benefit from consoles, aside from people who just don't like consoles? And that segment of "everyone" (while not of course being everyone) is more than enough of people that they're a useful construct?
Perhaps we are seeing the difference between the product as conceived by a visionary and the product as delivered by Marketing.
Being a game developer myself, I think it's more likely that he's just used to the "code name" version/spelling than anything. It's sorta hard to change what you call the thing you've been working on for months/years to something that probably was decided much closer to the end of that period.
That, or maybe it's his spelling that he likes to use, even if it didn't get traction with many others/anyone else in the company. Just means that he's also wrong, not absolved of all wrongdoing just because he was part of the creation process.
Actually, the thing I hate, in any modern game on any platform, is 'press start'. Why the fuck do games still have video arcade-style attract screens?
Off the top of my head, Prototype 2 did it right; it loads your most recent save and starts playing it in the background under the menu. When you click 'continue,' the menu simply goes away and there you are.
To my knowledge, it's because it's a standard mandated by one (or more) console holders. Since publishers don't like paying for platform-specific stuff they don't need to, the convention holds... and in all honesty, I think the main three all have some kind of guideline along those lines anyways.
There is some seriously inane shit platform holders will call you on to certify the game will be allowed to run on their device.
If you stumble onto a defect in an information system while developing an application front-end to that system, there is no unauthorised access.
The issue is, according to TFA:
Two days later, Mr. Al-Khabaz decided to run a software program called Acunetix, designed to test for vulnerabilities in websites, to ensure that the issues he and Mija had identified had been corrected.
Harsh? Yes. Despite that, he should have tread more carefully, I'd say. As nice as finding and communicating the issue is, he should have known that trying to access whatever it was when he was obviously known by said company (and as such being watched) was going to put that company on edge.
Why would you need cooperative multiplayer for this curricular? None of the actual goals seem to need it and the article doesn't even hint at Minecraft being played on a server.
The summary mentioned "city planning". For the intent of what they probably want to teach students, it seems likely that they'll do something similar to what I did in the Art Institute, where coordinating with an entire class to make a small town. While this seems very simple, you learn a lot when coordinating the style of buildings, ensuring you have a roadwork that everyone can work with (and fit their buildings with), and so forth.
There is no feedback from Minecraft regarding any of these topics, where as any Sim City will inform you of results caused by your (good/poor) planning, sims will complaint about environmental conditions and even get mad when you start chopping down woodlands, etc.
There's no direct feedback, in many cases, but again, I think the focus in this case is more about interpersonal relationships. Such as, if you knock down all the trees in the area for wood and don't replant, other people will get pissed off at you for making their life harder (or at least view more ugly). Similar for people playing with fire too much; imagine what happens when someone's fireplace isn't properly insulated, and they burn down an entire city block.
There's surprisingly large value in seeing how doing your grunt work affects others, and coordinating to achieve the best result. That's something that Sim City can't achieve, and the emergent aspects for things like resource acquisition make it better suited than Lego.
I suggest your experience will prove to be atypical.
In most cases rounding will go UP by a penny or four, because of the tendency to price things at xxx.99.
Because taxes do wonder things to multiplying x.99 to things that also end in values that need to be rounded up. Sure.
To be clear, I'm being sarcastic.
[...] because retailers will round ALL prices up to the next nickle, whether payment is by cash, credit, or check.
Yes, I know the definition of rounding, but mark my words, nobody will be rounding down.
Except that rounding only happens for cash transactions. Debit/credit/etc pays the same not-rounded-to-a-nickle amount as before, regardless to whether the user would have saved or spent a few pennies more.
Hell, because of that rule, Canadians have more power to save money. Just debit when you'd have to round up, and pay cash when it rounds down!
The term "piracy" (still a specific legal term in the U.S. and other places as well) refers only to a subset of "copying". In particular, the term "piracy" refers to people who copy authorized works (usually in quantity), FOR PROFIT. It is the latter part that many people tend to leave out, which causes confusion.
I think it's quite safe to assume that the site ran ads, so yes, piracy would be appropriate term.
Money can come from a lot of places. It doesn't have to be from the person procuring the goods (otherwise, why would things like Facebook be so "successful"?).
In order for it to be piracy, as opposed to simple copyright infringement, one has to be copying, distributing, AND selling.
[Citation needed]