It's quite obvious that most people replying to this post didn't read the actual article.
Yes, we all know that "up to 1,000 Mb!" internet service is a joke, and most people don't see performance anywhere near what is advertised. As some people have already pointed out... "DUH". It's biased advertising, what do you expect - that's how advertising works. Secondly, the article explained several reasons that people will not see the entire 6.7 Mb in terms that even the least tech-savvy person could understand.
I agree with the FCC's assessment. Essentially, they summed up the fact that it's pretty shady advertising, but ISPs are not doing anything illegal. The proposed solution is a new type of speed rating, similar to a nutrition facts label, which I think is genius.
On another note - I think it's pretty simplistic and idiotic to compare the facts and issues related to this topic to, say, restaurants. The article mentions how ISPs have little power over what happens to their service farther down the land lines - which is a fact. They have no control over interference, poor quality routers, etc. You can't make a comparison between that and a cheeseburger. The restaurant has complete control over their ingredients until it reaches the customer's hands physically, so no, you cannot make that comparison.
Interestingly, you might draw the analogy that McDonald's offers a quarter-pound patty on their burgers. This is typically the pre-cooked weight, meaning that there's a lot of liquid included in that measurement. In addition, you might order a double quarter pounder with one patty being less than a quarter pound, and the other being more than a quarter pound. Who flippin cares, as long as you get similar sized patties?
The moral of that story is... don't eat at McDonalds. Fix your own damn burger, and stop complaining!
... if you end up paying for a new set of tires, anyways?
You will spend the money you saved on gas, and then some, on a new set of tires - be it a new tire technology, or just a new set of tires at improper camber.
Personally, I would prefer the nicer ride, handing, and tire life - to dealing with this whole pseudo-environmentally-friendly "tech tip".
This is hardly worth discussing.... in fact, to me this seems about as news-worthy as FireFox surpassing Netscape Navigator or IE5.5 in browse shares. Sheesh.
It should go without saying that the most important part of any video game is the game play; game play is the reason someone typically purchases a game. A pretty picture with beautiful graphics offers no real game play, and if Crysis were text-based it might feel a bit... primitive, rudimentary.
I think that video games and movies share the same problems and dilemmas - especially now that CGI sequences are a dime a dozen. There are directors and producers that would rather use a simple camera trick to pull off special effects, and there are those that would rather spend $100,000,000 on CGI sequences. Is either method incorrect? Not necessarily...
Those who produce and direct games or movies need to focus on the end product - their actual goal. By intelligently and thoughtfully incorporating each and every available method, and properly using each tool, they can create a masterpiece. A game's claim to fame shouldn't be based solely on it's graphics, game mechanics - or physics engine. A truly well-made game utilizes everything to the necessary extent in order to fulfill the creators' vision or goal.
... we can now ensure that kids and adolescents have vision problems as a result of staring at screens for too long. In addition, we will spend at least twice the money to start this program while pretending that we're saving money.
Cue utopian-fantasy programs that will not, or at least should not, ever see the light of day - and yet, it still pacifies the angry population. Somehow.
I can admit though - it would be interesting if the schooling system could implement things like: checking your kids progress or grades online, seeing what they're going over in class (at any given point in time) - tools that would help both the children and their parents. While these things are indeed possible at the moment, perhaps a more efficient system would benefit everyone - and also encourage more parents to be actively involved in their child's education.
... has this not already been covered multiple times?
Perhaps I'm confusing slashdot with other news sites... in any case, if the starter edition is cheap enough - it isn't a bad move for people who don't do anything besides check their email, type up letters, and websurf.
Grandma and grandpa would probably be more than happy to dish out $50 - 75 for a 3-application limited OS than $200 for something that is almost as barebone and castrated.
You know, despite the general public's movement towards digital distribution, I am still torn as to whether this is the best way to do business. Granted, the game industry isn't really there to suit every gamer's needs, but still...
On one hand I'd like to have the physical copy of the game - but that isn't my deepest, darkest fear when it comes to digital purchases. I am afraid that, per the EULA, I'll someday get screwed due to some random errata or possibly lose everything if the service shuts down.
Say that a company buys out Steam (Valve, etc), and decides that it was a poor investment and closes Steam altogether - everything I purchased on there would be gone. It'd be interesting if they could at least guarantee steam-free ISO downloads of each game in this scenario, or even, perhaps, allow you to download the ISO WHENEVER you wanted to.
Granted, they'd never do this because the point of the digital distribution is to help counter piracy, and releasing untouched ISOs into the wild would essentially be giving the games away. I do find a quote from the article interesting, however:
"Piracy is more of an annoying thing. It's an ego thing. You put your heart and soul into a game and you see someone playing it online who stole it. It pisses you off. You're just really mad. You have to take a step back and say, "if you had stopped them from pirating it, would they have bought it?" The answer is probably no."
It's pretty unfortunate that executives at companies like EA never realize this. I completely understand that this thought-pattern alone isn't enough to quell the rage felt by everyone who helped to develop and produce the game, but then again this is the mindset that prevents game makers and distributors from implementing obtrusive and obnoxious DRM.
I guess my point is that digital distribution is somewhat of a scary thought - no guarantees, no control, no "freedom" - if you read the EULAs, you essentially paid $50 to "rent" the play time from the game makers.
In addition to all of this we have companies like Time Warner Cable that want to implement bandwidth caps - imagine a future with complete digital distribution of operating systems, all software, and all games - but then you have a bandwidth cap, so you end up paying ridiculous sums just to access the products and services that you paid to have access to; you end up paying for the program and the bandwidth to download it. Don't even get me started on cloud computing.
Blah, after that rant, all I can say is - I hope that games are never completely taken off the shelves and distributed digitally exclusively... even if GameStop is overpriced, or a pain to deal with, it's at least a fun place to stop and browse, occasionally pre-ordering a hot title (there's nothing like walking in with a receipt, ahead of everyone, and asking for your brand new pre-order... digital distribution doesn't provide you with that feeling, or the smell of the new case/manual/disc)!
... I dread the day when, after the implementation of Adobe Flash, TV will also be bombarded with content similar to that on sites like YouTube. It'll be the end of TV as we know it!
... while college students who use Facebook have GPAs generally ranging from 3.0 to 3.5, and college students who do not use Facebook generally have GPAs ranging from 3.5 to 4.0, those people who use MySpace don't have ANY GPA! They didn't bother attending college...
It's pretty entertaining to think that one could distract the police quite easily with a couple "holy hand grenade" bombs, and then "set us up the bomb" for real somewhere else...
It's a pity that we live in the age where everyone thinks everything is out to get them...
I've noticed the same trend - except it hasn't been only within the past couple of years.
Games have gotten ridiculously easy, yet I'm honestly not sure what they should do to help this. They could move all the difficulty settings up a notch - but then they might alienate an entire user base, possibly one primarily consisting of children. Perhaps the fact that controls and gameplay have become much more complex contributes to this. Playing Super Mario, with a total of 3 buttons, is nothing like playing the average Xbox 360 or PS3 game - lots of buttons, another dimension to control, more places to go, more things to do. But it does still stand to reason that games should at least OFFER a more difficult level of gameplay - games like FEAR 2.
Perhaps part of it has more to do with my "evolution" as a gamer; maybe I'm simply much better in my ability to play games and execute the necessary tactics than when I was younger. Games HAVE become much easier - but as I mentioned, things have become quite complex and perhaps that evens out for younger or less adept gamers.
Another thing that has become cumbersome is the fact that developers are starting to draw things out in order to make a little more money - which is a mixed bag. On one hand I like an entire sequel to play, but sometimes a storyline doesn't need to be stretched out over THREE titles (See: Halo). On the other hand I understand that they aren't making games for my enjoyment alone (or possibly at all), but rather it is simply their business. That still doesn't justify releasing the same thing several times on practically the same engine... even Half-Life 2 has become a huge cash cow. I would rather wait another 5-7 years for a new engine and new gameplay mechanics than pay $20-30 (making that a total of $60-90, plus the original cost of HL2) per EPISODE.
Like some have already commented, I find it hilarious that people are offended by fact that there are AFRICANS in AFRICA!
It is definitely apparent that people in today's society do not have enough to do - so they spend their energies on useless crusades such as these.
If the game involved black-killing-whites, or hispanic-killing-blacks, or black-killing-hispanics... nobody would care! It would not have been blown out of proportion by the media. Another funny little tidbit is the fact that the female isn't actually caucasian at all... but, well, nobody cares about that of course.
I laugh at the obvious insecurities of people because it really goes to show you how tiny they feel.
I wonder how many companies will actually make this intelligent deduction; that it might end up costing them more in the end than actual financial gain.
Reminds me of modern-day unions...
Soon they'll be trying to tell us life really isn't like GTA3, or Oblivion... and here I was training to be a car-jacking thief in the Dark Brotherhood...
Because... your government is INSANE. What with all the game censorship, it couldn't have been long until they wanted to limit your web surfing to national (possibly international) news sites and government sites.
Who knows, maybe we'll never see it from Obama because his secret muslim overlords will enslave us all, using our labor to drill their oil, and charge us ridiculous prices for gas...
Slashdot Mirror
... as if those large, noticeable, reverse-indicator lights weren't extremely apparent already?
It's quite obvious that most people replying to this post didn't read the actual article.
Yes, we all know that "up to 1,000 Mb!" internet service is a joke, and most people don't see performance anywhere near what is advertised. As some people have already pointed out... "DUH". It's biased advertising, what do you expect - that's how advertising works. Secondly, the article explained several reasons that people will not see the entire 6.7 Mb in terms that even the least tech-savvy person could understand.
I agree with the FCC's assessment. Essentially, they summed up the fact that it's pretty shady advertising, but ISPs are not doing anything illegal. The proposed solution is a new type of speed rating, similar to a nutrition facts label, which I think is genius.
On another note - I think it's pretty simplistic and idiotic to compare the facts and issues related to this topic to, say, restaurants. The article mentions how ISPs have little power over what happens to their service farther down the land lines - which is a fact. They have no control over interference, poor quality routers, etc. You can't make a comparison between that and a cheeseburger. The restaurant has complete control over their ingredients until it reaches the customer's hands physically, so no, you cannot make that comparison.
Interestingly, you might draw the analogy that McDonald's offers a quarter-pound patty on their burgers. This is typically the pre-cooked weight, meaning that there's a lot of liquid included in that measurement. In addition, you might order a double quarter pounder with one patty being less than a quarter pound, and the other being more than a quarter pound. Who flippin cares, as long as you get similar sized patties?
The moral of that story is... don't eat at McDonalds. Fix your own damn burger, and stop complaining!
... if you end up paying for a new set of tires, anyways?
You will spend the money you saved on gas, and then some, on a new set of tires - be it a new tire technology, or just a new set of tires at improper camber.
Personally, I would prefer the nicer ride, handing, and tire life - to dealing with this whole pseudo-environmentally-friendly "tech tip".
My sentiment exactly!
This is hardly worth discussing.... in fact, to me this seems about as news-worthy as FireFox surpassing Netscape Navigator or IE5.5 in browse shares. Sheesh.
... your dog eats you!
It should go without saying that the most important part of any video game is the game play; game play is the reason someone typically purchases a game. A pretty picture with beautiful graphics offers no real game play, and if Crysis were text-based it might feel a bit ... primitive, rudimentary.
I think that video games and movies share the same problems and dilemmas - especially now that CGI sequences are a dime a dozen. There are directors and producers that would rather use a simple camera trick to pull off special effects, and there are those that would rather spend $100,000,000 on CGI sequences. Is either method incorrect? Not necessarily...
Those who produce and direct games or movies need to focus on the end product - their actual goal. By intelligently and thoughtfully incorporating each and every available method, and properly using each tool, they can create a masterpiece. A game's claim to fame shouldn't be based solely on it's graphics, game mechanics - or physics engine. A truly well-made game utilizes everything to the necessary extent in order to fulfill the creators' vision or goal.
... we can now ensure that kids and adolescents have vision problems as a result of staring at screens for too long. In addition, we will spend at least twice the money to start this program while pretending that we're saving money.
Cue utopian-fantasy programs that will not, or at least should not, ever see the light of day - and yet, it still pacifies the angry population. Somehow.
I can admit though - it would be interesting if the schooling system could implement things like: checking your kids progress or grades online, seeing what they're going over in class (at any given point in time) - tools that would help both the children and their parents. While these things are indeed possible at the moment, perhaps a more efficient system would benefit everyone - and also encourage more parents to be actively involved in their child's education.
... what can on expect?
If you take photos of secured/secret things or locations, you can be sure someone will be alarmed and probably contact the "authorities".
... and here we have people worried about exploding shoes and finger nail clippers.
... has this not already been covered multiple times?
Perhaps I'm confusing slashdot with other news sites... in any case, if the starter edition is cheap enough - it isn't a bad move for people who don't do anything besides check their email, type up letters, and websurf.
Grandma and grandpa would probably be more than happy to dish out $50 - 75 for a 3-application limited OS than $200 for something that is almost as barebone and castrated.
You know, despite the general public's movement towards digital distribution, I am still torn as to whether this is the best way to do business. Granted, the game industry isn't really there to suit every gamer's needs, but still...
On one hand I'd like to have the physical copy of the game - but that isn't my deepest, darkest fear when it comes to digital purchases. I am afraid that, per the EULA, I'll someday get screwed due to some random errata or possibly lose everything if the service shuts down.
Say that a company buys out Steam (Valve, etc), and decides that it was a poor investment and closes Steam altogether - everything I purchased on there would be gone. It'd be interesting if they could at least guarantee steam-free ISO downloads of each game in this scenario, or even, perhaps, allow you to download the ISO WHENEVER you wanted to.
Granted, they'd never do this because the point of the digital distribution is to help counter piracy, and releasing untouched ISOs into the wild would essentially be giving the games away. I do find a quote from the article interesting, however:
"Piracy is more of an annoying thing. It's an ego thing. You put your heart and soul into a game and you see someone playing it online who stole it. It pisses you off. You're just really mad. You have to take a step back and say, "if you had stopped them from pirating it, would they have bought it?" The answer is probably no."
It's pretty unfortunate that executives at companies like EA never realize this. I completely understand that this thought-pattern alone isn't enough to quell the rage felt by everyone who helped to develop and produce the game, but then again this is the mindset that prevents game makers and distributors from implementing obtrusive and obnoxious DRM.
I guess my point is that digital distribution is somewhat of a scary thought - no guarantees, no control, no "freedom" - if you read the EULAs, you essentially paid $50 to "rent" the play time from the game makers.
In addition to all of this we have companies like Time Warner Cable that want to implement bandwidth caps - imagine a future with complete digital distribution of operating systems, all software, and all games - but then you have a bandwidth cap, so you end up paying ridiculous sums just to access the products and services that you paid to have access to; you end up paying for the program and the bandwidth to download it. Don't even get me started on cloud computing.
Blah, after that rant, all I can say is - I hope that games are never completely taken off the shelves and distributed digitally exclusively... even if GameStop is overpriced, or a pain to deal with, it's at least a fun place to stop and browse, occasionally pre-ordering a hot title (there's nothing like walking in with a receipt, ahead of everyone, and asking for your brand new pre-order... digital distribution doesn't provide you with that feeling, or the smell of the new case/manual/disc)!
... the older you get, the better things USED to be... and present things suck worse and worse...
amirite?! AMIRITE?!
... I dread the day when, after the implementation of Adobe Flash, TV will also be bombarded with content similar to that on sites like YouTube. It'll be the end of TV as we know it!
Wait a second...
... while college students who use Facebook have GPAs generally ranging from 3.0 to 3.5, and college students who do not use Facebook generally have GPAs ranging from 3.5 to 4.0, those people who use MySpace don't have ANY GPA! They didn't bother attending college...
Of course this is true!
It's pretty entertaining to think that one could distract the police quite easily with a couple "holy hand grenade" bombs, and then "set us up the bomb" for real somewhere else...
It's a pity that we live in the age where everyone thinks everything is out to get them...
I've noticed the same trend - except it hasn't been only within the past couple of years.
Games have gotten ridiculously easy, yet I'm honestly not sure what they should do to help this. They could move all the difficulty settings up a notch - but then they might alienate an entire user base, possibly one primarily consisting of children. Perhaps the fact that controls and gameplay have become much more complex contributes to this. Playing Super Mario, with a total of 3 buttons, is nothing like playing the average Xbox 360 or PS3 game - lots of buttons, another dimension to control, more places to go, more things to do. But it does still stand to reason that games should at least OFFER a more difficult level of gameplay - games like FEAR 2.
Perhaps part of it has more to do with my "evolution" as a gamer; maybe I'm simply much better in my ability to play games and execute the necessary tactics than when I was younger. Games HAVE become much easier - but as I mentioned, things have become quite complex and perhaps that evens out for younger or less adept gamers.
Another thing that has become cumbersome is the fact that developers are starting to draw things out in order to make a little more money - which is a mixed bag. On one hand I like an entire sequel to play, but sometimes a storyline doesn't need to be stretched out over THREE titles (See: Halo). On the other hand I understand that they aren't making games for my enjoyment alone (or possibly at all), but rather it is simply their business. That still doesn't justify releasing the same thing several times on practically the same engine... even Half-Life 2 has become a huge cash cow. I would rather wait another 5-7 years for a new engine and new gameplay mechanics than pay $20-30 (making that a total of $60-90, plus the original cost of HL2) per EPISODE.
Like some have already commented, I find it hilarious that people are offended by fact that there are AFRICANS in AFRICA!
... nobody would care! It would not have been blown out of proportion by the media. Another funny little tidbit is the fact that the female isn't actually caucasian at all... but, well, nobody cares about that of course.
I laugh at the obvious insecurities of people because it really goes to show you how tiny they feel.
It is definitely apparent that people in today's society do not have enough to do - so they spend their energies on useless crusades such as these.
If the game involved black-killing-whites, or hispanic-killing-blacks, or black-killing-hispanics
I wonder how many companies will actually make this intelligent deduction; that it might end up costing them more in the end than actual financial gain. Reminds me of modern-day unions...
not as old are your mother
...wait, what?
oOoOoOoOoO
Soon they'll be trying to tell us life really isn't like GTA3, or Oblivion... and here I was training to be a car-jacking thief in the Dark Brotherhood...
... or rather, haven't noticed, the fact that nobody has realize this article was written in Mid-2007?
Why has it taken this long to hit slashdot? Is there a time warp here...
"What words are we going to put into the database for our alpha version?"
...
... how about monopoly too?"
"Well, lets start with words like linux, open source, $%#@, #$%#@, @#$%, and @#$@#
Because... your government is INSANE. What with all the game censorship, it couldn't have been long until they wanted to limit your web surfing to national (possibly international) news sites and government sites.
Who knows, maybe we'll never see it from Obama because his secret muslim overlords will enslave us all, using our labor to drill their oil, and charge us ridiculous prices for gas...
... OH WAIT...