No, the whole point is that Apple went out of it's way to disable Real support. It's not that they should've had it in there in the first place. Your analogy would only hold true if some other company got their files to work on Sony players and THEN Sony went out of their way to disable support.
OK, I used that term loosely, hence why it was in quotes. I lost the ability to play Real files. Call it a hack or whatever you want, but it was kind of cool that if I wanted to, I could play Real files, and now I can't because Apple intervened even though it wasn't detrimental to the iPod. It's cut and dry.
because, if Real allowed you to remove the Harmony wrapper and use the file you paid for as an MP3, you could play it just fine on the iPod.
So then your solution is that Real should not have DRM or have some publically available utility to strip it?
Uhm, I don't buy it. If I could play the protected file on my iPod without any hassle on my end (in your theoretical case, having to convert the file from DRM to non-DRM) and at the same time Real didn't have to remove their DRM (which would sorta defeat the purpose of having DRM in the first place), who cares? Does it not make sense that Real would want to keep their DRM intact if they could? Is that not one of the major points of DRM? It was a good compromise if you owned an iPod and had Harmony files.
This isn't about removing a feature, this is about Real not wanting their files to be transferable to any device.
Clearly it isn't, otherwise they wouldn't go out of their way to make their files playable on the most popular player out there. Once again, I couldn't care less about having Real support on my iPod, but it sucks that Apple decided to lessen the support for what I can use my iPod for. That's it. It's not about Real's merit, it's about Apple taking away users' ability to do stuff on their iPods in general.
Apple's, for disabling it. It's obviously Real's fault that they suck, if that's what you were asking about.
Now, who is under the obligation to let you play tracks from Real on any player?
No, you're missing the point. It's not that it's real's "responsibility" or whatever you were getting at, the fact is that Apple went out of their way to disable Real's format from being played on their player. That's it. iPod users are now down a "feature." Again, I think Real sucks and I hope they go out of business, but I won't applaud Apple for disabling Real's work at getting their format to be playable on the most popular MP3 player out there. The principle of it sucks.
Mod parent up. I'm a pretty big Apple fan, and I hate Real, but as everyone likes to point out, noone uses Real anyhow and locking them out of the iPod is only taking *away* an option. It's not really good for any consumers, really. As much as I think Real is a joke and deserve to die as a company, it was still sort of cool that if I wanted to, I had the ability to play their DRM'd files. Now I don't.
I didn't say that, but yeah, I do believe it's a rather large part of it.
it's about our position as the most powerful country in the world that just happens to support all religions equally
OK but seriously, we're not living in the 1700s. It's not like we're the only country that has Jews in it and it's not as if we're the world's only superpower.
Bottom line, terrorists hate Jews. They hate them. We like Jews here in America. Jews get freedom here. And terrorists hate that. So they want us to stop.
Jesus this is scary. So you're saying now that terrorists attack us because we have Jews in our country and that's the main reason. At this point I think I got troll-baited, but if you're serious, then you need to seriously do some research.
If you really believe that if we stopped supporting Israel, the terrorists would leave us alone, then I have a bridge to sell you.
I never said that we should. Stop putting words in my mouth. This is about making an effort to understand why terrorists hate us so we can more effectively eliminate the problem (I'm talking about terrorists here, not support of Israel) instead of bending over and saying "Uh... they hate our freedom." We will continually get hammered by terrorists because we can't pull out of Israel at this point much for the same reasons we can't pull out of Iraq, and everything we're doing in Iraq (occupation) is merely going to generate more terrorists.
But yeah, I'm not concerned if you think I'm an idiot considering the explanation you gave.
OK, you support funding suicide terrorists. We're starting to get a picture of who you are.
Parent poster merely brought up the simple fact that our forces have NOT stopped suicide bombings. You're painting yourself as the asshole republican who thinks anyone against the war is for terrorism.
We didn't "occupy" them (i.e. protect them) after the first Gulf War, and what happened? Iraq fell back into tyranny; Saddam crushed hundreds of thousands of dissenters. In the Iraqis' minds, America under Bush 41 turned its back on Iraq by not "occupying" them. Our "occupation" is necessary and temporary. Iraq wants us there for now. They know they can't handle the security situation by themselves at this point.
That's all well and good, but the citizens of the US were lied to about why we were going there. We ARE occupying them, and our occupation was NOT necessary, and if we hadn't taken the road Bush set us on, we probably could've gotten UN support at some point and done it the right way. The ends don't justify the means.
No, the reason France, Germany, Russia, and China opposed the war is because they didn't want to lose their oil money from Saddam. The UN is mired in scandal up to its devil horns.
Heh, you know what the world thinks of us? Hell, it was all made obvious and over half the nation still doesn't think the US was involved in shady business.
The ones he used. The ones he shipped to Syria during our months-long "rush to war." Pay attention.
Oh, so this doesn't include the ones that, ya know, we were actually supposed to be getting? Remember, the ones that were going to be used against Americans? That silly little detail that we went to war for? Maybe you missed that bit about the fact that they didn't exist. Oopsy.
They're being shot at mostly by foreigners. The Iraqi government has said as much.
You mean the US?
Iraqis want peace. Neighboring dictators see the writing on the wall if democracy thrives in Iraq. They have everything to lose if Iraqi democracy succeeds, so they're sending in terrorists to create chaos and make America change its mind and run away like Clinton did in Mogadishu. It looks like you don't need much convincing.
Either that or Iraqis want us to get the hell out of their country. Unforunately, we have to stay there because our fearless leader didn't actually have a plan going in, and the body count is racking up. You make it sound as if the Iraqis love us; have you talked to any of the guys that were actually over there, or are you getting this from Fox News?
Libya's nuclear disarmament should not be taken lightly! This was a major brewing catastrophe averted without a single shot fired. If THIS ALONE had been the only positive effect of the war in Iraq, it would've been worth it.
Iran? N Korea? How about the US, who had more warheads than anyone else? Why aren't we disarming? Oh that's right, we're setting the tone for everyone by developing new ones. GO US!
You're seeing what is probably the dying gasps of the current Iranian regime. They're squirming because they know their days are numbered, and most observers think the revolution will come from within. I think what is going on in Iraq gives hope to the oppressed people of Iran.
Yes, it's comforting to know they're building up their nuclear stockpile and they're feeling like cornered animals. I feel much more secure.
That's one of the best things about the war. The forces are a decoy to lure the terrorists away from our defenseless civilians. Better for our competent, powerful [grouchymedia.com] military to be their target than office buildings in New York and D.C.
Absolutely, and in the meantime we can continue to turn Iraqis into terrorists because our presence has killed their families, our troops can die, and we can stay in Iraq until it all stops! Cool, great solution!
Uhm, what's your point? Are you implying that all of the nasty things you mentioned above happen to the terrorists, and because of that they hate us?
Call me crazy, but I always thought that crap was done to the citizens, not the terrorists who were generally running the show. But I guess if it were the terrorists being treated that way, I could see why they would single out the United States somehow for bringing it onto them, because afterall we're free, and noone else is.
Orrrrrrrrrrrrrr it might have something to do with that whole Israel thing that everyone likes to forget about. But that's a stretch, the freedom-hating thing makes much more sense.
Oh please. I was almost taking you seriously until I got to "Fascist dictator with WMD imprisoned," "Terrorists on the run," "Most of Al-Qaida leadership killed," and my favorite, "America is safer."
If the administration's goals were to help people, get rid of WMDs, and attempt to quell terroristm, Iraq was a real, REAL weak choice.
Let me guess, you think terrorists hate us because of our freedom too, right?
Well, how many customers were pissed off about steam? Lots of 'em.
A lot of us were pissed off because we couldn't play it immediately (I personally had zero problems installing it the day it came out at around 6 PM Eastern). OK, Steam choked because of everyone hitting it at once. I really don't think that should have come as a surprise. Inconvenience? Yes. Something a paying customer shouldn't have to deal with, especially since they bought a box copy? Yes. Is it normal Steam behaviour? No. With that said, was it really that big of a deal that some of the early buyers of the game had some problems? Not really. I'd also like to note that HL2 has sold a rather massive amount of copies, and although the Steam problems are most definitely there, they don't seem to be something prevalent for every user.
Perhaps the fact that I can't run it without ongoing assistance from Steam/Valve? (Note: I don't run it at all)
That's simply not true. I don't know if you're thinking that you can't play the single player game without Steam online, but that's been absolutely beaten to death here. You don't need to be connected.
Valve isn't getting a slice? Don't think that they are doing this just for the hell of it.
Of course not, the context for my comment was that it wouldn't make much sense if Valve wouldn't allow HL2 mods to run without Steam authentication, because if anything, it's saving Valve bandwidth costs.
Piracy prevention is just one aspect. Advertising revenue is another possible one.
Yup, and once again, if Valve mis-treats that, they're going to piss their customers off. I doubt they'd really need to slap ads all over Steam, however, because with Steam they're getting MUCH more money since they've cut out the publisher. That's how they're making their money. And please, let's not forget about the benefits of Steam... I can completely lose my CDs, and as long as I have a temporary internet connection, I can get to my game. I can play CS or whatnot without having to worry about prevalent cheaters. My games will be updated automatically IF I CHOOSE TO DO SO, which is nice. I'll also have the satisfaction of knowing that I've cut out the middle man and that my money is going towards the guys who actually put blood/sweat/tears into the whole thing.
And we're using their servers..? Not by choice! Are hosted games on their servers? I don't think so. The idea that the player is held hostage to Valve/Steam's desires is an entirely valid one. What do you think would happen if a player mod came out that bypassed the built-in steam advertising? (There's no advertising in steam? Just wait...) Or bypassed the steam splash screen (advertising in and of itself)?
Oh please. No, we're not actually playing games on their servers, but their servers are authenticating our games, patching them/keeping them up to date, making sure we're not running cheats, etc. "Held hostage?" OK, write a mod if you feel your digital freedom or whatnot is at stake.
This sensationalism of how Steam is the Antichrist of software is rather humorous.
How long before Valve start charging a subscription to play Half-Life 2 online through Steam and then disable users accounts of those who refuse to fork over the cash, hand over fist?
Hah... please take off your tinfoil hat. How many customers do you think this would piss off? Do you think Valve is so out of touch (clearly indicated by how terrible the game is... cough) that they would do that sort of thing to their customers?
y brother bought half-life 2 and had to wait six hours over a 50k to even play the damn game.
If you're that impatient, you should've perhaps not bought one of the most anticipated PC games ever during the first few days it was put out. Steam is relatively new, and I'm sure that the money they're saving from the publisher will be put back into the Steam servers. I'm sorry, but if six hours for a game given the circumstances really offends you that much, then you need to chill out.
no EULA at all( That legal joke in the manual does not count
You've definitely got a point there, and I think Valve should've done something there.
alve seem to want it both ways. They want the ease of an over the counter product, and yet still wish to licence this product once the sale is made.
Besides the CD thing, which can be overcome by using your CD-Key to download a CD-less copy over Steam, what makes this feel like the game is being licenced?
Not to mention that the EULA is ridiclously open ended anyway. Valve can disable unofficial modders accounts, disable people they don't like(i.e. people who complain), disable people who exploit bugs etc...
Yes, and if they do that on a level that would be detrimental to a normal, paying customer, there'll be a huge backlash from it. I sorta think Valve is aware of this. Tinfoil hat type stuff.
And how easy will it charge a subscription fee for online play and then disable users to play on "unofficial"(free) servers where Valve isn't getting a slice.
Valve isn't getting a slice, really. We're using their servers, right? there's no monthly subscription, right? And seriously, do you understand just how badly Valve's fanbase would look on them if suddenly they decided to make us pay a subscription charge? Do you REALLY see this happening? Hell, you were talking about open-ended EULAs yet don't realize how illegal something like that would be. Come on, dude.
I'm personally deeply offended by this kind of anti-player, anti-consumer behaviour creeping into the industry. I guess in some ways, I still want the games I purchased over the counter to actually belong to me, and not just own a (possibly temporary) licence.
Luckily, Valve hasn't been able to take away your right to not buy it.... YET.
it would only make sense that those same sheeps would also start buying overpriced but pretty Macs.
If you look at the average user and the benefits that the OS (which everyone loves to forget about when talking about price) gives them, then yeah, it's worth it.
Your post is indeed flamebait because it doesn't take into account the utter superiority of the OS to Windows (barring some things, such as games).
Watering the whole thing down to people buying Macs because they're sheep who are only investing because it's pretty is laughable to anyone who actually uses Macs and PCs daily. Are they pretty? Yes. Is that a bonus? Absolutely. Is it the only reason people like Macs? You might think so if you've never given a Mac a good trial run and witnessed how much easier and generally nicer it is to use one. For the rest of us, though, that answer is laughable.
This isn't coming from a mac-fanatic, either; I use a PC most of my day and it's still my primary machine at home, but I also love my Powerbook.
Sure it's flamebait, sure it's troll, but it's also true... and you know it.
No, it's not, but the way you paint a picture of a Mac user is a good indication that you're probably rabidly anti-Mac enough to indicate that you actually believe what you're saying and think you have it all figured out.
Hmmmm, but would you rather wait for another 3 seconds and have the game play flawlessly, or would you rather be completely sucked out of the moment in a firefight when your system stutters so that you could play the game three seconds earlier?
Re:Steam-like online distrubtion is inevitable
on
Review: Half-Life 2
·
· Score: 1
Of course, because there's no reason that Valve couldn't release a patch before they left that would enable you to not have to use Steam to play.
This comment comes up CONSTANTLY, yet never makes sense. If the company goes under and doesn't patch it, those guys now have shitty names and will have that stigma follow them. If the publisher just pulls the plug, all of the customers of the game are going to be pissed off at the developer. Let's not even talk about the possibility for law suits, the hackers (who have already beaten Steam verification), etc.
I mean, think about the sort of backlash that any company involved in HL2 would face if one day noone could play a game that they payed for.
Can someone please offer a plausible scenario that would result in however many thousands of consumers simply not being able to play the game ever again?
With that said, can we please stop modding this argument up as if it's this definite pending event?
Oh yes. Your point might have some sort of validity if there were no more new games coming out and the prototype for your argument wasn't a game with the number "2" after it.
Taking a step back and using common sense, sequels are generally meant to give you more of the same. Sometimes they come with enhancements, but generally the core gameplay is still there, the core feel is still there.
So then it can be deduced that hmmmm, if you want innovative and brand new gaming experiences, hmmmm, perhaps you shouldn't be seeking it from sequels?
Hmmmm... try cleaning off the lens with a good cleaning solution. If you've already tried different players (good ones?), I don't know what more else to say.
The locking-up sounds a bit suspicious to me, though... I've never seen that behaviour.
Parent comment always gets modded up on slashdot with regards to optical media... here goes.
Redundancy and error correction will make up for any casual-use scratches ("casual" meaning you generally take care of your CDs, but perhaps don't always put them back in their cases immediately or whatnot). The more space, the more error correction you have in the form of redundancy and things such as parity, not to mention faster chips allowing for interpolation to fill in any gaps that may exist.
Also, don't forget the way the data is physically read is AROUND the disc, so in order to do any real sort of damage would be to have large scratches also going around the disc. This is why when cleaning discs, you should always clean from the inside of the disc to the outside, NOT going around it.
Regarding your DVD problems, have you tried cleaning your lens properly (not trying to be a smartass, disc-read problems are more often than not a function of the laser)?
So in short, you have nothing to worry about (this also assumes that you don't buy a KMart brand unit with a poor laser). With more space, we get better error correction and opportunities for redundancy, and the physical nature of the media makes it more resiliant to every-day scratches (just remember how the data is physically read and it becomes apparent). If it wasn't for whatever strange reason, then the engineers who spend years putting the technology together would accomodate for that.
Slashdot Mirror
Once again though, it's not about Real, it's about Apple going out of their way to shut out Real (and hence some users of the iPod).
No, the whole point is that Apple went out of it's way to disable Real support. It's not that they should've had it in there in the first place. Your analogy would only hold true if some other company got their files to work on Sony players and THEN Sony went out of their way to disable support.
What feature?
OK, I used that term loosely, hence why it was in quotes. I lost the ability to play Real files. Call it a hack or whatever you want, but it was kind of cool that if I wanted to, I could play Real files, and now I can't because Apple intervened even though it wasn't detrimental to the iPod. It's cut and dry.
because, if Real allowed you to remove the Harmony wrapper and use the file you paid for as an MP3, you could play it just fine on the iPod.
So then your solution is that Real should not have DRM or have some publically available utility to strip it?
Uhm, I don't buy it. If I could play the protected file on my iPod without any hassle on my end (in your theoretical case, having to convert the file from DRM to non-DRM) and at the same time Real didn't have to remove their DRM (which would sorta defeat the purpose of having DRM in the first place), who cares? Does it not make sense that Real would want to keep their DRM intact if they could? Is that not one of the major points of DRM? It was a good compromise if you owned an iPod and had Harmony files.
This isn't about removing a feature, this is about Real not wanting their files to be transferable to any device.
Clearly it isn't, otherwise they wouldn't go out of their way to make their files playable on the most popular player out there. Once again, I couldn't care less about having Real support on my iPod, but it sucks that Apple decided to lessen the support for what I can use my iPod for. That's it. It's not about Real's merit, it's about Apple taking away users' ability to do stuff on their iPods in general.
And whose fault is that?
Apple's, for disabling it. It's obviously Real's fault that they suck, if that's what you were asking about.
Now, who is under the obligation to let you play tracks from Real on any player?
No, you're missing the point. It's not that it's real's "responsibility" or whatever you were getting at, the fact is that Apple went out of their way to disable Real's format from being played on their player. That's it. iPod users are now down a "feature." Again, I think Real sucks and I hope they go out of business, but I won't applaud Apple for disabling Real's work at getting their format to be playable on the most popular MP3 player out there. The principle of it sucks.
Mod parent up. I'm a pretty big Apple fan, and I hate Real, but as everyone likes to point out, noone uses Real anyhow and locking them out of the iPod is only taking *away* an option. It's not really good for any consumers, really. As much as I think Real is a joke and deserve to die as a company, it was still sort of cool that if I wanted to, I had the ability to play their DRM'd files. Now I don't.
I've had no problems getting a signal (sending text messages) on major airliners... perhaps it's just your phone?
It's not about Israel in particular
I didn't say that, but yeah, I do believe it's a rather large part of it.
it's about our position as the most powerful country in the world that just happens to support all religions equally
OK but seriously, we're not living in the 1700s. It's not like we're the only country that has Jews in it and it's not as if we're the world's only superpower.
Bottom line, terrorists hate Jews. They hate them. We like Jews here in America. Jews get freedom here. And terrorists hate that. So they want us to stop.
Jesus this is scary. So you're saying now that terrorists attack us because we have Jews in our country and that's the main reason. At this point I think I got troll-baited, but if you're serious, then you need to seriously do some research.
If you really believe that if we stopped supporting Israel, the terrorists would leave us alone, then I have a bridge to sell you.
I never said that we should. Stop putting words in my mouth. This is about making an effort to understand why terrorists hate us so we can more effectively eliminate the problem (I'm talking about terrorists here, not support of Israel) instead of bending over and saying "Uh... they hate our freedom." We will continually get hammered by terrorists because we can't pull out of Israel at this point much for the same reasons we can't pull out of Iraq, and everything we're doing in Iraq (occupation) is merely going to generate more terrorists.
But yeah, I'm not concerned if you think I'm an idiot considering the explanation you gave.
OK, you support funding suicide terrorists. We're starting to get a picture of who you are.
Parent poster merely brought up the simple fact that our forces have NOT stopped suicide bombings. You're painting yourself as the asshole republican who thinks anyone against the war is for terrorism.
We didn't "occupy" them (i.e. protect them) after the first Gulf War, and what happened? Iraq fell back into tyranny; Saddam crushed hundreds of thousands of dissenters. In the Iraqis' minds, America under Bush 41 turned its back on Iraq by not "occupying" them. Our "occupation" is necessary and temporary. Iraq wants us there for now. They know they can't handle the security situation by themselves at this point.
That's all well and good, but the citizens of the US were lied to about why we were going there. We ARE occupying them, and our occupation was NOT necessary, and if we hadn't taken the road Bush set us on, we probably could've gotten UN support at some point and done it the right way. The ends don't justify the means.
No, the reason France, Germany, Russia, and China opposed the war is because they didn't want to lose their oil money from Saddam. The UN is mired in scandal up to its devil horns.
Heh, you know what the world thinks of us? Hell, it was all made obvious and over half the nation still doesn't think the US was involved in shady business.
The ones he used. The ones he shipped to Syria during our months-long "rush to war." Pay attention.
Oh, so this doesn't include the ones that, ya know, we were actually supposed to be getting? Remember, the ones that were going to be used against Americans? That silly little detail that we went to war for? Maybe you missed that bit about the fact that they didn't exist. Oopsy.
They're being shot at mostly by foreigners. The Iraqi government has said as much.
You mean the US?
Iraqis want peace. Neighboring dictators see the writing on the wall if democracy thrives in Iraq. They have everything to lose if Iraqi democracy succeeds, so they're sending in terrorists to create chaos and make America change its mind and run away like Clinton did in Mogadishu. It looks like you don't need much convincing.
Either that or Iraqis want us to get the hell out of their country. Unforunately, we have to stay there because our fearless leader didn't actually have a plan going in, and the body count is racking up. You make it sound as if the Iraqis love us; have you talked to any of the guys that were actually over there, or are you getting this from Fox News?
Libya's nuclear disarmament should not be taken lightly! This was a major brewing catastrophe averted without a single shot fired. If THIS ALONE had been the only positive effect of the war in Iraq, it would've been worth it.
Iran? N Korea? How about the US, who had more warheads than anyone else? Why aren't we disarming? Oh that's right, we're setting the tone for everyone by developing new ones. GO US!
You're seeing what is probably the dying gasps of the current Iranian regime. They're squirming because they know their days are numbered, and most observers think the revolution will come from within. I think what is going on in Iraq gives hope to the oppressed people of Iran.
Yes, it's comforting to know they're building up their nuclear stockpile and they're feeling like cornered animals. I feel much more secure.
That's one of the best things about the war. The forces are a decoy to lure the terrorists away from our defenseless civilians. Better for our competent, powerful [grouchymedia.com] military to be their target than office buildings in New York and D.C.
Absolutely, and in the meantime we can continue to turn Iraqis into terrorists because our presence has killed their families, our troops can die, and we can stay in Iraq until it all stops! Cool, great solution!
The
Uhm, what's your point? Are you implying that all of the nasty things you mentioned above happen to the terrorists, and because of that they hate us?
Call me crazy, but I always thought that crap was done to the citizens, not the terrorists who were generally running the show. But I guess if it were the terrorists being treated that way, I could see why they would single out the United States somehow for bringing it onto them, because afterall we're free, and noone else is.
Orrrrrrrrrrrrrr it might have something to do with that whole Israel thing that everyone likes to forget about. But that's a stretch, the freedom-hating thing makes much more sense.
(cough)
Oh please. I was almost taking you seriously until I got to "Fascist dictator with WMD imprisoned," "Terrorists on the run," "Most of Al-Qaida leadership killed," and my favorite, "America is safer."
If the administration's goals were to help people, get rid of WMDs, and attempt to quell terroristm, Iraq was a real, REAL weak choice.
Let me guess, you think terrorists hate us because of our freedom too, right?
You might have a valid point if it weren't for the fact that this clearly isn't a review.
Well, how many customers were pissed off about steam? Lots of 'em.
A lot of us were pissed off because we couldn't play it immediately (I personally had zero problems installing it the day it came out at around 6 PM Eastern). OK, Steam choked because of everyone hitting it at once. I really don't think that should have come as a surprise. Inconvenience? Yes. Something a paying customer shouldn't have to deal with, especially since they bought a box copy? Yes. Is it normal Steam behaviour? No. With that said, was it really that big of a deal that some of the early buyers of the game had some problems? Not really. I'd also like to note that HL2 has sold a rather massive amount of copies, and although the Steam problems are most definitely there, they don't seem to be something prevalent for every user.
Perhaps the fact that I can't run it without ongoing assistance from Steam/Valve? (Note: I don't run it at all)
That's simply not true. I don't know if you're thinking that you can't play the single player game without Steam online, but that's been absolutely beaten to death here. You don't need to be connected.
Valve isn't getting a slice? Don't think that they are doing this just for the hell of it.
Of course not, the context for my comment was that it wouldn't make much sense if Valve wouldn't allow HL2 mods to run without Steam authentication, because if anything, it's saving Valve bandwidth costs.
Piracy prevention is just one aspect. Advertising revenue is another possible one.
Yup, and once again, if Valve mis-treats that, they're going to piss their customers off. I doubt they'd really need to slap ads all over Steam, however, because with Steam they're getting MUCH more money since they've cut out the publisher. That's how they're making their money. And please, let's not forget about the benefits of Steam... I can completely lose my CDs, and as long as I have a temporary internet connection, I can get to my game. I can play CS or whatnot without having to worry about prevalent cheaters. My games will be updated automatically IF I CHOOSE TO DO SO, which is nice. I'll also have the satisfaction of knowing that I've cut out the middle man and that my money is going towards the guys who actually put blood/sweat/tears into the whole thing.
And we're using their servers..? Not by choice! Are hosted games on their servers? I don't think so. The idea that the player is held hostage to Valve/Steam's desires is an entirely valid one. What do you think would happen if a player mod came out that bypassed the built-in steam advertising? (There's no advertising in steam? Just wait...) Or bypassed the steam splash screen (advertising in and of itself)?
Oh please. No, we're not actually playing games on their servers, but their servers are authenticating our games, patching them/keeping them up to date, making sure we're not running cheats, etc. "Held hostage?" OK, write a mod if you feel your digital freedom or whatnot is at stake.
This sensationalism of how Steam is the Antichrist of software is rather humorous.
How long before Valve start charging a subscription to play Half-Life 2 online through Steam and then disable users accounts of those who refuse to fork over the cash, hand over fist?
Hah... please take off your tinfoil hat. How many customers do you think this would piss off? Do you think Valve is so out of touch (clearly indicated by how terrible the game is... cough) that they would do that sort of thing to their customers?
y brother bought half-life 2 and had to wait six hours over a 50k to even play the damn game.
If you're that impatient, you should've perhaps not bought one of the most anticipated PC games ever during the first few days it was put out. Steam is relatively new, and I'm sure that the money they're saving from the publisher will be put back into the Steam servers. I'm sorry, but if six hours for a game given the circumstances really offends you that much, then you need to chill out.
no EULA at all( That legal joke in the manual does not count
You've definitely got a point there, and I think Valve should've done something there.
alve seem to want it both ways. They want the ease of an over the counter product, and yet still wish to licence this product once the sale is made.
Besides the CD thing, which can be overcome by using your CD-Key to download a CD-less copy over Steam, what makes this feel like the game is being licenced?
Not to mention that the EULA is ridiclously open ended anyway. Valve can disable unofficial modders accounts, disable people they don't like(i.e. people who complain), disable people who exploit bugs etc...
Yes, and if they do that on a level that would be detrimental to a normal, paying customer, there'll be a huge backlash from it. I sorta think Valve is aware of this. Tinfoil hat type stuff.
And how easy will it charge a subscription fee for online play and then disable users to play on "unofficial"(free) servers where Valve isn't getting a slice.
Valve isn't getting a slice, really. We're using their servers, right? there's no monthly subscription, right? And seriously, do you understand just how badly Valve's fanbase would look on them if suddenly they decided to make us pay a subscription charge? Do you REALLY see this happening? Hell, you were talking about open-ended EULAs yet don't realize how illegal something like that would be. Come on, dude.
I'm personally deeply offended by this kind of anti-player, anti-consumer behaviour creeping into the industry. I guess in some ways, I still want the games I purchased over the counter to actually belong to me, and not just own a (possibly temporary) licence.
Luckily, Valve hasn't been able to take away your right to not buy it.... YET.
James Cameron had nothing to do with Terminator 3.
it would only make sense that those same sheeps would also start buying overpriced but pretty Macs.
If you look at the average user and the benefits that the OS (which everyone loves to forget about when talking about price) gives them, then yeah, it's worth it.
Your post is indeed flamebait because it doesn't take into account the utter superiority of the OS to Windows (barring some things, such as games).
Watering the whole thing down to people buying Macs because they're sheep who are only investing because it's pretty is laughable to anyone who actually uses Macs and PCs daily. Are they pretty? Yes. Is that a bonus? Absolutely. Is it the only reason people like Macs? You might think so if you've never given a Mac a good trial run and witnessed how much easier and generally nicer it is to use one. For the rest of us, though, that answer is laughable.
This isn't coming from a mac-fanatic, either; I use a PC most of my day and it's still my primary machine at home, but I also love my Powerbook.
Sure it's flamebait, sure it's troll, but it's also true... and you know it.
No, it's not, but the way you paint a picture of a Mac user is a good indication that you're probably rabidly anti-Mac enough to indicate that you actually believe what you're saying and think you have it all figured out.
Please.
TWO Cards! (Score:-1, Redundant)
I think that's the first time the actual moderation of a post has made me laugh more than the post itself.
Hmmmm, but would you rather wait for another 3 seconds and have the game play flawlessly, or would you rather be completely sucked out of the moment in a firefight when your system stutters so that you could play the game three seconds earlier?
Of course, because there's no reason that Valve couldn't release a patch before they left that would enable you to not have to use Steam to play.
This comment comes up CONSTANTLY, yet never makes sense. If the company goes under and doesn't patch it, those guys now have shitty names and will have that stigma follow them. If the publisher just pulls the plug, all of the customers of the game are going to be pissed off at the developer. Let's not even talk about the possibility for law suits, the hackers (who have already beaten Steam verification), etc.
I mean, think about the sort of backlash that any company involved in HL2 would face if one day noone could play a game that they payed for.
Can someone please offer a plausible scenario that would result in however many thousands of consumers simply not being able to play the game ever again?
With that said, can we please stop modding this argument up as if it's this definite pending event?
I don't think most /.ers want to be reminded of what their partners look like while engaging in sex.
Oh yes. Your point might have some sort of validity if there were no more new games coming out and the prototype for your argument wasn't a game with the number "2" after it.
Taking a step back and using common sense, sequels are generally meant to give you more of the same. Sometimes they come with enhancements, but generally the core gameplay is still there, the core feel is still there.
So then it can be deduced that hmmmm, if you want innovative and brand new gaming experiences, hmmmm, perhaps you shouldn't be seeking it from sequels?
How did this get modded up?
So what you're implying is that it's often a bad thing to give consumers more of something you already know they like?
Hmmmm Doom 3, Halo 2 (it's awesome), Metroid Prime 2, Farcry, Fable, Knights of the Old Republic 2...
By far, this has been the best gaming offering for Christmas time (for me, at least). These titles are all pretty top-notch.
Ah, but perhaps you're familiar with the old addage...
If it's not broken, don't fix it.
Hmmmm... try cleaning off the lens with a good cleaning solution. If you've already tried different players (good ones?), I don't know what more else to say.
The locking-up sounds a bit suspicious to me, though... I've never seen that behaviour.
Parent comment always gets modded up on slashdot with regards to optical media... here goes.
Redundancy and error correction will make up for any casual-use scratches ("casual" meaning you generally take care of your CDs, but perhaps don't always put them back in their cases immediately or whatnot). The more space, the more error correction you have in the form of redundancy and things such as parity, not to mention faster chips allowing for interpolation to fill in any gaps that may exist.
Also, don't forget the way the data is physically read is AROUND the disc, so in order to do any real sort of damage would be to have large scratches also going around the disc. This is why when cleaning discs, you should always clean from the inside of the disc to the outside, NOT going around it.
Regarding your DVD problems, have you tried cleaning your lens properly (not trying to be a smartass, disc-read problems are more often than not a function of the laser)?
So in short, you have nothing to worry about (this also assumes that you don't buy a KMart brand unit with a poor laser). With more space, we get better error correction and opportunities for redundancy, and the physical nature of the media makes it more resiliant to every-day scratches (just remember how the data is physically read and it becomes apparent). If it wasn't for whatever strange reason, then the engineers who spend years putting the technology together would accomodate for that.
Hopefully that clears some of it up.