Uninformative error messages for networking and similar functions.
One more hilarious thing I HAD to add.
It's so funny that the browser gives you error messages like "The browser had an error: 404 Not Found Error". I'm not sure if that's one of the actual errors, but they are very similar. It's fucking hilarious that the browser pretends to be as dumb as your grandma to make you feel better. It's like, what, iPhone can't admit that an error occurred?
I got an iPhone after using BlackBerry and Android phones for awhile now. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong -- here are some of my nags:
Lack of a back button. This is possibly the biggest UI flop on any recent and decent smartphone. Sometimes the back button is top-right, sometimes top-left, sometimes bottom-left. And sometimes there isn't a back button at all! It wastes UI space and you have to search for it every single time.
No confirmation dialogs when changing device settings. I often find myself turning options on/off without knowing it because the scrolling often triggers option changes.
Most apps do not work in both landscape and portrait mode (possibly my biggest gripe). For example I'm browsing the web in landscape and want to look at the browser history. Is it really necessary that I now turn the phone to portrait just to look at some options?
Can't search for music from within music app. I have to go back to the universal search just to search for something?
Lack of customization.
Appstore approval process. I'm OK with the restrictions but not the double standards. The attitude towards app rejection of "make a big enough stink and I'll get my app approved" makes me sick. See Playboy app approval.
The list goes on and on but I'm tired of writing this.
Granted some of them may be because I'm accustomed to different smartphone operating systems.
What part about people using your software and not paying for it a 'myth'? They are simply trying to prevent non-legitimate customers from playing the game. If the DRM prevents pirates from playing the game then it is already successful.
Really? That's fascinating because publishers were getting paid just fine. Every app out there, even the largely successful ones, had cracks available and early on. Heck, Spore had a cracked copy out before the game was even in shelves. Modern DRM doesn't work, either. Yet these games still go on and do just fine. Imagine how much money EA would have saved had it not spent the development time and money on DRM and supporting all the people that have had trouble with it. It's nice to know, though, that their propaganda has been very successful with you. History has successfully been rewritten.
Well aside from not even responding to what I quoted... You would have found in the Assassin's Creed slashdot articles that it took a couple of weeks to crack the DRM. Which is much more than can be said for your sacred media validation.
Furthermore, when someone uses software without paying for it, the publishers aren't getting paid "just fine" as you put it. What kind of idiot are you? "If I steal an object from a store then the owner is getting their service's worth! Derka derka der!"
Wrong. You cannot transfer ownership like that. The publisher will not allow you to. That's how they get more money out of you. I'll be impressed if there's actually a such thing as 'used games' in the next generation of consoles.
You know what the beauty of it is? DRM is abstract. This alone completely invalidates your argument. Again, bad DRM is bad DRM. Proper DRM would let you transfer ownership.
Media validation solved it just fine, your problem was with somebody trying to abuse it. Your solution not only fails to address the situation you had, it also turns your software license into a rental and not ownership.
Are you intentionally being an idiot? It didn't solve the problem.
Because *I* am the one they want to hand them money. Seriously man, derr. Now go back and carefully read that post you already saw and over-summarized. Nearly everything I've said here was already covered there. I imagine that's why you were so snarky (after criticizing ME for that) in it. Your way of saying 'uh... oops!'
Oh noes! I didn't read every sentence of your page-long incoherent diatribe! Give it up man.
The name you're looking for is Software as a Service.
Bandwidth is one issue but the main concern is latency or "lag". In the case of games even a tiny bit of latency can cause it to be unplayable. Once you get round trip time for your commands to be sent and the video returned, you've got a lot of unhappy customers and the expense of feeding all that high resolution video.
It doesn't have to be so extreme though. You can always implement pieces of the game not related to rendering on the server. Which is essentially why Ubisoft has done here.
You still can't get it through your head that DRM can be implemented with all the luxuries of physical items. Naive.
Look at the track record of media validation. When was the last time you couldn't find a crack for software whose only security was a keycode? Never. Media validation does not work to ensure that publishers get paid.
Even media validation through keycodes doesn't work. I once was sold a second-hand Diablo II and couldn't play on Battle.net because the seller continued to play online with the same keycode. I had to bitch to the seller in order to get him to uninstall the game. Proper DRM would have had a centralized system and allowed transfer of ownership and locked out any previous owner's computer. Media validation could not have solved this problem.
If you're not willing to let give in and handle decent DRM, why should the publishers put up with you?
DRM's purpose is to allow content to be used only when the user is authorized to do so
Media validation serves the same purpose. Just because you see them as two distict categories does not make it so.
Let's see which one still works in 2020.
Let's see which one works NOW. DRM is far more successful at deterring pirates than media validation ever has been. It may have also deterred actual customers, but that just bring us right back to my point.
It is a technical requirement except for the PC and even modern consoles. PC, PS3, XBOX360, and Wii, all allow you to install games on the system. It's not like they couldn't let you install all games on the system and throw/give the disc away -- they just won't.
I'm seeing a lot of semantics in your post and little reason. DRM, copy protection, call it what you like, the purpose is the same. I have to have my disc in my drive to play a game despite it being installed. The disc doesn't spin except on app start up.
Unless you're OK with the DRM scheme. Requiring to have the disc/cartridge in the system while playing the game _IS_ a DRM scheme. Yet you were OK with that with the NES, SNES, Saturn,..., PC, PS3, XBOX360.
My point is that people are on a misguided tirade against DRM. When really what they want is to play a game without DRM getting in their way.
DRM isn't wrong, it's just implemented in a way that hurts consumers most of the time. The sooner that customers realize DRM is OK, and the sooner that publishers realize that DRM can hurt consumers -- that's when we'll meet that nice and comfy middleground.
As long as my employer has higher resolution displays than I have at home, I'm going to keep wanting more. Every time I see someone with a phone rocking a higher res screen than mine, I'm going to want it.
Plain and simple: if it looks better it just looks better.
Until they hit as high a resolution as I can see, I'm going to want more. And maybe then we'll meet aliens who have such great eyesight that our displays will be eyesores for them.
I remember when Fox censored the Walmart episode so that you couldn't see the people crap their pants when they died. Then there was the eat in your butt and crap out your mouth episode. They censored that, too. What's wrong? Everybody shits... and apparently some people shit out of their mouths, too.
Look at the web. It sucks. In case you haven't noticed the web HTML5 can't do what Flash can and is even slower than hardware accelerated Flash. And you're telling me that something with less capabilities is innovation. I don't know what about HTML5 is going to improve your web experience. Your shitty HTML5 pop-ups and interactive ads will be waiting for you when you get there.
The web is turning into a foundation for apps and media. With Flash gone Apple has no reason to try and improve WebKit. They have a business responsibility not to improve it in order to keep their store strong. WebKit is far less than Flash right now and I don't know why you think Apple would bother to improve WebKit and endanger their cash cow app/media stores.
Apple restricts apps on their store now. Why would they ever allow equally-capable web apps on their platform if they couldn't restrict them? Since they control WebKit this could affect not only Apple's platforms but the entire web. Don't you see how dangerous that is? It would be like Google's control over the web except now not "Do No Evil" but "Simply Evil".
WebKit doesn't have all of the features or the efficiency that Flash does with hardware acceleration. In fact HTML5 video is found to be slower than Flash video.
...at least by forcing people into HTML5, they're encouraging the adoption of a fully standards-based internet
But here lies the problem. Apple is one of the main contributors to WebKit. With Flash out of the way they have no onus to improve HTML5 or WebKit. In fact, they have a business responsibility to the AppStore to push back on innovation on the web.
I know Adobe may control much of the app/video based web right now. But is Apple controlling it any better? Especially when they seek to eliminate innovation on the web? I don't think so.
Slashdot Mirror
Uninformative error messages for networking and similar functions.
One more hilarious thing I HAD to add.
It's so funny that the browser gives you error messages like "The browser had an error: 404 Not Found Error". I'm not sure if that's one of the actual errors, but they are very similar. It's fucking hilarious that the browser pretends to be as dumb as your grandma to make you feel better. It's like, what, iPhone can't admit that an error occurred?
I got an iPhone after using BlackBerry and Android phones for awhile now. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong -- here are some of my nags:
The list goes on and on but I'm tired of writing this.
Granted some of them may be because I'm accustomed to different smartphone operating systems.
What part about people using your software and not paying for it a 'myth'? They are simply trying to prevent non-legitimate customers from playing the game. If the DRM prevents pirates from playing the game then it is already successful.
But that's the fault of the hackers or corporate espionage, not the DRM.
Really? That's fascinating because publishers were getting paid just fine. Every app out there, even the largely successful ones, had cracks available and early on. Heck, Spore had a cracked copy out before the game was even in shelves. Modern DRM doesn't work, either. Yet these games still go on and do just fine. Imagine how much money EA would have saved had it not spent the development time and money on DRM and supporting all the people that have had trouble with it. It's nice to know, though, that their propaganda has been very successful with you. History has successfully been rewritten.
Well aside from not even responding to what I quoted... You would have found in the Assassin's Creed slashdot articles that it took a couple of weeks to crack the DRM. Which is much more than can be said for your sacred media validation.
Furthermore, when someone uses software without paying for it, the publishers aren't getting paid "just fine" as you put it. What kind of idiot are you? "If I steal an object from a store then the owner is getting their service's worth! Derka derka der!"
Wrong. You cannot transfer ownership like that. The publisher will not allow you to. That's how they get more money out of you. I'll be impressed if there's actually a such thing as 'used games' in the next generation of consoles.
You know what the beauty of it is? DRM is abstract. This alone completely invalidates your argument. Again, bad DRM is bad DRM. Proper DRM would let you transfer ownership.
Media validation solved it just fine, your problem was with somebody trying to abuse it. Your solution not only fails to address the situation you had, it also turns your software license into a rental and not ownership.
Are you intentionally being an idiot? It didn't solve the problem.
Because *I* am the one they want to hand them money. Seriously man, derr. Now go back and carefully read that post you already saw and over-summarized. Nearly everything I've said here was already covered there. I imagine that's why you were so snarky (after criticizing ME for that) in it. Your way of saying 'uh... oops!'
Oh noes! I didn't read every sentence of your page-long incoherent diatribe! Give it up man.
The name you're looking for is Software as a Service.
Bandwidth is one issue but the main concern is latency or "lag". In the case of games even a tiny bit of latency can cause it to be unplayable. Once you get round trip time for your commands to be sent and the video returned, you've got a lot of unhappy customers and the expense of feeding all that high resolution video.
It doesn't have to be so extreme though. You can always implement pieces of the game not related to rendering on the server. Which is essentially why Ubisoft has done here.
Rawr! Spore has bad DRM so all software must have bad DRM forever! There is no other way!
You still can't get it through your head that DRM can be implemented with all the luxuries of physical items. Naive.
Look at the track record of media validation. When was the last time you couldn't find a crack for software whose only security was a keycode? Never. Media validation does not work to ensure that publishers get paid.
Even media validation through keycodes doesn't work. I once was sold a second-hand Diablo II and couldn't play on Battle.net because the seller continued to play online with the same keycode. I had to bitch to the seller in order to get him to uninstall the game. Proper DRM would have had a centralized system and allowed transfer of ownership and locked out any previous owner's computer. Media validation could not have solved this problem.
If you're not willing to let give in and handle decent DRM, why should the publishers put up with you?
Uber flamebait.
Could it be true?
No, it doesn't. It serves the purpose of limiting supply.
No, not limiting the supply but controlling the supply.
I have 15 year old games that still work.
And does their media validation prevent users from copying them? No. They never did. DRM has been successful at this but media validation never has.
How do I do that? Let me guess... by agreeing with you?
No, just by discussing in a nice way.
though longer than I'm interested in posting here amongst people who'd rather argue than discuss.
Anyway, to get back to what you said, your point is both right and useless.
How insightful.
Where you're wrong is your ideology that DRM and customer satisfaction are mutually exclusive. They aren't.
DRM's purpose is to allow content to be used only when the user is authorized to do so
Media validation serves the same purpose. Just because you see them as two distict categories does not make it so.
Let's see which one still works in 2020.
Let's see which one works NOW. DRM is far more successful at deterring pirates than media validation ever has been. It may have also deterred actual customers, but that just bring us right back to my point.
Stop being such a jerk on here.
It is a technical requirement except for the PC and even modern consoles. PC, PS3, XBOX360, and Wii, all allow you to install games on the system. It's not like they couldn't let you install all games on the system and throw/give the disc away -- they just won't.
I'm seeing a lot of semantics in your post and little reason. DRM, copy protection, call it what you like, the purpose is the same. I have to have my disc in my drive to play a game despite it being installed. The disc doesn't spin except on app start up.
Unless you're OK with the DRM scheme. Requiring to have the disc/cartridge in the system while playing the game _IS_ a DRM scheme. Yet you were OK with that with the NES, SNES, Saturn, ..., PC, PS3, XBOX360.
My point is that people are on a misguided tirade against DRM. When really what they want is to play a game without DRM getting in their way.
DRM isn't wrong, it's just implemented in a way that hurts consumers most of the time. The sooner that customers realize DRM is OK, and the sooner that publishers realize that DRM can hurt consumers -- that's when we'll meet that nice and comfy middleground.
Don't take it personally. Flamebait, redundant... they're all just replacements for "Do no agree".
I think GP means requirements as in imaging programs, gaming, and the like.
As long as my employer has higher resolution displays than I have at home, I'm going to keep wanting more. Every time I see someone with a phone rocking a higher res screen than mine, I'm going to want it.
Plain and simple: if it looks better it just looks better.
Until they hit as high a resolution as I can see, I'm going to want more. And maybe then we'll meet aliens who have such great eyesight that our displays will be eyesores for them.
I remember when Fox censored the Walmart episode so that you couldn't see the people crap their pants when they died. Then there was the eat in your butt and crap out your mouth episode. They censored that, too. What's wrong? Everybody shits... and apparently some people shit out of their mouths, too.
Look at the web. It sucks. In case you haven't noticed the web HTML5 can't do what Flash can and is even slower than hardware accelerated Flash. And you're telling me that something with less capabilities is innovation. I don't know what about HTML5 is going to improve your web experience. Your shitty HTML5 pop-ups and interactive ads will be waiting for you when you get there.
The web is turning into a foundation for apps and media. With Flash gone Apple has no reason to try and improve WebKit. They have a business responsibility not to improve it in order to keep their store strong. WebKit is far less than Flash right now and I don't know why you think Apple would bother to improve WebKit and endanger their cash cow app/media stores.
Apple restricts apps on their store now. Why would they ever allow equally-capable web apps on their platform if they couldn't restrict them? Since they control WebKit this could affect not only Apple's platforms but the entire web. Don't you see how dangerous that is? It would be like Google's control over the web except now not "Do No Evil" but "Simply Evil".
WebKit doesn't have all of the features or the efficiency that Flash does with hardware acceleration. In fact HTML5 video is found to be slower than Flash video.
...at least by forcing people into HTML5, they're encouraging the adoption of a fully standards-based internet
But here lies the problem. Apple is one of the main contributors to WebKit. With Flash out of the way they have no onus to improve HTML5 or WebKit. In fact, they have a business responsibility to the AppStore to push back on innovation on the web.
I know Adobe may control much of the app/video based web right now. But is Apple controlling it any better? Especially when they seek to eliminate innovation on the web? I don't think so.
Actually it is part of the larger battle. Apple is trying to kill Flash and all other cross-platform development.