So you're saying it's ok for the company to slack off in what was promised in the later years of a game because the original owners aren't interested anymore?
Boy have I got news for you. I have lots of old games I love replaying. Every time I pick up an old game and play it, I show the same interest in it I had when I first bought it. By your logic after the first couple weeks/months I've owned the game I should have lost interest so the company shouldn't have to support the game anymore because I've already gotten board of it. I couldn't imagine the out rage I'd have if I tried to play Starcraft, Warcraft, Kings Quest, any of the final fantasy games or any of the other games I bought first hand and had a message pop-up. Sorry we're no longer supporting that game better luck next time.
How do you differentiate between and second hand player and a first hand player playing a second time! You can't.
If the original buyer sells the game, he is obviously bored with it. It's not a situation of original buyer playing two years or original buyer playing one year and other player playing one year.
This was the original point. However the second buyer wouldn't have bought the game at all if they had to pay full price. So either way the developer isn't making anymore weather buyer 1 plays for two years or buyer 1 plays for one year and buyer 2 plays for one year.
The comment about single player/lan/multiplayer games in the old times is slightly wrong.
My opinion that I prefer being able to choose who I play with is wrong? I'm so glad you pointed that out for me.
The recent generation multiplayer games have a lot more content and gameplay than they previously had. Unlocks, classes, customization. Even FPS games are getting close to roleplaying/mmo games. I personally love it. The best aspect for example in CoD multiplayer for me has been the customization allowed. I also love that TF2 is adding more and more of it. It's a lot different than from the quake times.
I personally find that being able to add content to the game after release has seriously degraded games. Instead of releasing a full featured great game, publishers are releasing shoddy half games. Then adding the rest of the content that should have been in the original later. Worse still in many cases they're charging you extra for the content you should have gotten when paid $60 up front.
However the second player may never had bought the game until it was a used game because of the cost of buying the game new. So the original point still stands. I know I never pay $50+ for any game. I wait to buy it from a friend or from a used store. Doing so also means most of the bugs are worked out by the time I get it.
I've of the opinion the only reason game companies introduced online modes to games is so they could better control how and who is playing a game. I remember back in the day having a LAN parties, dialing a friends house or setup my own server to play. I also didn't have to deal with 13 year old prepubescent s screaming obscenities every time I wanted to have a match.
It's amazing how me saying I don't want pictures of my child posted on facebook has turned into I'm going to lock my child in a room until they die. When they're old enough to make the decision themselves knowing the potential risks they can do what they want. While I'm the one that has to make the decision for them it'll be done my way.
This is almost as bad as the time I got in a discussion with a friend at the mall about spanking. While I welcome the opinions and comments of others, and I certainly take them in to consideration. When someone turns a minor thing spanking into ripping a branch off a tree and bludgeoning your child to death with it, it's hard to not think that person is a complete loon and the source of all the problems with society. And yes we did have a women come over and start screaming at us because I said I wasn't opposed to the idea in some cases. Mean while her screaming kid was throwing his lunch across the food court.
This argument is akin to telling women they shouldn't wear skirts because it could "provoke" men
No it's not at all. I'm not telling women the shouldn't wear skirts. Just like I'm not telling my cousin not to post pictures of his child. To each their own.
There are risks in life and you can't possibly protect your child from everything. However, within reason shouldn't you at least try to protect them from somethings?
Maybe teaching your kid how to identify what kind of wild mushrooms are safe to eat is better then not letting them out in the woods at all. There's also a big difference between having physical photos of your kids in a baby book and posting them all of the internet for everyone to see. The line between being super-overprotective-parent-from-hell and completely negligent isn't razor thing, but finding a good balance where you kid can actually have a life verses being locked in a padded room isn't straight forward.
Say my cousin posts all kinds of pictures of his kid on Facebook and I don't post any of mine. Also say one of our common family members is a pedophile, we don't know they are. Do you think they'd be more likely to take my kid they rarely see or my cousin's that they get daily "look how cute my kid is in the bath" updates for?
I just don't see any reason to make it easier for someone to covet my kid.
I just think eventually kids will figure out how to break the law on their own. They don't need people in positions of trust telling them they did it and got away with it. Who knows, my kid's not born yet, they might be an idiot like my bother who takes pictures of himself breaking the law and posts them on his facebook page. Some day when my kids are old enough and we're sitting down with a beer talking about the stupid things we did when we were younger I'll tell them what I did in college. Till then they just don't need to know so I'm not going to advertise it.
Problem is they're careless with your private data weather you know it or not. I'd rather get a notification saying I've been tagged and tear a strip off someone rather then just not knowing what they're doing at all.
Sorry, that's not what I meant by "vocal about openly breaking the law".
We're getting into a moral/ethical grey area here. Although I'm not directly against the use of drugs like pot, I see a huge potential for abuse and don't believe it should be legal. I wouldn't brag to my kids about what I did in my college days, I don't want their teachers bragging about drugs they did either. That being said if in their later high school years I find out my kid had tried drugs, I'll let them know I don't approve, but I'm not going to castrate them for it... the first time that is.
Rallying against laws that are hateful and designed to be discriminatory based on race, sex, sexual orientation or disability are a different matter. I want my kids to question authority, but I also want them to pick their battles and comply when it's in their best interest. Like not killing someone. Teaching your kids when it's appropriate to break a law is harder to do.
I was using the HR thing as an example and maybe it's not an issue in the immediate future, but someday it will be. I just want my kid to be the one who decides what Googling them will find.
My wife has a series of photo albums where her mother took pictures of her as she was growing up. There are plenty of pictures of her naked as a baby, toddler. Maybe those aren't so bad, but there's one picture when she was about seven and had the chicken pox really bad that her mother took several full frontal nude photo of her and put it in the album. I'm sure nether of our parents would think twice about posting those kinds for photos online because they don't understand those photos they share with family may be seen by someone who's not family. Now a days you might even end up in jail for possession of child porn for photos like those. I tried to explain it to my Mom, after she had posted and tag photos of me growing up in all kinds of situations that I'm sure a pedophile would love to get their hands on. I also tried to explain the difference between a private album in your house and one on the internet. I was told all parents take pictures of their kids like that and I was being paranoid. I told her not to call me to bail her out.
I don't have an uncle Bill, but I do have a crazy younger brother who thinks it's cool to take photos of him and his friends smoking up and post them online. He may not try to get them to smoke up before they're teens, but I wouldn't put it past him to try later on.
What if you *didn't* take every conceivable precaution and something *did* happen?
was, what if the kid was kidnapped from school, or the hospital because a friend or family member carelessly posted a Geotagged image on facebook. I know kids were abducted before facebook, but telling the world where and when your kid is alone is asking for trouble.
The worst part is you might not even know someone is posting pictures of your kid online and who knows who's getting access.
I don't take such a hard line. You're right drugs are bad and should be eliminated. Although, I don't think everyone deserves to be reported to the police for one stupid mistake. That's something a parent should be left to deal with initially and escalated to police if the parent is ineffective.
I know plenty of good people that did drugs and drank under age that went on to do good things. Had they been caught and charged in their earlier years they probably wouldn't have had a chance to do anything else.
For example there are several presidents (Obama, Bush and Clinton to name a few recent ones) that admitted to doing drugs. Would they have become president if they had been caught earlier? I have my doubts.
My wife and I are about to have our first child and I've had to ask my friends and family not to post pictures of it on facebook. I want my child to have the choice to develop their own online identity and not have to worry that some day when they go to find employment some HR jackass isn't going to google them and use what other people have posted against them.
The responses I get when asking people not to post pictures of my kid online are ridiculous. Everything from "Oh, you're just paranoid" to "Well, I'm going to anyway.". It's pretty sad when a parent can't make a decision to protect their own child without their own parents giving them a hard time.
The other issue is that when kids are young they don't think/realize that when they post pictures of them and their friends drinking under age, smoking pot or other illegal activities it's out there and anyone can find it. All it takes is for them to just be caught/tagged in a picture with others doing it and they're up the creek.
The meta-moderator system is a way to moderate people who moderate comments. Such that if someone moderated you Offtopic for a comment you weren't offtopic for, a "Meta-Moderator" can mod your moderator as being unfair by disagreeing with the original moderation.
Although, I don't think you'll have to worry about someone modding against your moderators.
I realized I screwed up on the rotary/roundabout thing after I posted. Thanks for clearing that up.
My wife works over by the shopping centre on Joseph Howe drive, but I've only had to use the roundabout a few times after it was fist turned into a roundabout. It was a terrible mess. although I have no recent fist hand knowledge. Based on what I have read in the paper and what my wife has told me, there are frequent accidents and when she leaves work around 4:30 it's backed up.
As I said I haven't used it in some time so If you use it frequently then you're the authority.
In some places they're bad. Here in Nova Scotia I know of two. One just build at the bottom of the 101 off ramp in Windsor, which is a vast improvement over the old stop sign. The problem there was the off ramp was the only stop and drivers couldn't see around the corner when they got to the bottom of the ramp. What was happening was people were too nervous to make a left and would back up traffic all the way up to and back down the highway, which was a no passing section. I can't stress the improvement the rotary here has made. Now when I'm on my way to the valley for the weekend I don't get stuck in hour long traffic jams outside Windsor. Of course they've started twinning that section of the highway too, which isn't complete, but it's helping.
The Armdale Rotary in Halifax on the other hand is a horrifying six way two lane rotary with frequent accidents and one of only two ways on to the peninsula. I believe the issue is the circle is too small. People are forced to be aggressive to get in or wait indefinitely. Either situation upsets other drivers who react poorly, especially during rush hour. There use to be lights when it was called a "roundabout". Then city council took the lights out and called it a rotary. WTF!! is all I've heard since.
Buying the game only encourages game companies to do this sort of thing in the future. I suggest either don't play it at all or just pirate it in the first place. Don't support shit DRMs by giving the company money for crap products. All you're doing is sending the message that they can do what they want. Next thing you know all games will be buy once play once because it was profitable for company X the first time.
More then that, there is no reason women can't do what men can do physically. My younger sister just graduated from high school and is looking to join the RCMP. She's a goalie for Hockey, Ringette, and Lacrosse and is into rock climbing, boxing. She does P90X every day to keep in shape.8 years ago when she moved back to Canada from Scotland her and my younger brother were extremely over weight. Both lost a lot of weight, but the point is anyone can do it and there's no need to make exceptions because of gender.
I think the problem isn't so much with them being dead as it is that the women are mostly naked and spread eagle, where as the guards are were not. If the roles were reversed it wouldn't have been a problem. Perhaps future games should include equal amounts of naked spread eagle men and women.
Not tolling either, but being a white male usually means you get screwed in the ass for just about everything. I know a lot of people disagree and think everything is easier for us, but it's not. Most of the time we have things like "equal opportunity" working against us.
I really hate seeming like I'm racist or sexist, but I've taken a lot of mandatory "healthy work place", "Equal opportunity" and "Employment Equity" courses where pretty much the first thing you're told when you walk in the room is "If you're white your racists. If you're male your sexists.". I'm paraphrasing, but that's the gist of any of those courses. Of course saying anything contrary, as I just did, validates the point and makes you both.
I have a cousin who was passed over as a candidate to join the local police a few years ago, even though he scored top marks on the I.Q. and physical and was give a pass for the lie detector. My older sister OTH was accepted a two years later even though she failed the physical endurance portion of the process. I went to the physical endurance part of the interview process when my cousin ran it, which was essentially an obstacle course. There were two version of it setup one for men and one for women, the course the women preformed on was shorter and the weights were smaller then the course the men preformed on. That doesn't seem fair to me. If you're going to be in a job where physical strength and stamina matter then everyone should be treated equally.
I can only speculate why white males can't get on Medicaid, I doubt is true for many.
Slashdot Mirror
So you're saying it's ok for the company to slack off in what was promised in the later years of a game because the original owners aren't interested anymore?
Boy have I got news for you. I have lots of old games I love replaying. Every time I pick up an old game and play it, I show the same interest in it I had when I first bought it. By your logic after the first couple weeks/months I've owned the game I should have lost interest so the company shouldn't have to support the game anymore because I've already gotten board of it. I couldn't imagine the out rage I'd have if I tried to play Starcraft, Warcraft, Kings Quest, any of the final fantasy games or any of the other games I bought first hand and had a message pop-up. Sorry we're no longer supporting that game better luck next time.
How do you differentiate between and second hand player and a first hand player playing a second time! You can't.
If the original buyer sells the game, he is obviously bored with it. It's not a situation of original buyer playing two years or original buyer playing one year and other player playing one year.
This was the original point. However the second buyer wouldn't have bought the game at all if they had to pay full price. So either way the developer isn't making anymore weather buyer 1 plays for two years or buyer 1 plays for one year and buyer 2 plays for one year.
The comment about single player/lan/multiplayer games in the old times is slightly wrong.
My opinion that I prefer being able to choose who I play with is wrong? I'm so glad you pointed that out for me.
The recent generation multiplayer games have a lot more content and gameplay than they previously had. Unlocks, classes, customization. Even FPS games are getting close to roleplaying/mmo games. I personally love it. The best aspect for example in CoD multiplayer for me has been the customization allowed. I also love that TF2 is adding more and more of it. It's a lot different than from the quake times.
I personally find that being able to add content to the game after release has seriously degraded games. Instead of releasing a full featured great game, publishers are releasing shoddy half games. Then adding the rest of the content that should have been in the original later. Worse still in many cases they're charging you extra for the content you should have gotten when paid $60 up front.
However the second player may never had bought the game until it was a used game because of the cost of buying the game new. So the original point still stands. I know I never pay $50+ for any game. I wait to buy it from a friend or from a used store. Doing so also means most of the bugs are worked out by the time I get it.
I've of the opinion the only reason game companies introduced online modes to games is so they could better control how and who is playing a game. I remember back in the day having a LAN parties, dialing a friends house or setup my own server to play. I also didn't have to deal with 13 year old prepubescent s screaming obscenities every time I wanted to have a match.
/. pisses me off every day. That's why it's so fun to read.
It's amazing how me saying I don't want pictures of my child posted on facebook has turned into I'm going to lock my child in a room until they die. When they're old enough to make the decision themselves knowing the potential risks they can do what they want. While I'm the one that has to make the decision for them it'll be done my way.
This is almost as bad as the time I got in a discussion with a friend at the mall about spanking. While I welcome the opinions and comments of others, and I certainly take them in to consideration. When someone turns a minor thing spanking into ripping a branch off a tree and bludgeoning your child to death with it, it's hard to not think that person is a complete loon and the source of all the problems with society. And yes we did have a women come over and start screaming at us because I said I wasn't opposed to the idea in some cases. Mean while her screaming kid was throwing his lunch across the food court.
This argument is akin to telling women they shouldn't wear skirts because it could "provoke" men
No it's not at all. I'm not telling women the shouldn't wear skirts. Just like I'm not telling my cousin not to post pictures of his child. To each their own.
I'm sure you're being sarcastic.
There are risks in life and you can't possibly protect your child from everything. However, within reason shouldn't you at least try to protect them from somethings?
Maybe teaching your kid how to identify what kind of wild mushrooms are safe to eat is better then not letting them out in the woods at all. There's also a big difference between having physical photos of your kids in a baby book and posting them all of the internet for everyone to see. The line between being super-overprotective-parent-from-hell and completely negligent isn't razor thing, but finding a good balance where you kid can actually have a life verses being locked in a padded room isn't straight forward.
Hypothetical scenario.
Say my cousin posts all kinds of pictures of his kid on Facebook and I don't post any of mine. Also say one of our common family members is a pedophile, we don't know they are. Do you think they'd be more likely to take my kid they rarely see or my cousin's that they get daily "look how cute my kid is in the bath" updates for?
I just don't see any reason to make it easier for someone to covet my kid.
I just think eventually kids will figure out how to break the law on their own. They don't need people in positions of trust telling them they did it and got away with it. Who knows, my kid's not born yet, they might be an idiot like my bother who takes pictures of himself breaking the law and posts them on his facebook page. Some day when my kids are old enough and we're sitting down with a beer talking about the stupid things we did when we were younger I'll tell them what I did in college. Till then they just don't need to know so I'm not going to advertise it.
Problem is they're careless with your private data weather you know it or not. I'd rather get a notification saying I've been tagged and tear a strip off someone rather then just not knowing what they're doing at all.
Sorry, that's not what I meant by "vocal about openly breaking the law".
We're getting into a moral/ethical grey area here. Although I'm not directly against the use of drugs like pot, I see a huge potential for abuse and don't believe it should be legal. I wouldn't brag to my kids about what I did in my college days, I don't want their teachers bragging about drugs they did either. That being said if in their later high school years I find out my kid had tried drugs, I'll let them know I don't approve, but I'm not going to castrate them for it... the first time that is.
Rallying against laws that are hateful and designed to be discriminatory based on race, sex, sexual orientation or disability are a different matter. I want my kids to question authority, but I also want them to pick their battles and comply when it's in their best interest. Like not killing someone. Teaching your kids when it's appropriate to break a law is harder to do.
I was using the HR thing as an example and maybe it's not an issue in the immediate future, but someday it will be. I just want my kid to be the one who decides what Googling them will find.
My wife has a series of photo albums where her mother took pictures of her as she was growing up. There are plenty of pictures of her naked as a baby, toddler. Maybe those aren't so bad, but there's one picture when she was about seven and had the chicken pox really bad that her mother took several full frontal nude photo of her and put it in the album. I'm sure nether of our parents would think twice about posting those kinds for photos online because they don't understand those photos they share with family may be seen by someone who's not family. Now a days you might even end up in jail for possession of child porn for photos like those. I tried to explain it to my Mom, after she had posted and tag photos of me growing up in all kinds of situations that I'm sure a pedophile would love to get their hands on. I also tried to explain the difference between a private album in your house and one on the internet. I was told all parents take pictures of their kids like that and I was being paranoid. I told her not to call me to bail her out.
I don't have an uncle Bill, but I do have a crazy younger brother who thinks it's cool to take photos of him and his friends smoking up and post them online. He may not try to get them to smoke up before they're teens, but I wouldn't put it past him to try later on.
What if you *didn't* take every conceivable precaution and something *did* happen?
was, what if the kid was kidnapped from school, or the hospital because a friend or family member carelessly posted a Geotagged image on facebook. I know kids were abducted before facebook, but telling the world where and when your kid is alone is asking for trouble.
The worst part is you might not even know someone is posting pictures of your kid online and who knows who's getting access.
I don't take such a hard line. You're right drugs are bad and should be eliminated. Although, I don't think everyone deserves to be reported to the police for one stupid mistake. That's something a parent should be left to deal with initially and escalated to police if the parent is ineffective.
I know plenty of good people that did drugs and drank under age that went on to do good things. Had they been caught and charged in their earlier years they probably wouldn't have had a chance to do anything else.
For example there are several presidents (Obama, Bush and Clinton to name a few recent ones) that admitted to doing drugs. Would they have become president if they had been caught earlier? I have my doubts.
I can think of a number of situation where an employer might care. Becoming a Police officer or teacher to name a couple.
Would you want someone openly vocal about how they broke the law when they were younger teaching your kids?
I agree.
My wife and I are about to have our first child and I've had to ask my friends and family not to post pictures of it on facebook. I want my child to have the choice to develop their own online identity and not have to worry that some day when they go to find employment some HR jackass isn't going to google them and use what other people have posted against them.
The responses I get when asking people not to post pictures of my kid online are ridiculous. Everything from "Oh, you're just paranoid" to "Well, I'm going to anyway.". It's pretty sad when a parent can't make a decision to protect their own child without their own parents giving them a hard time.
The other issue is that when kids are young they don't think/realize that when they post pictures of them and their friends drinking under age, smoking pot or other illegal activities it's out there and anyone can find it. All it takes is for them to just be caught/tagged in a picture with others doing it and they're up the creek.
The meta-moderator system is a way to moderate people who moderate comments. Such that if someone moderated you Offtopic for a comment you weren't offtopic for, a "Meta-Moderator" can mod your moderator as being unfair by disagreeing with the original moderation.
Although, I don't think you'll have to worry about someone modding against your moderators.
I realized I screwed up on the rotary/roundabout thing after I posted. Thanks for clearing that up.
My wife works over by the shopping centre on Joseph Howe drive, but I've only had to use the roundabout a few times after it was fist turned into a roundabout. It was a terrible mess. although I have no recent fist hand knowledge. Based on what I have read in the paper and what my wife has told me, there are frequent accidents and when she leaves work around 4:30 it's backed up.
As I said I haven't used it in some time so If you use it frequently then you're the authority.
In some places they're bad. Here in Nova Scotia I know of two. One just build at the bottom of the 101 off ramp in Windsor, which is a vast improvement over the old stop sign. The problem there was the off ramp was the only stop and drivers couldn't see around the corner when they got to the bottom of the ramp. What was happening was people were too nervous to make a left and would back up traffic all the way up to and back down the highway, which was a no passing section. I can't stress the improvement the rotary here has made. Now when I'm on my way to the valley for the weekend I don't get stuck in hour long traffic jams outside Windsor. Of course they've started twinning that section of the highway too, which isn't complete, but it's helping.
The Armdale Rotary in Halifax on the other hand is a horrifying six way two lane rotary with frequent accidents and one of only two ways on to the peninsula. I believe the issue is the circle is too small. People are forced to be aggressive to get in or wait indefinitely. Either situation upsets other drivers who react poorly, especially during rush hour. There use to be lights when it was called a "roundabout". Then city council took the lights out and called it a rotary. WTF!! is all I've heard since.
$600 billion according to the video, if you account for inflation.
Buying the game only encourages game companies to do this sort of thing in the future. I suggest either don't play it at all or just pirate it in the first place. Don't support shit DRMs by giving the company money for crap products. All you're doing is sending the message that they can do what they want. Next thing you know all games will be buy once play once because it was profitable for company X the first time.
More then that, there is no reason women can't do what men can do physically. My younger sister just graduated from high school and is looking to join the RCMP. She's a goalie for Hockey, Ringette, and Lacrosse and is into rock climbing, boxing. She does P90X every day to keep in shape.8 years ago when she moved back to Canada from Scotland her and my younger brother were extremely over weight. Both lost a lot of weight, but the point is anyone can do it and there's no need to make exceptions because of gender.
I think the problem isn't so much with them being dead as it is that the women are mostly naked and spread eagle, where as the guards are were not. If the roles were reversed it wouldn't have been a problem. Perhaps future games should include equal amounts of naked spread eagle men and women.
Much better. Thank you for complying with internet rules and regulations.
Not tolling either, but being a white male usually means you get screwed in the ass for just about everything. I know a lot of people disagree and think everything is easier for us, but it's not. Most of the time we have things like "equal opportunity" working against us.
I really hate seeming like I'm racist or sexist, but I've taken a lot of mandatory "healthy work place", "Equal opportunity" and "Employment Equity" courses where pretty much the first thing you're told when you walk in the room is "If you're white your racists. If you're male your sexists.". I'm paraphrasing, but that's the gist of any of those courses. Of course saying anything contrary, as I just did, validates the point and makes you both.
I have a cousin who was passed over as a candidate to join the local police a few years ago, even though he scored top marks on the I.Q. and physical and was give a pass for the lie detector. My older sister OTH was accepted a two years later even though she failed the physical endurance portion of the process. I went to the physical endurance part of the interview process when my cousin ran it, which was essentially an obstacle course. There were two version of it setup one for men and one for women, the course the women preformed on was shorter and the weights were smaller then the course the men preformed on. That doesn't seem fair to me. If you're going to be in a job where physical strength and stamina matter then everyone should be treated equally.
I can only speculate why white males can't get on Medicaid, I doubt is true for many.