why would they want to leak grainy photos and poorly lit videos by random people when they could easily get crisp clean front page covers of a dozen different magazines/website?
Because this way they can more or less get 'free' ideas from the public. How many different sites have people posting their 'wish list' for the new iPhone? With newer hardware means more software possibilities. But to come up with different ideas isn't easy, so one thing you can do is 'leak' a prototype that gets people talking about the device (free marketing), has everyone buzzing up this new upgraded model (free viral marketing, which is considered the best marketing since it doesn't cause as much jading in the public as normal marketing can do), then you have sites filled with people stating what they would love this new model will be able to do software wise (which you can sit there and cherry pick the ideas that as a company you feel are the most valuable). Its completely win-win
First they take multiplayer away after 6 yrs, next it will be DRM disabling of single player after 6 yrs... then 5... 4.... 3.... or whenever the sequal comes out. Slippery slope, and I'm sure some kid will say "Come on that game is 2 yrs old and they have a sequal they have to stop support someday!". No, they didn't, they designed the game so multiplayer support could be shut-off and use that as an excuse.
Here's an idea then if thats how you look at these things. Don't buy consoles. Buy PC only games. Sure they can remove these functions as well, but as with hacks and cracks and whatever else you can think of, people can and will find a way to get around these problems when they are on a computer. That way you'll never had to really worry about these issues as they only become minor setbacks and never total problems.
Unfortunately for people that care about having good games that will last for a really long time (like me), this model is proving super-successful.
Its not that it's proving successful, its more of a lack of options. Sure you can still play your older games and wish that the newer ones would do that same in being usable as long as you wish, but what would the alternative be? Not buy the new games and then you are left playing the same games over and over. And I don't think your looking at this in the right angle. Hardware fails and that will render all these old tech and games obsolete no matter how much you don't want to lose these games. Systems like NES, SNES, Genesis, they are mostly gone aside from a rare special-built system but then the games are going away to, as time really does kill all things material. And so people wanting to still enjoy these old games have rose to the challenge of making these games still playable. Now we have game roms and emulators, programs like DosBox. These show that the games will remain playable, granted not in their original form, but they are still there and still playable. And it's not limited to games that came on a cartridge/disc as I've played some games that were stream download only.
Anyone else feel it sad when people reference a whole six years as an eternity, after which a product should surely be dropped?
Stuff used to be made to last a lifetime. I have an old double-barreled shotgun my granddad passed down to me. My mother has dresses, dolls, and other heirlooms passed down to her by her mother. Most of this stuff is 50-75 years old, and I envision it to be around a lot longer. Even in content - I've got movies and such that are as old as I am (original release Star Wars VHS for example). Yet with this type of thing, well, it's SIX years old. It's obvious that you shouldn't expect to keep using it.
And how much of it is still supported by the manufacturer? Most items you can buy and have been able to buy for decades normally are supported by the manufacturer for 30 to 90 days after purchase. Most products you can buy are only made to have usage for a year then its dropped by the maker in favor of the next years model and most won't help you with a product thats 2+ years old since it's no long for sale.
As for the Halo 2, while some support for the product has been dropped on what is technically something made obsolete (the XBox), the product still works, it hasn't been made non-functioning. It can still be used for multi-player games through options like system link. If people want it enough then the homebrew community will figure out a way.
Halo 2 was released in 2004, its now 2010. Thats almost 6 years. Don't know of many (if any) console games that have had that much online support made for them. I don't feel thats really screwing over your loyal customers as have some of the longest online multiplayer support. And there is a time for a business to have to cut legacy support.
I'm not so sure. I live in a tourist town so I see people from all sorts of places in the world. Its quite rare to see an iPhone, Androids aren't that often either (but are seen more often then iPhones), Blackberries are quite common but cheap flip phones are the normal.
If you want to make money at it, develop the game and sell it yourself. If you can't recoup $100, you'll at least learn a lot in the process.
-Dan
Your assuming they also have a Mac since one is needed to program for the iPhone. A better option would be to use Steam since it's free (if I remember right they charge a percentage of the sales, but no other fee's) and can be for both WIndows or Mac.
Is there even a market, let alone a convention, for selling game concepts?
Nope. Quite frankly, the only way its going to get made is if you do it yourself. I'd suggest using an established engine to cut development time/cost to a minimum and going with a digital distribution service like Steam to bring the product to market.
Possible engines include the Blender one mentioned, and http://www.ogre3d.org/ since they are both free and open source
Jobs says thats Adobe isn't open, then states MANY times in the letter that every video should be done in h.264 that they support. They fail to mention the fact the h.264 isn't open, it's a standard, not an open standard. Not to mention, the whole system for iPhone and iPad isn't open since to use after market software for the devices you need to either buy it from their App Store or pay another $100 for that option. This isn't open, in fact it's more closed then Flash is.
The second 'fact' he tries is claiming that 75% of video is in Flash and should be using something more modern like h.264. He refuses to mention at the point that hey, Flash does do this modern codec of h.264 which invalidates his claim here. Flash is a container, not a codec.
Third thing he tries to claim is Flash is bad for reliability, security and performance. Jobs as always forgets that OSX isn't noted for its high level of security 12 and averages around 6 months to pass on a patch, not even to patch it but just to bother to pass it on even though someone else did the work for them. Jobs then goes on claiming that "We have been working with Adobe to fix these problems' yet again 'forgets' that they hurt Adobe before when they switched from the PowerPC chip to x86 chips causing Adobe to lose money and waste time fixing up Adobe products and not having been kept in the loop (which would have prevented the issues). Same thing happened with 10.6 causing more issues for Adobe products that could have been prevented if Apple had just warned Adobe before hand instead of catching Adobe with their pants down. As a company of Adobe's size it would be harder and harder to want to support Apple, which have screwed them over before (not just once), and all to please 6% of the computer market? Thats not much.
Forth is battery life. And here he pulls a switch around, claims that Flash is bad for the battery life by claiming that most Flash videos aren't encoded in the modern codec of h.264. Here he forgets that other videos online are also not encoded in h.264 but formats like Windows Media Video, XviD, DivX and even Apple's own Quicktime format. He also forgets that Flash videos can be encoded in h.264 because at the time of the iPhone being released, Google just decided, with Apples help, to support h.264. Just in time for the iPhone, but was the only one to support it, the other sites came later. This change took time and help from the inside (remember Apple and Google worked together a lot back then before they started to drift apart).
Fifth 'point' is he claims that sites with Flash will have to be re-written to support touch interfaces. And yes they will, and most places will do that if they feel that the public at large wants that. Same happened with web pages. Web sites had to be re-written to 'support' smartphones since they were horrible on the smaller screen sizes and so those sites that deemed it a good move did just that, they re-wrote their pages to support the newer style of accessing the site. Not every site bothered though and same would happen with Flash sites. Jobs seems to feel that sites should have already been made to support touch devices before there was a need as his 'proof'.
Last 'point' is a mishmash of garbage, first re-claiming about how Flash isn't supported with touch in mind (yet it's on touch screen tablet pc's) then goes on to claiming that 'developers grow dependent on third party development libraries and tools, they can only take advantage of platform enhancements if and when the third part
Your right:) I saw the story early somewhere else and did not even bother to read the summary after the headline that implied there is a backdoor into ipads.
Until Jobsy releases version 4, no virus is gonna run (in the background anyway).
Of course the iPod/iPad/iPhone is more secure... you can't do fuck-all with it without permission from Apple headquarters... and even then any virus must be written in Objective-C to conform to Steve's code "laws".
And so the myth continues. Because the iPhone/iPad is locked down then it must be secure. Thing is, it wasn't secure and it was because of that lock that people couldn't secure it. It was also the only smartphone that didn't get patched for it even though Apple had been warned for weeks before to patch it and it took 48 hours after it went public to patch. People complained, most didn't know why they had to restore their iPhones though because they didn't even need to touch anything. In the end, iPhone users were hacked and it was because of it being locked down. (If you had jail broken it, you could have prevented it from happening)
Your mind would -never- wander to your parents with failing health, your siblings, etc? While such things may be common if you don't talk to your parents much or both you and your family are totally independent, but for many people, they would be distressed.
That is compassion, not addiction. Once the family member is ok, your mind no longer wanders to them or leaves you distressed.
They don't click their lights on and off to generate dopamine from it.
But they are distressed when its taken away.
That is longing, not addiction. You want to lights back, but you don't sit there feeling the urge 'must turn off and on the lights, must turn off and on the lights'. Take away the light switch and they long for it, but the desire goes away easily and doesn't keep coming to mind.
But some do get it from some flash game or hitting refresh on Slashdot.
And so do people who check the news or play sports. Yet we think these are 'normal' and if its online its 'abnormal'. When the average middle aged person has coffee while reading the latest copy of the newspaper we think its normal, when we see someone spending an hour on/. who refreshes to get the latest news and to comment its abnormal. Why is it that 'water cooler' chat is considered to be normal and spending the same time on a forum or discussion board as abnormal? Things aren't additions but simply pastimes. If I'm bored and theres a lake nearby and fishing poles I'll go fishing most every day. If theres a high speed internet connection I'll go online. If there is a large collection of interesting books I'll read. Its just that computers and internet access are common so bored people go online. Give them something else and they will prefer that if its more interesting for nearly -all- internet 'addictions' so long as basic human needs (to communicate, etc) are met. Give a crack addict crack or something really interesting to do and they will... still do crack. Give an internet 'addict' internet or something they are otherwise interesting and they will usually choose something interesting.
Your confusing routine with an addiction. By the sounds of it, you've never had an addiction and that makes it hard to understand it. An addiction is like a voice that just keeps whispering to you and kinda controls your actions like reflex, sure if your truly paying attention you'll notice, but let yourself go into auto pilot and you'll do the actions without thought. People who read the news or play sports or drink coffee and read the news do it out of routine. Its what they know. Take them away from the routine and they get a little angry but they go on with their life more or less as always. As for the mention of a crack addict, they are addicted and will do crack because it's on their mind. Always on their mind. They can't stop thinking about it until they have it and they won't stop until they have their crack. Thats what an addict does. Take away the internet from an internet addict and they get very flustered and agitated because thats what they crave, and no, if given something really interesting to do they won't suddenly forget about the internet, they will still crave the internet (more accurately they will crave the dopamine rush brought from the internet). Think of it like a gambling addict, like the internet addict there isn't anything physically ingested to cause the high, but the dopamine high is still there from the action.
No, the Internet is not addictive. Nor is texting.
Certain people are obsessive/compulsive.
Why can't it be addictive? The internet is about instant gratification which helps keep you on a dopamine high. The problem with a constant dopamine high is that when the source is removed (in this case the internet) your body goes into a with drawl. So suddenly you go into a with drawl of a dopamine source which leaves you craving for it, regardless the fact that nothing in introduced into your system on a physical level. It's one of the aspects that was shown from Pavlov's Dog experiments. Pavlov got his dog to show a physical reaction that they couldn't easily control (like an addiction would). Same concept could happen with the internet and such.
What's the reference price, the one you buy it for to the thief, the price the original owner would need to pay to have it replaced, the price the original owner paid...?
The reference price is the one the lawyers can make up at the most highest price point, regardless of reality. This has been shown with the RIAA lawsuits.
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 it's not preventing non-legitimate customers/pirates from playing the game, it's preventing its legitimate customers from playing the game do to issues with the DRM. Thus it isn't successful at all.
It's just that consoles have always been locked down.
Actually, the Atari wasn't closed, it was open as were all consoles in the very early 80's. You just needed to know how to program for it and have the equipment to make the cartridges (and you could get a cartridge re-flasher as well to just wipe a cartridge to put your own code on it). After the video game market started to grow larger other people started to jump on it's bandwagon and started to make their own games and release them for sale. And many of them were bad, very bad. This was one of the major causes of the North American video game crash of 1983. From this incident, Nintendo stepped up and introduced locking the console up to prevent it from playing un-authorized games (thus the big deal of the 'Nintendo Seal of Quality').
I doubt Apple would want to buy ARM and then kill the sales to ARM's other customers. If they're going to spend $8 billion just to piss it away by killing ARM's revenue they'd be better served by spending the money to subsidize iPhone sales by cutting the price.
Name me one company who has used a monopoly to lower their prices.
Wal-Mart. They use their monopoly to artificially lower prices to kill as much of the surround competition so they sell their products at a loss for a few months since they can survive that but most small shops can't. (Granted they then raise their prices after that point...)
Kubuntu is a little bit prettier with it's KDE interface and still has the same polish, but I don't think anyone who is trying Linux for the first time would grab it over Ubuntu (as it's not that well advertised, I'm sure partially to not confuse first time users).
My issue there is I've tried running Kubuntu and found it very unstable. I think it was version 9.04 I tried. Wanted to see what the difference would be compared to basic Ubuntu so I did a complete wipe of my computer to give Kubuntu a fresh start. And it was downhill from there. I've gone back to Ubuntu and haven't bothered to risk trying Kubuntu again.
He sounds like he feels that art is to be seen and not touched. He claims that "One obvious difference between art and games is that you can win a game. It has rules, points, objectives, and an outcome... I would say then it ceases to be a game and becomes a representation of a story, a novel, a play, dance, a film. Those are things you cannot win; you can only experience them'. These have rules, points, objectives and an outcome because they are interactive. A story, a novel, a play, dance, ect... these aren't interactive. They are for the most part a static object (object so to speak). I don't feel that art should only be seen and altered only by the artists themselves, but should be accessible and alterable by everyone since to truly be 'touched' by something needs more then just observation, it needs to be able to reach a connecting point with the public. Games allow you to interact and be touched by them. Many games have stories that become more emotionally touching because of their interaction. While it's more of a cliché now, the story of FF7 and death of Aerith become more that much more because of your interaction with her. If you read about her as a novel she didn't appear truly as often enough to gain as solid of an emotional bond with her as you had been able to in the game. But because you had been able to interact with her and choose basic questions/answers with her, this allowed her to become more 'real' then a novel ever could have.
Slashdot Mirror
why would they want to leak grainy photos and poorly lit videos by random people when they could easily get crisp clean front page covers of a dozen different magazines/website?
Because this way they can more or less get 'free' ideas from the public. How many different sites have people posting their 'wish list' for the new iPhone? With newer hardware means more software possibilities. But to come up with different ideas isn't easy, so one thing you can do is 'leak' a prototype that gets people talking about the device (free marketing), has everyone buzzing up this new upgraded model (free viral marketing, which is considered the best marketing since it doesn't cause as much jading in the public as normal marketing can do), then you have sites filled with people stating what they would love this new model will be able to do software wise (which you can sit there and cherry pick the ideas that as a company you feel are the most valuable). Its completely win-win
First they take multiplayer away after 6 yrs, next it will be DRM disabling of single player after 6 yrs... then 5... 4.... 3.... or whenever the sequal comes out. Slippery slope, and I'm sure some kid will say "Come on that game is 2 yrs old and they have a sequal they have to stop support someday!". No, they didn't, they designed the game so multiplayer support could be shut-off and use that as an excuse.
Here's an idea then if thats how you look at these things. Don't buy consoles. Buy PC only games. Sure they can remove these functions as well, but as with hacks and cracks and whatever else you can think of, people can and will find a way to get around these problems when they are on a computer. That way you'll never had to really worry about these issues as they only become minor setbacks and never total problems.
Unfortunately for people that care about having good games that will last for a really long time (like me), this model is proving super-successful.
Its not that it's proving successful, its more of a lack of options. Sure you can still play your older games and wish that the newer ones would do that same in being usable as long as you wish, but what would the alternative be? Not buy the new games and then you are left playing the same games over and over. And I don't think your looking at this in the right angle. Hardware fails and that will render all these old tech and games obsolete no matter how much you don't want to lose these games. Systems like NES, SNES, Genesis, they are mostly gone aside from a rare special-built system but then the games are going away to, as time really does kill all things material. And so people wanting to still enjoy these old games have rose to the challenge of making these games still playable. Now we have game roms and emulators, programs like DosBox. These show that the games will remain playable, granted not in their original form, but they are still there and still playable. And it's not limited to games that came on a cartridge/disc as I've played some games that were stream download only.
Anyone else feel it sad when people reference a whole six years as an eternity, after which a product should surely be dropped?
Stuff used to be made to last a lifetime. I have an old double-barreled shotgun my granddad passed down to me. My mother has dresses, dolls, and other heirlooms passed down to her by her mother. Most of this stuff is 50-75 years old, and I envision it to be around a lot longer. Even in content - I've got movies and such that are as old as I am (original release Star Wars VHS for example). Yet with this type of thing, well, it's SIX years old. It's obvious that you shouldn't expect to keep using it.
And how much of it is still supported by the manufacturer? Most items you can buy and have been able to buy for decades normally are supported by the manufacturer for 30 to 90 days after purchase. Most products you can buy are only made to have usage for a year then its dropped by the maker in favor of the next years model and most won't help you with a product thats 2+ years old since it's no long for sale.
As for the Halo 2, while some support for the product has been dropped on what is technically something made obsolete (the XBox), the product still works, it hasn't been made non-functioning. It can still be used for multi-player games through options like system link. If people want it enough then the homebrew community will figure out a way.
Halo 2 was released in 2004, its now 2010. Thats almost 6 years. Don't know of many (if any) console games that have had that much online support made for them. I don't feel thats really screwing over your loyal customers as have some of the longest online multiplayer support. And there is a time for a business to have to cut legacy support.
I guess it depends on where you live.
I'm not so sure. I live in a tourist town so I see people from all sorts of places in the world. Its quite rare to see an iPhone, Androids aren't that often either (but are seen more often then iPhones), Blackberries are quite common but cheap flip phones are the normal.
BumpDroid... but I had a TOTALLY different vision for that name...
Was this your idea of BumpDroid?
Timothy.
There are some who call me... Tim.
It's $100 for a dev license for the iPhone.
If you want to make money at it, develop the game and sell it yourself. If you can't recoup $100, you'll at least learn a lot in the process.
-Dan
Your assuming they also have a Mac since one is needed to program for the iPhone. A better option would be to use Steam since it's free (if I remember right they charge a percentage of the sales, but no other fee's) and can be for both WIndows or Mac.
Is there even a market, let alone a convention, for selling game concepts?
Nope. Quite frankly, the only way its going to get made is if you do it yourself. I'd suggest using an established engine to cut development time/cost to a minimum and going with a digital distribution service like Steam to bring the product to market.
Possible engines include the Blender one mentioned, and http://www.ogre3d.org/ since they are both free and open source
This entire letter is crap and just to make Apple try to look good for its actions.
From the open letter:
Jobs says thats Adobe isn't open, then states MANY times in the letter that every video should be done in h.264 that they support. They fail to mention the fact the h.264 isn't open, it's a standard, not an open standard. Not to mention, the whole system for iPhone and iPad isn't open since to use after market software for the devices you need to either buy it from their App Store or pay another $100 for that option. This isn't open, in fact it's more closed then Flash is.
The second 'fact' he tries is claiming that 75% of video is in Flash and should be using something more modern like h.264. He refuses to mention at the point that hey, Flash does do this modern codec of h.264 which invalidates his claim here. Flash is a container, not a codec.
Third thing he tries to claim is Flash is bad for reliability, security and performance. Jobs as always forgets that OSX isn't noted for its high level of security 1 2 and averages around 6 months to pass on a patch, not even to patch it but just to bother to pass it on even though someone else did the work for them. Jobs then goes on claiming that "We have been working with Adobe to fix these problems' yet again 'forgets' that they hurt Adobe before when they switched from the PowerPC chip to x86 chips causing Adobe to lose money and waste time fixing up Adobe products and not having been kept in the loop (which would have prevented the issues). Same thing happened with 10.6 causing more issues for Adobe products that could have been prevented if Apple had just warned Adobe before hand instead of catching Adobe with their pants down. As a company of Adobe's size it would be harder and harder to want to support Apple, which have screwed them over before (not just once), and all to please 6% of the computer market? Thats not much.
Forth is battery life. And here he pulls a switch around, claims that Flash is bad for the battery life by claiming that most Flash videos aren't encoded in the modern codec of h.264. Here he forgets that other videos online are also not encoded in h.264 but formats like Windows Media Video, XviD, DivX and even Apple's own Quicktime format. He also forgets that Flash videos can be encoded in h.264 because at the time of the iPhone being released, Google just decided, with Apples help, to support h.264. Just in time for the iPhone, but was the only one to support it, the other sites came later. This change took time and help from the inside (remember Apple and Google worked together a lot back then before they started to drift apart).
Fifth 'point' is he claims that sites with Flash will have to be re-written to support touch interfaces. And yes they will, and most places will do that if they feel that the public at large wants that. Same happened with web pages. Web sites had to be re-written to 'support' smartphones since they were horrible on the smaller screen sizes and so those sites that deemed it a good move did just that, they re-wrote their pages to support the newer style of accessing the site. Not every site bothered though and same would happen with Flash sites. Jobs seems to feel that sites should have already been made to support touch devices before there was a need as his 'proof'.
Last 'point' is a mishmash of garbage, first re-claiming about how Flash isn't supported with touch in mind (yet it's on touch screen tablet pc's) then goes on to claiming that 'developers grow dependent on third party development libraries and tools, they can only take advantage of platform enhancements if and when the third part
Your right :) I saw the story early somewhere else and did not even bother to read the summary after the headline that implied there is a backdoor into ipads.
It does have a back door, its build in the OS from Steve Jobs since its running a spin off of the iPhone's OS. 1 2
Until Jobsy releases version 4, no virus is gonna run (in the background anyway).
Of course the iPod/iPad/iPhone is more secure ... you can't do fuck-all with it without permission from Apple headquarters ... and even then any virus must be written in Objective-C to conform to Steve's code "laws".
And so the myth continues. Because the iPhone/iPad is locked down then it must be secure. Thing is, it wasn't secure and it was because of that lock that people couldn't secure it. It was also the only smartphone that didn't get patched for it even though Apple had been warned for weeks before to patch it and it took 48 hours after it went public to patch. People complained, most didn't know why they had to restore their iPhones though because they didn't even need to touch anything. In the end, iPhone users were hacked and it was because of it being locked down. (If you had jail broken it, you could have prevented it from happening)
Your mind would -never- wander to your parents with failing health, your siblings, etc? While such things may be common if you don't talk to your parents much or both you and your family are totally independent, but for many people, they would be distressed.
That is compassion, not addiction. Once the family member is ok, your mind no longer wanders to them or leaves you distressed.
They don't click their lights on and off to generate dopamine from it.
But they are distressed when its taken away.
That is longing, not addiction. You want to lights back, but you don't sit there feeling the urge 'must turn off and on the lights, must turn off and on the lights'. Take away the light switch and they long for it, but the desire goes away easily and doesn't keep coming to mind.
But some do get it from some flash game or hitting refresh on Slashdot.
And so do people who check the news or play sports. Yet we think these are 'normal' and if its online its 'abnormal'. When the average middle aged person has coffee while reading the latest copy of the newspaper we think its normal, when we see someone spending an hour on /. who refreshes to get the latest news and to comment its abnormal. Why is it that 'water cooler' chat is considered to be normal and spending the same time on a forum or discussion board as abnormal? Things aren't additions but simply pastimes. If I'm bored and theres a lake nearby and fishing poles I'll go fishing most every day. If theres a high speed internet connection I'll go online. If there is a large collection of interesting books I'll read. Its just that computers and internet access are common so bored people go online. Give them something else and they will prefer that if its more interesting for nearly -all- internet 'addictions' so long as basic human needs (to communicate, etc) are met. Give a crack addict crack or something really interesting to do and they will... still do crack. Give an internet 'addict' internet or something they are otherwise interesting and they will usually choose something interesting.
Your confusing routine with an addiction. By the sounds of it, you've never had an addiction and that makes it hard to understand it. An addiction is like a voice that just keeps whispering to you and kinda controls your actions like reflex, sure if your truly paying attention you'll notice, but let yourself go into auto pilot and you'll do the actions without thought. People who read the news or play sports or drink coffee and read the news do it out of routine. Its what they know. Take them away from the routine and they get a little angry but they go on with their life more or less as always. As for the mention of a crack addict, they are addicted and will do crack because it's on their mind. Always on their mind. They can't stop thinking about it until they have it and they won't stop until they have their crack. Thats what an addict does. Take away the internet from an internet addict and they get very flustered and agitated because thats what they crave, and no, if given something really interesting to do they won't suddenly forget about the internet, they will still crave the internet (more accurately they will crave the dopamine rush brought from the internet). Think of it like a gambling addict, like the internet addict there isn't anything physically ingested to cause the high, but the dopamine high is still there from the action.
No, the Internet is not addictive. Nor is texting.
Certain people are obsessive/compulsive.
Why can't it be addictive? The internet is about instant gratification which helps keep you on a dopamine high. The problem with a constant dopamine high is that when the source is removed (in this case the internet) your body goes into a with drawl. So suddenly you go into a with drawl of a dopamine source which leaves you craving for it, regardless the fact that nothing in introduced into your system on a physical level. It's one of the aspects that was shown from Pavlov's Dog experiments. Pavlov got his dog to show a physical reaction that they couldn't easily control (like an addiction would). Same concept could happen with the internet and such.
And since it's over $950, it's a felony.
What's the reference price, the one you buy it for to the thief, the price the original owner would need to pay to have it replaced, the price the original owner paid...?
The reference price is the one the lawyers can make up at the most highest price point, regardless of reality. This has been shown with the RIAA lawsuits.
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 it's not preventing non-legitimate customers/pirates from playing the game, it's preventing its legitimate customers from playing the game do to issues with the DRM. Thus it isn't successful at all.
So, paying customers are made of wood?
Knock on wood...
What does the donor look like now, and what are they going to do about not having a face?
Most likely something like this woman.
It's just that consoles have always been locked down.
Actually, the Atari wasn't closed, it was open as were all consoles in the very early 80's. You just needed to know how to program for it and have the equipment to make the cartridges (and you could get a cartridge re-flasher as well to just wipe a cartridge to put your own code on it). After the video game market started to grow larger other people started to jump on it's bandwagon and started to make their own games and release them for sale. And many of them were bad, very bad. This was one of the major causes of the North American video game crash of 1983. From this incident, Nintendo stepped up and introduced locking the console up to prevent it from playing un-authorized games (thus the big deal of the 'Nintendo Seal of Quality').
I doubt Apple would want to buy ARM and then kill the sales to ARM's other customers. If they're going to spend $8 billion just to piss it away by killing ARM's revenue they'd be better served by spending the money to subsidize iPhone sales by cutting the price.
Name me one company who has used a monopoly to lower their prices.
Wal-Mart. They use their monopoly to artificially lower prices to kill as much of the surround competition so they sell their products at a loss for a few months since they can survive that but most small shops can't. (Granted they then raise their prices after that point...)
Kubuntu is a little bit prettier with it's KDE interface and still has the same polish, but I don't think anyone who is trying Linux for the first time would grab it over Ubuntu (as it's not that well advertised, I'm sure partially to not confuse first time users).
My issue there is I've tried running Kubuntu and found it very unstable. I think it was version 9.04 I tried. Wanted to see what the difference would be compared to basic Ubuntu so I did a complete wipe of my computer to give Kubuntu a fresh start. And it was downhill from there. I've gone back to Ubuntu and haven't bothered to risk trying Kubuntu again.
how is that news for nerds, stuff that matters?
Welcome to Slashdot Idle, Idly passing the time away
Another movie you can 'win' is if you can manage to survive watching Gigli to the end...
He sounds like he feels that art is to be seen and not touched. He claims that "One obvious difference between art and games is that you can win a game. It has rules, points, objectives, and an outcome... I would say then it ceases to be a game and becomes a representation of a story, a novel, a play, dance, a film. Those are things you cannot win; you can only experience them'. These have rules, points, objectives and an outcome because they are interactive. A story, a novel, a play, dance, ect... these aren't interactive. They are for the most part a static object (object so to speak). I don't feel that art should only be seen and altered only by the artists themselves, but should be accessible and alterable by everyone since to truly be 'touched' by something needs more then just observation, it needs to be able to reach a connecting point with the public. Games allow you to interact and be touched by them. Many games have stories that become more emotionally touching because of their interaction. While it's more of a cliché now, the story of FF7 and death of Aerith become more that much more because of your interaction with her. If you read about her as a novel she didn't appear truly as often enough to gain as solid of an emotional bond with her as you had been able to in the game. But because you had been able to interact with her and choose basic questions/answers with her, this allowed her to become more 'real' then a novel ever could have.