First i just want to say that i think 3D movies are gimmicky and don't really add to the experience. I saw Avatar in 2D, then 3D and to be honest I wasn't that impressed. But the reality is movie studios (and theaters) need something to stay ahead of the curve, with high quality HD home cinema equipment becoming more and more affordable you can get that kind of cinema experience at home, the theaters need to offer something more, redefine the 'cinema experience' as something special that you can only get at the movies, at the moment all they have is the advance time before it gets to DVD/Bluray/Streaming. I don't think 3D is it, but it seems they are desperately trying to find something compelling to win back audiences.
My problem here is, since you didn't understand the first time, is that developers are learning they can sell you the same thing they used to sell for 60 dollars now for 60 dollars, and 5 dollars, and 2 dollars, and 5 dollars, and 10 dollars, and 10 dollars, and whatever else they want thanks to the perverse incentives of DLC.
Well that's another issue, whether this additional content is actually additional content or part of the originally described product. Previously expansions came in the form of ~1/3 priced products, now they come in even smaller form, what's the problem with that? Did you find that the game was incomplete in it's original form? If not then there is no issue, you got what you expected for your $60. So far i haven't found any game that actually requires paid DLC to make it the full product i expected it to be from the outset. You make the claim that it's $60 + additional costs for the same product that didn't include those additional costs but i don't see any proof of that, it looks more like additional costs for additional content.
Personally i found Bioshock 2 to be a full and complete game, exactly what i originally paid for. Im not interested in this add-on, but im certainly not sour about not getting it for free.
Where can it stop that a game is endlessly segmented into features "people might not want" while the base package is still 60 dollars and several dozen DLC come out offering to pay for integral parts of the artistic experience that are already given out on the disk.
Well what about when there is a new multiplayer DLC, you need to either segment the user-base (those who have the content update and those who do not), or you force a patch on everyone to keep the user-base unified but only those who have paid for the content can actually use it. The former would annoy users and the latter is basically what they have done here, what's the problem with that?
Whether or not you agree with the DLC concept or it's pricing is not relevant for this discussion.
To use your Windows example it would be like after installing if you wanted a network two PC's and had to purchase an additional feature pack to do it.
No it isn't, because you expect that to be there. It's not as though people bought bioshock with the expectation that this DLC was included. It's more like if MS bundled the Office suite with Windows, only charged you for Windows but made you buy an additional license if you wanted to use office, is there a problem with that?
What is unique about this particular event is that there was an expectation for a complete game, but part of that game was intentionally "held hostage" until you paid for it.
But you got the complete game! You didn't expect this additional DLC and if it were delivered over the net you wouldn't have had an issue with it. If you didn't look at the time taken by the installer or the disk space used you wouldn't have even known about it!
If they thought it was such a wonderful feature in the first place, they ought to have just charged 5 more dollars for the game in the first place.
So that would've been ok too? Then you would've had people complaining that they shouldn't have to pay a premium for a feature they didn't want, it never ends. You clearly don't have an issue with DLC or the cost so your only issue is the delivery method...WTF?!
We are just upset at the change of license from a one off payment for a complete product license to a pay for x now and pay for y later (and don't even get me started on z).
But that's exactly it, you paid for - and received - a complete product, gees you didn't even know that additional content existed, and you wouldn't have even had an issue at all if they hadve made you download the content.
Quite clearly the only issue you have is with the delivery method. Do you have the same issue with Windows Anytime Upgrade as well?
That fact its on the disc puts us at the assumption that this content was already ready at release but was put in the DLC category to make a quick buck.
And how do you know this isn't the case with DLC in other games?
If this were an update after release, it would make sense. I wish Resident Evil 5 had done the same instead of requiring people to purchase the DLC to view others who had the costume packs. But this is different... it was already on the disk!
I don't disagree with you in the whole DLC thing, personally i think it's getting a bit out of hand with things that should be patches or value-adds masquerading as new DLC. But you do realise that if, like other companies, they had made you download this then you wouldn't have had a problem with it at all? I'd wager a hell of a lot of DLC is finished before release, but that's another issue. The issue here is that you would've bought the game without that content being on the disc anyway so who really cares, they just saved u the download.
And what do they do with it? Program? Nope. They learn their friends on FaceBook, not programming. They play games, not write them. They pirate music, not create it.
Computers used to be primarily for those interested in computers, now they are exactly what they were designed to be, a tool to get things done. There are probably just as many - if not more - young tinkerers and hobbyist programmers, but the computer userbase has grown phenomenally since the old C64 days such that the percentage of that userbase is much lower. The people who use them simply for facebook, games and pirating music are likely not the sort of people who would write fast loaders and the like anyway.
Why would MS allow someone to create and market direct competition for it's own internet browser? Because it's healthy competition, and it's only illegal to prevent that if you're big enough be considered a monopoly, this doesn't mean the practise isn't detrimental to the end user and still bullshit to begin with because if the Apple was considered a monopoly with the iPhone then this exact same behavior would be illegal, but currently Apple is too small for that.
My mitsubishi has the same proximity sensing technology for locking and unlocking the doors as well as starting the engine, so it can all be done as long as you have the key in your pocket.
For most, non-audiophile people, 256kbps AAC is "good enough". And it is damn good, anyway.
or at least 'good enough' for the sort of environments where there is so much background noise that the quality difference is negligible anyway. i.e. train, gym, street, etc...
The whole point that is being made here is that they SHOULD care, because otherwise they will end up getting screwed sooner or later. Not caring about open standards is just so damn shortsighted.
I don't disagree with you, but the fact is they WON'T care because for the end user the experience is fine as it is. The new solution has to offer something more compelling than 'software freedom' in order to have people make the conscious effort to - and go through the hassle of - changing.
You've confused "Free-as-in-freedom" with "Free-as-in-cost"
No that's why i put on there 'if it came down to it', currently the available standard video plugins (i.e. flash) are free - as in beer - but not in freedom. And im just suggesting even if that changed it probably wouldn't matter to most people. People are happy enough with free (as in beer), to change to a free (as in freedom) product is a hassle for most so the majority won't bother.
Yet another retard author who hasn't actually used or seen any operating system outside of OSX or Windows, it's blindingly obvious that it's pretty much the default KDE 3.5 setup.
But I can FREELY MAKE clothes that I want to. I can FREELY MAKE an AM/FM radio. I can FREELY BUILD whatever house I want as long as I follow the laws, etc, etc.
The whole issue for OGG is that the FREELY option is being specifically excluded on a large scale.
I think you've missed the point there. Yes you can freely make clothes, and an am/fm radio, and you know what? You can also freely create a video container format!
You can't freely make a Nike t-shirt or a Sony radio though, that's counterfeiting.
It is however necessary that the spec for the video is open and unrestricted, so that anybody can implement without paying for a license.
It's not necessary, particularly for defacto standards, as we have seen in the past many times. I certainly agree it's nice to have and most definitely preferable (to those who care at least), but in many cases it's not about free (as in beer) since the plugins are almost always free (as in beer) whether the standard is open or closed anyway and the vast majority of end users don't care about free (as in freedom). Which is why the end-user doesn't care, if the standard is closed and the product isn't adequate then you get exactly the situation we have now with flash. The standard is changing and to try to prevent this adobe opened the standard. The world keeps turning, the different types of software co-exist, changes are dictated by the people...everything is as it should be.
But fundamentalism and closed mindset in the end is just stupid.
I absolutely agree, a truly open mindset is of the co-existence of closed and open source software as well as free and non-free software (both in freedom and free-beer terms). There is no reason we can't have all of those solutions together.
It's not about the quality. It's about a principle. I reject a closed "standard" for web video on principle, no matter how well implemented.
This is the point i disagree with you on, for most people it IS about the quality, this sort of product is a means to an end. Most people don't care about whether it's closed or open source, it's not a moral choice like for example child labour. It's about getting the job done and most people would rather pay for it if it came down to it than choose an inferior free solution.
I don't think you give the public enough credit now since you could also have a website that could say "Open Command Prompt Window. Now type 'format c:. Press Enter button and then press 'Y'" and I doubt most people would bother.
Haven't you seen the amount of people who see UAC as an 'annoyance'? Do you think those people aren't just clicking 'yes' regardless of whatever comes up?
Why wouldn't you want driver updates? You can also configure your software updates, stuff for inbuilt applications isn't mandatory. And i don't see any specific DRM examples there.
It's not so much the principle of the thing as it is writing into law Microsoft's PR message that bugs in their software are "Computer Problems" or "Internet Problems."
But most of it is. Do you really think the majority of malware/viruses/spyware is installed and passed on through software exploits as opposed to social engineering?
If everyone ran linux they'd run as root because they couldn't be bothered with the 'annoyance' of sudo the same as with Vista/7 and UAC, so we'd be in the same situation.
Slashdot Mirror
First i just want to say that i think 3D movies are gimmicky and don't really add to the experience. I saw Avatar in 2D, then 3D and to be honest I wasn't that impressed. But the reality is movie studios (and theaters) need something to stay ahead of the curve, with high quality HD home cinema equipment becoming more and more affordable you can get that kind of cinema experience at home, the theaters need to offer something more, redefine the 'cinema experience' as something special that you can only get at the movies, at the moment all they have is the advance time before it gets to DVD/Bluray/Streaming. I don't think 3D is it, but it seems they are desperately trying to find something compelling to win back audiences.
My problem here is, since you didn't understand the first time, is that developers are learning they can sell you the same thing they used to sell for 60 dollars now for 60 dollars, and 5 dollars, and 2 dollars, and 5 dollars, and 10 dollars, and 10 dollars, and whatever else they want thanks to the perverse incentives of DLC.
Well that's another issue, whether this additional content is actually additional content or part of the originally described product. Previously expansions came in the form of ~1/3 priced products, now they come in even smaller form, what's the problem with that? Did you find that the game was incomplete in it's original form? If not then there is no issue, you got what you expected for your $60. So far i haven't found any game that actually requires paid DLC to make it the full product i expected it to be from the outset. You make the claim that it's $60 + additional costs for the same product that didn't include those additional costs but i don't see any proof of that, it looks more like additional costs for additional content.
Personally i found Bioshock 2 to be a full and complete game, exactly what i originally paid for. Im not interested in this add-on, but im certainly not sour about not getting it for free.
Where can it stop that a game is endlessly segmented into features "people might not want" while the base package is still 60 dollars and several dozen DLC come out offering to pay for integral parts of the artistic experience that are already given out on the disk.
Well what about when there is a new multiplayer DLC, you need to either segment the user-base (those who have the content update and those who do not), or you force a patch on everyone to keep the user-base unified but only those who have paid for the content can actually use it. The former would annoy users and the latter is basically what they have done here, what's the problem with that?
Whether or not you agree with the DLC concept or it's pricing is not relevant for this discussion.
To use your Windows example it would be like after installing if you wanted a network two PC's and had to purchase an additional feature pack to do it.
No it isn't, because you expect that to be there. It's not as though people bought bioshock with the expectation that this DLC was included. It's more like if MS bundled the Office suite with Windows, only charged you for Windows but made you buy an additional license if you wanted to use office, is there a problem with that?
What is unique about this particular event is that there was an expectation for a complete game, but part of that game was intentionally "held hostage" until you paid for it.
But you got the complete game! You didn't expect this additional DLC and if it were delivered over the net you wouldn't have had an issue with it. If you didn't look at the time taken by the installer or the disk space used you wouldn't have even known about it!
If they thought it was such a wonderful feature in the first place, they ought to have just charged 5 more dollars for the game in the first place.
So that would've been ok too? Then you would've had people complaining that they shouldn't have to pay a premium for a feature they didn't want, it never ends. You clearly don't have an issue with DLC or the cost so your only issue is the delivery method...WTF?!
We are just upset at the change of license from a one off payment for a complete product license to a pay for x now and pay for y later (and don't even get me started on z).
But that's exactly it, you paid for - and received - a complete product, gees you didn't even know that additional content existed, and you wouldn't have even had an issue at all if they hadve made you download the content.
Quite clearly the only issue you have is with the delivery method. Do you have the same issue with Windows Anytime Upgrade as well?
That fact its on the disc puts us at the assumption that this content was already ready at release but was put in the DLC category to make a quick buck.
And how do you know this isn't the case with DLC in other games?
If this were an update after release, it would make sense. I wish Resident Evil 5 had done the same instead of requiring people to purchase the DLC to view others who had the costume packs. But this is different... it was already on the disk!
I don't disagree with you in the whole DLC thing, personally i think it's getting a bit out of hand with things that should be patches or value-adds masquerading as new DLC. But you do realise that if, like other companies, they had made you download this then you wouldn't have had a problem with it at all? I'd wager a hell of a lot of DLC is finished before release, but that's another issue. The issue here is that you would've bought the game without that content being on the disc anyway so who really cares, they just saved u the download.
And what do they do with it? Program? Nope. They learn their friends on FaceBook, not programming. They play games, not write them. They pirate music, not create it.
Computers used to be primarily for those interested in computers, now they are exactly what they were designed to be, a tool to get things done. There are probably just as many - if not more - young tinkerers and hobbyist programmers, but the computer userbase has grown phenomenally since the old C64 days such that the percentage of that userbase is much lower. The people who use them simply for facebook, games and pirating music are likely not the sort of people who would write fast loaders and the like anyway.
That figure equals about 10% of the company's global work force.
is it really that surprising given the iphone's share of the smartphone market is, AFAIK, significantly more than that?
So does Microsoft...
How so? Im sure they would like to control which, say browser, runs on their system, but they aren't legally allowed to.
Why would MS allow someone to create and market direct competition for it's own internet browser? Because it's healthy competition, and it's only illegal to prevent that if you're big enough be considered a monopoly, this doesn't mean the practise isn't detrimental to the end user and still bullshit to begin with because if the Apple was considered a monopoly with the iPhone then this exact same behavior would be illegal, but currently Apple is too small for that.
My mitsubishi has the same proximity sensing technology for locking and unlocking the doors as well as starting the engine, so it can all be done as long as you have the key in your pocket.
For most, non-audiophile people, 256kbps AAC is "good enough". And it is damn good, anyway.
or at least 'good enough' for the sort of environments where there is so much background noise that the quality difference is negligible anyway. i.e. train, gym, street, etc...
Twenty years from now Mac's will only be able to get applications from Apple's approved store?.
And don't forget they can be removed without notice or reason.
We get it - i.e. that most people don't care.
The whole point that is being made here is that they SHOULD care, because otherwise they will end up getting screwed sooner or later. Not caring about open standards is just so damn shortsighted.
I don't disagree with you, but the fact is they WON'T care because for the end user the experience is fine as it is. The new solution has to offer something more compelling than 'software freedom' in order to have people make the conscious effort to - and go through the hassle of - changing.
You've confused "Free-as-in-freedom" with "Free-as-in-cost"
No that's why i put on there 'if it came down to it', currently the available standard video plugins (i.e. flash) are free - as in beer - but not in freedom. And im just suggesting even if that changed it probably wouldn't matter to most people. People are happy enough with free (as in beer), to change to a free (as in freedom) product is a hassle for most so the majority won't bother.
Yet another retard author who hasn't actually used or seen any operating system outside of OSX or Windows, it's blindingly obvious that it's pretty much the default KDE 3.5 setup.
But I can FREELY MAKE clothes that I want to. I can FREELY MAKE an AM/FM radio. I can FREELY BUILD whatever house I want as long as I follow the laws, etc, etc.
The whole issue for OGG is that the FREELY option is being specifically excluded on a large scale.
I think you've missed the point there. Yes you can freely make clothes, and an am/fm radio, and you know what? You can also freely create a video container format!
You can't freely make a Nike t-shirt or a Sony radio though, that's counterfeiting.
It is however necessary that the spec for the video is open and unrestricted, so that anybody can implement without paying for a license.
It's not necessary, particularly for defacto standards, as we have seen in the past many times. I certainly agree it's nice to have and most definitely preferable (to those who care at least), but in many cases it's not about free (as in beer) since the plugins are almost always free (as in beer) whether the standard is open or closed anyway and the vast majority of end users don't care about free (as in freedom). Which is why the end-user doesn't care, if the standard is closed and the product isn't adequate then you get exactly the situation we have now with flash. The standard is changing and to try to prevent this adobe opened the standard. The world keeps turning, the different types of software co-exist, changes are dictated by the people...everything is as it should be.
But fundamentalism and closed mindset in the end is just stupid.
I absolutely agree, a truly open mindset is of the co-existence of closed and open source software as well as free and non-free software (both in freedom and free-beer terms). There is no reason we can't have all of those solutions together.
It's not about the quality. It's about a principle. I reject a closed "standard" for web video on principle, no matter how well implemented.
This is the point i disagree with you on, for most people it IS about the quality, this sort of product is a means to an end. Most people don't care about whether it's closed or open source, it's not a moral choice like for example child labour. It's about getting the job done and most people would rather pay for it if it came down to it than choose an inferior free solution.
I don't think you give the public enough credit now since you could also have a website that could say "Open Command Prompt Window. Now type 'format c:. Press Enter button and then press 'Y'" and I doubt most people would bother.
Haven't you seen the amount of people who see UAC as an 'annoyance'? Do you think those people aren't just clicking 'yes' regardless of whatever comes up?
Why wouldn't you want driver updates? You can also configure your software updates, stuff for inbuilt applications isn't mandatory. And i don't see any specific DRM examples there.
It's not so much the principle of the thing as it is writing into law Microsoft's PR message that bugs in their software are "Computer Problems" or "Internet Problems."
But most of it is. Do you really think the majority of malware/viruses/spyware is installed and passed on through software exploits as opposed to social engineering?
If everyone ran linux they'd run as root because they couldn't be bothered with the 'annoyance' of sudo the same as with Vista/7 and UAC, so we'd be in the same situation.