Signing doesn't change in any way whether AdBlock Plus can be blocked or not. We get complaints about it on occasion and it's still hosted on the official add-ons site.
If you don't sign an extension it's effectively blocked - that's the entire point of signing. The malware douches will find a way around it easily while the rest of the community suffers the consequences. It's a game of whackamole you know you can't win.
Adblock is an example addon. Insert the name of any addon.
Another [i]example[/i] that came to mind almost immediately was FireNES. Never been on AMO due to the content but now will be effectively locked out of the mainstream release of Firefox.
Mozilla has been digging their own grave for years. This is more like another nail in the coffin.
I agree with that entirely. Addons have been its saving grace - every screwup Mozilla made there's been an addon to fix it... or at least manage it. This move is going to gradually erode that imo. Not right away but within a few years I'd wager.
For me this signals the start of the end for Firefox. Before you know it you'll see legal requests to block extensions like Adblock Plus from being signed and with more hurdles to jump through the ecosystem will shrink. What does remain will be spread out as fewer developers bother with AMO and try to drive traffic/revenue to their sites.
I'm not hostile to them, I'm using Firefox right now. I'm just critical of their choices in certain areas.
Items like the burger menu and status bar being like Chrome's take priority over fixing major issues with the sqlite database(s) (install SQLite manager, you'll be amazed at how long data is being stored) and simple things like being able to view content inside the browser (example bug https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/s... - yes, it's coming up on its 15th birthday).
Most of their design choices are just "me too" instead of anything meaningful or original. I can't fault them too much though, they set out to copy the major browsers early on and they've stuck with it. I just wish they were quicker with less visible fixes and slower on design changes.
I just don't have the time to root/want to bother risking a bricked device anymore. FirefoxOS got dismal reviews and my experience with Mozilla is that they're more concerned with (bad) design rather than functionality. Jolla might be an option but I have my doubts as to whether they have the resources to hang in long term, Ubuntu might. Any option that allows me to delete (or does not have) the mass of pre-bundled crapware/social media apps/etc. and that can turn off the nightly Android phoning home is better than hardware specs in my books.
Ontario - Consumer Protection Act. After 30 days they can cancel the sale but they cannot charge extra for executing the sale that would not have been charged otherwise.
But they provided the product to you. The additional charge would be to provide the product to you again should you ever lose it. (ie lose the install software and whatever backup of it)
Ahh that's different than what was stated... 15 days after delivery is different than 15 days after purchase.
Ontario - Consumer Protection Act. After 30 days they can cancel the sale but they cannot charge extra for executing the sale that would not have been charged otherwise.
Assassin's Creed is the reason. On Xbox they are number 10, 12, 30, 49, 60, 173, 212, 227, 1010, and 1024 most popular games (based on sample of ~300,000 gamers and 3,106 games)
Far Cry helps a bit with Far Cry 3 at #64 and Far Cry 2 at #104.
Umm Games for windows live is dead as a door knob, you wanna still play your game?
Yes, I do. You may not get it but Xbox achievements is a hobby of mine - that's why I made the purchases in the first place, simply for the GFWL functionality. I don't care about an active MP scene, which you might not understand either. It's just what I prefer but because the people at Steam thought the way you do, they decided they knew best for everyone and forced patches on people. I'm not saying the devs were wrong to release the patch, most people would want it, but Steam forcing it on people is wrong.
Hell, Microsoft tried it once with a security update for Windows and people went ape shit. Just because it's entertainment the rules are somehow different?
Or from Steam, who forces patches on you that can completely change the product you purchased. Bought a GFWL game? It's now a Steam Edition game.
And that is horrible how?... you wouldnt even be able to play that copy of the game you spent your hard earned dollars on anymore!
It's horrible because the impetus for the purchase was Xbox achievements. It's horrible because it sets a precedent that they are somehow allowed to change products you've purchased into completely different products. Sure, you may have hate for GFWL - I didn't. Also, GFWL servers are still up and running, I wouldn't have lost the ability to play anything - the odd developer doubled up (steam & gfwl multiplayer) others didn't patch.
Why is it steams fault for a patch that changes the game into something else when, unless its a valve game, it is not valves responsibility for a poor patch.
It's Steam's insistence on patches on people is necessary that creates the problem. It removes a person's ability to choose whether or not to apply a patch released by the developer. If the developer released a patch that converted GFWL to Steam and that's something you wanted, great! If not, you simply don't apply it and continue to use GFWL. Sure it might mean you can't connect to everyone for MP, but the choice remains with the person who made the purchase not with the distributor of the game.
Yes, buy them from the likes of Microsoft who, after 9 years, changed their Xbox policy so that once you delete local content of a delisted game, you lose that content. They made no announcement, gave no notice of games being delisted, just changed their polices and screwed over their customers.
Well that company you were pissing on before (steam) lets you keep and download games you bought even after they have been removed from steam for whatever reason.
Yes they do, Microsoft had the same policy. Then they decided one day "nah, we don't want to do it that way anymore" - what happens when Steam makes the same choice?
The only New Steam Version game I own is Company of Heroes... which repairs the multiplayer services that were lost due to server shutdowns. In other words, they're restoring the engine of my car, for free, that the original supporting company allowed to die.
I own that as well, that one they released a second version and left the original alone.
They also removed the key from the original purchase when they foisted the new version on people so that they wouldn't be able to re-sell their game.
I don't expect them to keep it available forever, I expect them to warn me of a fundamental change in their standard procedures and give me notice that the content is about to become inaccessible. In fact, section 2.5 of their terms of service states that they WILL provide notice - they never do though.
Which games specifically become terrible after they change to "New Steam Version"?
What does it matter? The point is that if you buy software for a specific feature and someone patches it out they've fundamentally altered the product you paid for. The car analogy everyone is so fond of: Would you allow a company to change the colour of your car? It's not terrible if they do - it's just a colour after all. What about the body style? The engine?
You can quite easily disable updates in Steam per game. Are you saying they push updates even after you've disabled them?
Steam's current setup is that you can disable automatic updates on a per-game basis, however, only until you try to play it next at which time it forces the update on you. You can run in offline mode for up to 6 months, losing a huge chunk of Steam/some games in the process, but after 6 months you have to go online to re-validate your DRM and bam - updates.
So you're saying Microsoft went and remotely erased your games or did you? If it was the former, then you may have an argument. If it was the latter, then the blame is solely yours.
Besides, how is it my fault that I purchased a bunch of games under one set of terms (including the ability to re-download) then having the terms arbitrarily changed to a set of terms I would never have purchased under? It's a bait and switch scam.
So you're saying Microsoft went and remotely erased your games or did you? If it was the former, then you may have an argument. If it was the latter, then the blame is solely yours.
Actually, in my case I didn't even get a chance to download it. I purchased a game December 3rd, sometime between now and then it was delisted, when I went to download it less than 60 days after purchase it was no longer possible.
Except the car is under my control. XBL games are not. They limit your ability to perform backups (no drives larger than 32GB), ban your console if you try to install a larger HDD, etc. For 9 years you always had the ability to go back and re-download the content, that was the understanding when you purchased the item. Then suddenly they change the terms so that's no longer the case?
I would need 8 Xboxes or 63 USB drives to backup my content.
You still have the ballot box. Vote against Ubisoft with your euros, dollars, or whatever: stop buying Ubisoft games. Buy games in the same genre from their competitors and email your purchases (and reasoning) to Ubisoft support.
Yes, buy them from the likes of Microsoft who, after 9 years, changed their Xbox policy so that once you delete local content of a delisted game, you lose that content. They made no announcement, gave no notice of games being delisted, just changed their polices and screwed over their customers.
Or from Steam, who forces patches on you that can completely change the product you purchased. Bought a GFWL game? It's now a Steam Edition game.
Or Origins... *giggles*
They're all just as bad as the other because no one is willing to put up the money to fight them.
Slashdot Mirror
Signing doesn't change in any way whether AdBlock Plus can be blocked or not. We get complaints about it on occasion and it's still hosted on the official add-ons site.
If you don't sign an extension it's effectively blocked - that's the entire point of signing. The malware douches will find a way around it easily while the rest of the community suffers the consequences. It's a game of whackamole you know you can't win.
Adblock is an example addon. Insert the name of any addon.
Another [i]example[/i] that came to mind almost immediately was FireNES. Never been on AMO due to the content but now will be effectively locked out of the mainstream release of Firefox.
Mozilla has been digging their own grave for years. This is more like another nail in the coffin.
I agree with that entirely. Addons have been its saving grace - every screwup Mozilla made there's been an addon to fix it... or at least manage it. This move is going to gradually erode that imo. Not right away but within a few years I'd wager.
Extensions are what got me to switch away from IE way back in the day. There's a core half dozen of them that are invaluable.
Lets say Adblock gets blocked. Do you really think they're going to continue to develop for a non-mainstream audience?
For me this signals the start of the end for Firefox. Before you know it you'll see legal requests to block extensions like Adblock Plus from being signed and with more hurdles to jump through the ecosystem will shrink. What does remain will be spread out as fewer developers bother with AMO and try to drive traffic/revenue to their sites.
I'm not hostile to them, I'm using Firefox right now. I'm just critical of their choices in certain areas.
Items like the burger menu and status bar being like Chrome's take priority over fixing major issues with the sqlite database(s) (install SQLite manager, you'll be amazed at how long data is being stored) and simple things like being able to view content inside the browser (example bug https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/s... - yes, it's coming up on its 15th birthday).
Most of their design choices are just "me too" instead of anything meaningful or original. I can't fault them too much though, they set out to copy the major browsers early on and they've stuck with it. I just wish they were quicker with less visible fixes and slower on design changes.
I just don't have the time to root/want to bother risking a bricked device anymore. FirefoxOS got dismal reviews and my experience with Mozilla is that they're more concerned with (bad) design rather than functionality. Jolla might be an option but I have my doubts as to whether they have the resources to hang in long term, Ubuntu might. Any option that allows me to delete (or does not have) the mass of pre-bundled crapware/social media apps/etc. and that can turn off the nightly Android phoning home is better than hardware specs in my books.
Underwhelming software as well.
Honestly, I don't care how mediocre it is - if it gives me control over the software on my device I'm sold. I was dreading buying a new Android
Ontario - Consumer Protection Act. After 30 days they can cancel the sale but they cannot charge extra for executing the sale that would not have been charged otherwise.
But they provided the product to you. The additional charge would be to provide the product to you again should you ever lose it. (ie lose the install software and whatever backup of it)
Ahh that's different than what was stated... 15 days after delivery is different than 15 days after purchase.
Well, you're fucked if MS switch off GFWL, the rumour of which is the main reason so many games have been patched to remove it.
The rumor proved to be untrue, GFWL is still up and running.
Ontario - Consumer Protection Act. After 30 days they can cancel the sale but they cannot charge extra for executing the sale that would not have been charged otherwise.
Assassin's Creed is the reason. On Xbox they are number 10, 12, 30, 49, 60, 173, 212, 227, 1010, and 1024 most popular games (based on sample of ~300,000 gamers and 3,106 games)
Far Cry helps a bit with Far Cry 3 at #64 and Far Cry 2 at #104.
Trials at #151
Umm Games for windows live is dead as a door knob, you wanna still play your game?
Yes, I do. You may not get it but Xbox achievements is a hobby of mine - that's why I made the purchases in the first place, simply for the GFWL functionality. I don't care about an active MP scene, which you might not understand either. It's just what I prefer but because the people at Steam thought the way you do, they decided they knew best for everyone and forced patches on people. I'm not saying the devs were wrong to release the patch, most people would want it, but Steam forcing it on people is wrong.
Hell, Microsoft tried it once with a security update for Windows and people went ape shit. Just because it's entertainment the rules are somehow different?
Or from Steam, who forces patches on you that can completely change the product you purchased. Bought a GFWL game? It's now a Steam Edition game.
And that is horrible how? ... you wouldnt even be able to play that copy of the game you spent your hard earned dollars on anymore!
It's horrible because the impetus for the purchase was Xbox achievements. It's horrible because it sets a precedent that they are somehow allowed to change products you've purchased into completely different products. Sure, you may have hate for GFWL - I didn't. Also, GFWL servers are still up and running, I wouldn't have lost the ability to play anything - the odd developer doubled up (steam & gfwl multiplayer) others didn't patch.
Why is it steams fault for a patch that changes the game into something else when, unless its a valve game, it is not valves responsibility for a poor patch.
It's Steam's insistence on patches on people is necessary that creates the problem. It removes a person's ability to choose whether or not to apply a patch released by the developer. If the developer released a patch that converted GFWL to Steam and that's something you wanted, great! If not, you simply don't apply it and continue to use GFWL. Sure it might mean you can't connect to everyone for MP, but the choice remains with the person who made the purchase not with the distributor of the game.
Yes, buy them from the likes of Microsoft who, after 9 years, changed their Xbox policy so that once you delete local content of a delisted game, you lose that content. They made no announcement, gave no notice of games being delisted, just changed their polices and screwed over their customers.
Well that company you were pissing on before (steam) lets you keep and download games you bought even after they have been removed from steam for whatever reason.
Yes they do, Microsoft had the same policy. Then they decided one day "nah, we don't want to do it that way anymore" - what happens when Steam makes the same choice?
The only New Steam Version game I own is Company of Heroes... which repairs the multiplayer services that were lost due to server shutdowns. In other words, they're restoring the engine of my car, for free, that the original supporting company allowed to die.
I own that as well, that one they released a second version and left the original alone.
They also removed the key from the original purchase when they foisted the new version on people so that they wouldn't be able to re-sell their game.
That would be illegal in the jurisdiction I live in.
oh and btw, Microsoft VP said they expect people to be able to access their content for 25+ years... why would I expect less than their stated claims?
I don't expect them to keep it available forever, I expect them to warn me of a fundamental change in their standard procedures and give me notice that the content is about to become inaccessible. In fact, section 2.5 of their terms of service states that they WILL provide notice - they never do though.
Which games specifically become terrible after they change to "New Steam Version"?
What does it matter? The point is that if you buy software for a specific feature and someone patches it out they've fundamentally altered the product you paid for. The car analogy everyone is so fond of: Would you allow a company to change the colour of your car? It's not terrible if they do - it's just a colour after all. What about the body style? The engine?
You can quite easily disable updates in Steam per game. Are you saying they push updates even after you've disabled them?
Steam's current setup is that you can disable automatic updates on a per-game basis, however, only until you try to play it next at which time it forces the update on you. You can run in offline mode for up to 6 months, losing a huge chunk of Steam/some games in the process, but after 6 months you have to go online to re-validate your DRM and bam - updates.
So you're saying Microsoft went and remotely erased your games or did you? If it was the former, then you may have an argument. If it was the latter, then the blame is solely yours.
Besides, how is it my fault that I purchased a bunch of games under one set of terms (including the ability to re-download) then having the terms arbitrarily changed to a set of terms I would never have purchased under? It's a bait and switch scam.
So you're saying Microsoft went and remotely erased your games or did you? If it was the former, then you may have an argument. If it was the latter, then the blame is solely yours.
Actually, in my case I didn't even get a chance to download it. I purchased a game December 3rd, sometime between now and then it was delisted, when I went to download it less than 60 days after purchase it was no longer possible.
Except the car is under my control. XBL games are not. They limit your ability to perform backups (no drives larger than 32GB), ban your console if you try to install a larger HDD, etc. For 9 years you always had the ability to go back and re-download the content, that was the understanding when you purchased the item. Then suddenly they change the terms so that's no longer the case?
I would need 8 Xboxes or 63 USB drives to backup my content.
You still have the ballot box. Vote against Ubisoft with your euros, dollars, or whatever: stop buying Ubisoft games. Buy games in the same genre from their competitors and email your purchases (and reasoning) to Ubisoft support.
Yes, buy them from the likes of Microsoft who, after 9 years, changed their Xbox policy so that once you delete local content of a delisted game, you lose that content. They made no announcement, gave no notice of games being delisted, just changed their polices and screwed over their customers.
Or from Steam, who forces patches on you that can completely change the product you purchased. Bought a GFWL game? It's now a Steam Edition game.
Or Origins... *giggles*
They're all just as bad as the other because no one is willing to put up the money to fight them.