Unless you buy the game and never install it until after Blizzard goes away, they can't brick it. But you knew that and are just a fucking piece of shit. Or you didn't and you're also an ignorant shit.
It also sounds like you're a complete idiot. Please do the world a favor and stay away from it.
The beta doesn't have single-player at all, and it makes perfect sense for Blizzard to want you online when you're PLAYING FOR FREE. This way they get Battle.net testing from every player and the game can report various conditions while you play.
You replied to a complete and utter moron who has absolutely no ability to reason. Chances are that someone actually wrote the post for him because of his inability to understand the world around him.
If that happens, don't buy their game. It's really not hard. With this scheme, your existing copy will still work. Forever, from the perspective pf Blizzard's existence.
I would think more people would be wary of purchasing a game that requires servers for any play, such as any MMORPG (like, I dunno... WoW), but they aren't.
Everything becomes obsolete eventually for some reason or another. People seem to cope.
It's not effectively the same. The key difference is also why this scheme is basically harmless.
Blizzard doesn't care how many computers you copy (not just move) your game to. For single-player, it sounds like you could even use them all at the same time. (No, I don't know why you'd want to.)
Since this scheme is basically identical to what Blizzard has been doing since at least Diablo II (earliest game I've played whose scheme I remember), I'd say that it's really non-news.
All Blizzard games require that the serial be checked online to ensure it is not already used. This is no different than what is being done for SCII. So basically Blizzard is doing exactly what they already do, so this story is almost non-news. (It's only news in that it compares with Ubisoft.)
The only difference between this scheme and what is used in every single other Blizzard game you can still buy is that the activation is online. If online is too hard for you, I'd suggest suicide. You'd be doing yourself and those around you a favor.
Well, your silly word play proves you're a piece of shit.
The proposed system (one-time activation) is NOT DRM. If you think it is, then we've had DRM since the days of the original Apples, Commodores and Amigas.
Your paranoia is just that -- paranoia. You're an anal-retentive idiot. Blizzard doesn't give a shit about you and neither does anyone else.
It's not quite as automatic as in VS (which probably inherited a bit of the GUI designer from VB), but you can create the outlets directly in IB. I don't know anyone who does that, though.
VB and Delphi (which copied and improved on VB's GUI designer) have set the benchmarks as far as I am concerned.
I think the GP was complaining about all the @ signs before the Objective C keywords. They serve an excellent purpose (which is to unambiguously denote invalid C), but they are a bit ugly.
What the fuck are you talking about? I don't know the state of Mobile Safari w.r.t. css3, but there's no issues at all using these technologies on the iPhone. Not only that, this was Apple's preferred method before they released the SDK and App Store.
Given that all the browsers I've seen that use coloring have chosen green and red, I'd have to say that coloring is not at all sufficient. Or rather, it has not been done correctly.
I don't use any version of Chrome, but I agree with the posters who complain that copying a URL from the address bar has annoying behavior.
Virtually every web browser in existence supports ftp:// URLs, but with the exception of IE (in my experience), none of them (try to) act like file managers. Files reached via ftp:// are treated as any document reached via http(s):// would be.
On a side note, I am deeply disturbed by the fact browsers would render htm[l] files when using "ftp://". It just sounds horribly wrong to me.
That's because you are thinking that a web browser should turn into an FTP client when someone uses an ftp:// URL. In reality, it's still a web browser that just happens to understand more than http(s):// URLs.
Slashdot Mirror
Unless you buy the game and never install it until after Blizzard goes away, they can't brick it. But you knew that and are just a fucking piece of shit. Or you didn't and you're also an ignorant shit.
It also sounds like you're a complete idiot. Please do the world a favor and stay away from it.
The beta doesn't have single-player at all, and it makes perfect sense for Blizzard to want you online when you're PLAYING FOR FREE. This way they get Battle.net testing from every player and the game can report various conditions while you play.
Did your injuries turn you into an asshole, or were you born that way?
You replied to a complete and utter moron who has absolutely no ability to reason. Chances are that someone actually wrote the post for him because of his inability to understand the world around him.
If that happens, don't buy their game. It's really not hard. With this scheme, your existing copy will still work. Forever, from the perspective pf Blizzard's existence.
I would think more people would be wary of purchasing a game that requires servers for any play, such as any MMORPG (like, I dunno... WoW), but they aren't.
Everything becomes obsolete eventually for some reason or another. People seem to cope.
It's not effectively the same. The key difference is also why this scheme is basically harmless.
Blizzard doesn't care how many computers you copy (not just move) your game to. For single-player, it sounds like you could even use them all at the same time. (No, I don't know why you'd want to.)
And you're a piece of fluff. That would explain why you bothered to post.
Since this scheme is basically identical to what Blizzard has been doing since at least Diablo II (earliest game I've played whose scheme I remember), I'd say that it's really non-news.
All Blizzard games require that the serial be checked online to ensure it is not already used. This is no different than what is being done for SCII. So basically Blizzard is doing exactly what they already do, so this story is almost non-news. (It's only news in that it compares with Ubisoft.)
Actually, now that I think about it, even the current games verify that the serial code is not already used, so there is zero difference.
You are simply too stupid for your own good.
The only difference between this scheme and what is used in every single other Blizzard game you can still buy is that the activation is online. If online is too hard for you, I'd suggest suicide. You'd be doing yourself and those around you a favor.
Well, your silly word play proves you're a piece of shit.
The proposed system (one-time activation) is NOT DRM. If you think it is, then we've had DRM since the days of the original Apples, Commodores and Amigas.
Your paranoia is just that -- paranoia. You're an anal-retentive idiot. Blizzard doesn't give a shit about you and neither does anyone else.
Depriving yourself of a good game (I don't care to play it, but presumably you do) because you are a retarded shit is your prerogative.
You are a retarded idiot. And you're incredibly stupid.
There is zero DRM at play here.
It's not quite as automatic as in VS (which probably inherited a bit of the GUI designer from VB), but you can create the outlets directly in IB. I don't know anyone who does that, though.
VB and Delphi (which copied and improved on VB's GUI designer) have set the benchmarks as far as I am concerned.
I think the GP was complaining about all the @ signs before the Objective C keywords. They serve an excellent purpose (which is to unambiguously denote invalid C), but they are a bit ugly.
I like the Awesome Bar. I think it's much more likely that you're an anal-retentive asshole.
Whoever modded you insightful is an Apple-hating, ignorant piece of shit. As are you.
What the fuck are you talking about? I don't know the state of Mobile Safari w.r.t. css3, but there's no issues at all using these technologies on the iPhone. Not only that, this was Apple's preferred method before they released the SDK and App Store.
YMBOH.
Unless, you know, you can see further than 4 years down the line.
There was a time when the Internet was not synonymous with the WWW. I hope your comment about redundancy was sarcasm.
Given that all the browsers I've seen that use coloring have chosen green and red, I'd have to say that coloring is not at all sufficient. Or rather, it has not been done correctly.
I don't use any version of Chrome, but I agree with the posters who complain that copying a URL from the address bar has annoying behavior.
Virtually every web browser in existence supports ftp:// URLs, but with the exception of IE (in my experience), none of them (try to) act like file managers. Files reached via ftp:// are treated as any document reached via http(s):// would be.
On a side note, I am deeply disturbed by the fact browsers would render htm[l] files when using "ftp://". It just sounds horribly wrong to me.
That's because you are thinking that a web browser should turn into an FTP client when someone uses an ftp:// URL. In reality, it's still a web browser that just happens to understand more than http(s):// URLs.