And duping in single player mode should matter because.....?
Unless, of course, it's not really single player mode, and there's money to be made (even indirectly) off of folks selling uber swords for real world money.
Pandera, Pokemon, and a plethora of other bad decisions have pretty much killed WoW.
Gotta have those servers busy, or they're a liability, not an asset.
Blizzard stopped being Blizzard when ActaVision bought them. They are no longer at all the same company. ActaVision will milk the name for all it's worth, then toss aside the empty husk.
If you believe that GPS and signals from a phone to another device work, then there is strong reason to believe the victim when he claims he knows where his property is.
If you think that cell phones and their related technologies are actually magic devices that only work under certain conditions, then maybe not so much.
They need the constant connection to ensure that no one applies hax that would allow them to flood the real money AH.
Remember, ActaVision is using the Blizzard name to normalize people's thinking about real money for gear in games like this. They may not be taking a cut this time - but this opens the door for all future games to have real money for gear all the time.
Buffering does not make lag go away. It can smooth video by effectively increasing lag (storing up enough video/audio in advance that when it slows down, there's enough on the client side to play), but it cannot make transmission faster.
(So, back to CS 101 with you).
In any case, I can kind of see the the DRM needs by Blizard for logins to play. But the whole client server model for single player pretty much sucks and is unnecessary. Although, with their real money auction house, I guess they have to be extra careful about possible hacks and stuff. In fact, now that I think about it, this constant connection requirement may well be an artifact of monetizing all the loot.
Maybe - but the t-mobile sales reps in the stores really played up the whole "grandfathered into true unlimited data" even though that was absolutely not the case.
So, any positive karma they might have over ATT got blown by that, IMO.
Frisky may be safe if the judge allows it in his courtroom (the contract says that Frisky can't sue, that arbitration must be used). Also, in the meantime, there's a few hundred thousand Fido's getting it without lube while the whole thing is pending.
And let's face it. you have to have a cell phone in the modern professional world. All the providers pull this crap; t-mobile and ATT seem the worst, but Verizon isn't much better. So, really, the whole "you have a choice" meme doesn't really cut it.
They're still selling "unlimited" data. That is the problem here; it's deception.
No one here is going to argue that there are technical limits, and that infinite bandwidth should always, in all conditions, "just work". What you will find argued, however, is that if they should not be allowed a free pass to bait and switch.
The companies are reducing your bandwidth. This means that either they're increasing time (that would be a neat trick), or they're reducing data. If they're reducing data, it is not unlimited any more, now is it?
So by that bizarre logic, you're suggesting that ATT is legally obligated to ensure they can sustain 100% of theoretically possible 3G bandwidth at every possible location in their network where there is any viable signal at all?
Beautiful example of a strawman.
The argument is that ATT (and t-mobile, for that matter) should provide what they advertise, and it is their due diligence to make sure that those things that they control work as advertised.
So - no - they can't help you if you're in your basement.
But when they intentionally damage the service they've sold you as "unlimited" - yeah, that is flat out unethical and pretty much fraud.
That's like saying you can go to an all you can eat buffet, but must take the food back to your table one spoonful at a time after the first full plate. You must also wait in a 3-5 minute line for each spoon full.
Sure - you can have all you can eat - but it's meaningless, and you won't get full.
... that your phone isn't your internet provider (even though it connects you to the internet).
I know that people will say that you shouldn't watch TV and videos on your phone (even though t-mobile and ATT both have apps on their front page to do this, and run ads constantly like the ones that show the guy watching the game in the restaurant with his girlfriend).
I know that people will say that it isn't fair to the other users if one user hogs up all the bandwidth.
To which I say, fine. In that case, don't fscking call the plan unlimited, and don't advertise the use of streaming aps as a major feature. Lying isn't cool, ethical or moral, and that's exactly what the snake oil telecoms do.
And if the networks can't support the usage, then stop selling the usage. Invest in the networks, instead of attempted mergers for the sake of acquiring someone else's spectrum (instead of investing in infrastructure to increase your own bandwidth capabilities).
And just because others are absolutely guilty of the same thing (I'm looking at you, t-mobile) - it doesn't mean this sort of fraud is right.
Slashdot Mirror
As a matter of fact, yes, you do.
Careful - you're not supposed to point that out when not in a Free Speech Zone...
Actually, I liked single player mode for Diablo back in the day... that would have been the draw for me. /SadPanda
And duping in single player mode should matter because.....?
Unless, of course, it's not really single player mode, and there's money to be made (even indirectly) off of folks selling uber swords for real world money.
Ya, ya... I'm just bitter because the universe wouldn't "friend" me.
Pandera, Pokemon, and a plethora of other bad decisions have pretty much killed WoW.
Gotta have those servers busy, or they're a liability, not an asset.
Blizzard stopped being Blizzard when ActaVision bought them. They are no longer at all the same company. ActaVision will milk the name for all it's worth, then toss aside the empty husk.
This whole argument is one giant strawman.
If you believe that GPS and signals from a phone to another device work, then there is strong reason to believe the victim when he claims he knows where his property is.
If you think that cell phones and their related technologies are actually magic devices that only work under certain conditions, then maybe not so much.
Not just DRM.
They need the constant connection to ensure that no one applies hax that would allow them to flood the real money AH.
Remember, ActaVision is using the Blizzard name to normalize people's thinking about real money for gear in games like this. They may not be taking a cut this time - but this opens the door for all future games to have real money for gear all the time.
Buffering does not make lag go away. It can smooth video by effectively increasing lag (storing up enough video/audio in advance that when it slows down, there's enough on the client side to play), but it cannot make transmission faster.
(So, back to CS 101 with you).
In any case, I can kind of see the the DRM needs by Blizard for logins to play. But the whole client server model for single player pretty much sucks and is unnecessary. Although, with their real money auction house, I guess they have to be extra careful about possible hacks and stuff. In fact, now that I think about it, this constant connection requirement may well be an artifact of monetizing all the loot.
The biggest thing about this game I think is the pay real money for items AH.
If this is as big a success as I think it'll be, this'll open it up for a lot of real cash for items - and for mandatory pay to get the end game gear.
... Facebook sues the University of California for patent infringement.
Except that it isn't a free market, given that the spectrum is a publicly shared and owned asset.
I don't want to live on this planet anymore.
No, this impacts all patent scenarios - to some extent, all software patents are becoming "weaponized".
That is all.
Maybe - but the t-mobile sales reps in the stores really played up the whole "grandfathered into true unlimited data" even though that was absolutely not the case.
So, any positive karma they might have over ATT got blown by that, IMO.
t-mobile is pretty deceptive as well. Not as bad as ATT, but their throttling is basically a full kill on any real use of the phone, too.
And they certainly played up the whole grandfathered into full "unlimited" thing, even when they imposed the caps and throttling.
(And no, the argument that they're all unethical scumballs doesn't mean it's right that any of them is an unethical scumball).
An unlimited plan with limits... isn't.
And that is the core of the matter - the bait and switch approach the carriers always seem to take.
Frisky may be safe if the judge allows it in his courtroom (the contract says that Frisky can't sue, that arbitration must be used). Also, in the meantime, there's a few hundred thousand Fido's getting it without lube while the whole thing is pending.
And let's face it. you have to have a cell phone in the modern professional world. All the providers pull this crap; t-mobile and ATT seem the worst, but Verizon isn't much better. So, really, the whole "you have a choice" meme doesn't really cut it.
What's your point?
They're still selling "unlimited" data. That is the problem here; it's deception.
No one here is going to argue that there are technical limits, and that infinite bandwidth should always, in all conditions, "just work". What you will find argued, however, is that if they should not be allowed a free pass to bait and switch.
They get the rights to spectrum, which is supposed to be publicly owned (though, that too may have been permanently sold off to the corporations).
bandwidth = data / time
The companies are reducing your bandwidth. This means that either they're increasing time (that would be a neat trick), or they're reducing data. If they're reducing data, it is not unlimited any more, now is it?
So by that bizarre logic, you're suggesting that ATT is legally obligated to ensure they can sustain 100% of theoretically possible 3G bandwidth at every possible location in their network where there is any viable signal at all?
Beautiful example of a strawman.
The argument is that ATT (and t-mobile, for that matter) should provide what they advertise, and it is their due diligence to make sure that those things that they control work as advertised.
So - no - they can't help you if you're in your basement.
But when they intentionally damage the service they've sold you as "unlimited" - yeah, that is flat out unethical and pretty much fraud.
That's like saying you can go to an all you can eat buffet, but must take the food back to your table one spoonful at a time after the first full plate. You must also wait in a 3-5 minute line for each spoon full.
Sure - you can have all you can eat - but it's meaningless, and you won't get full.
... that your phone isn't your internet provider (even though it connects you to the internet).
I know that people will say that you shouldn't watch TV and videos on your phone (even though t-mobile and ATT both have apps on their front page to do this, and run ads constantly like the ones that show the guy watching the game in the restaurant with his girlfriend).
I know that people will say that it isn't fair to the other users if one user hogs up all the bandwidth.
To which I say, fine. In that case, don't fscking call the plan unlimited, and don't advertise the use of streaming aps as a major feature. Lying isn't cool, ethical or moral, and that's exactly what the snake oil telecoms do.
And if the networks can't support the usage, then stop selling the usage. Invest in the networks, instead of attempted mergers for the sake of acquiring someone else's spectrum (instead of investing in infrastructure to increase your own bandwidth capabilities).
And just because others are absolutely guilty of the same thing (I'm looking at you, t-mobile) - it doesn't mean this sort of fraud is right.