Steam has a tendency to lock accounts that log in from multiple IP addresses. 'Cause, you know, that's a crime.
Hahah! Spoken like someone who has never used Steam. As others have pointed out... this is a flat out lie. I log in from my computer at work, my laptop, and my home PC. I've never had this problem. Not one time.
Not only that, but the Steam cloud appears to ENCOURAGE the use of Steam on multiple computers. I love that Torchlight was updated to use this. Being able to use the same saved games on my laptop and my home PC is fantastic.
You negelct to realize that every day brings WoW closer to it's death. You know how many people jsut get so damn bored of it already? Do you think eternal life is possible, even for a given product?
Not that I completely disagree with you, but I think you underestimate the brand loyalty that Blizzard has built up with WoW.
On one hand, what you said is irrefutable (in fact it applies to every multiplayer game). I could be reading into your statement a bit, but if you are implying that WoW is going to be gone or diminish significantly any time soon I think you are quite mistaken. Look at some of the more popular early MMOs, such as Everquest. It's still around, and it had nowhere near the subscriber number that WoW has.
That said, I think everyone gets bored of WoW, but they seem to keep a good flow of content to keep their subscriber numbers very high. With (last I read...) 12.5 million subscribers, I think it will be around for a very VERY long time.
I'm a huge fan of WoW (if you can't tell by my comments), however, I am also a huge fan of PC gaming. I love competition and innovative products, which is why I'll definitely be giving Aion a shot. I really hope it does succeed.
I think what companies need to stop comparing to WoW. WoW is an anomaly. It has subscription numbers that dwarf any MMO, so far. The important thing is figuring out what numbers will make an MMO a success (generate a profit), and shoot for those numbers. If you hit those, then do what you can to keep improving the product in order to maintain/grow your subscriber base.
Trying to make your comment seem more valid by saying "most of us" doesn't fly. Should I make my comment seem more valid by saying, "Most of us prefer to skip time wasting commercials?"
If you read through the comments here, there are other people that feel the same way I do. That said, and as others have also pointed out, if you want "free" + commercials just grab an antenna. Broadcast TV should suit you just fine.
Anyhow, if you'll read my comment, you'll notice that I don't have cable. Almost all TV shows I watch come from Hulu. The exception being a show that I watch on ABC. So as you can see, I'm all for "free" content as well.
My whole point was that it really isn't free. It may be free to you, but someone is footing the bill. If they start charging money for a subscription, the only way I would pay is if it was for content without commercials. And yes, I would be happy to pay for content in order to skip commercials... as long as the price is right.
The only thing I'm seriously surprised about is that you thought they were giving away their content for free. It sounds to me like you may want to watch a show or two on Hulu before commenting.
Hulu has commercials. Not as many as cable (thank goodness), but they do have commercials. They are given money in exchange for those commercials.
Now, if what you were trying to say is that they were giving content for "free" to the user. I'd only partially agree with that. When I used to have cable, I used TiVo to skip commercials. I own no time shifting devices or software for skipping commercials on Hulu. I would much rather pay for content than have to suffer through inane commercials.
Now, if Hulu starts charging subscription fees, AND removes commercials, that would be completely fine with me. If they keep commercials AND charge a subscription, they are no different than a cable company, or satellite (with the exception of maybe offering an al a cart subscription). In which case, I'd probably sign up for satellite where I could watch programming commercial free again.
I currently use a Zune, after getting hooked on the Zune pass subscription. Sorry... but as far as I'm concerned I don't really care what casing surrounds my hard drive/flash storage media. At the end of the day I just want to listen to music, podcasts, and audiobooks. The Zune does all three of these things just fine. The whole "it's cool to have an Apple" thing is lost on me.
That said, the only thing Zune has going for it is the Zune Pass. I can buy tunes off of iTunes, if I couldn't find the tracks on Zune or Amazon. However, I CAN'T use my Zune pass on my iPod.
If the Zune pass goes away, I'm not sure how MS can hope to even keep up the pitiful competition that they currently have. (If you can even call it competition)
HD Zune might be okay, but like I said before, I just want it for Audio. I could care less about all the other stuff.
Well, I read Gaiman's article, and if that's the approach an author wants to take, then so be it.
At the end, Gaiman states, "...the simple and unanswerable truth: George R. R. Martin is not working for you."
If Martin is not working for the reader, who IS he working for? Who pays his salary, and more to the point, who pays his royalties? In the end, it IS the reader. Without us spending our money on his books, there is no publishing deal and no royalties.
If I go with Gaiman's line of reasoning, then my response is this. Fine, go ahead, write your stories. I'll only purchase them when you finish the entire series, and not a second before that. What motivation could I possibly have to read half of a series and not get to the ending? It just tells me that Gaiman and Martin take their readers for granted.
If more readers decide to take this approach, then here's a clue BOOK ONE WILL NEVER SELL! It's not hard to figure this out. If book one does not sell, the publisher is not going publish book two.
Therefore, while it is debatable that Martin does not work for us, the reader is buying the book(s) in an unfinished series in good faith that the series WILL in fact be finished. One could go further and expect some communication should there be an inordinate delay.
At least I know where Martin (and Gaiman) stand here. I will not purchase any more of the Song of Ice and Fire books until the series is complete. It just sounds to me like Martin got enough money, and he doesn't feel like finishing it. If that's not the case, here's a clue, let your readers know!
Right... but let's say the GameStop employee decides to "check out" the new copy of FFXI. Doesn't that essentially lock anyone else out of using that particular copy of the game?
In the PC world that is absolutely the case. If I purchased a copy of WoW, which I have, you use up that unique key. You can resell the disk, but it will be completely worthless to the buyer (unless of course you sold your account to go along with it.)
Lay off the FUD, if you do have this happen, then you will return it and get a new copy of the game.
You're missing the point... Now this person has to drive home, pop the game in, enter the code, find out it's broken, drive back, argue for a new copy (which might not be new), drive home and repeat the cycle?
The point is, if the game is sold as being NEW, then it should be NEW.
The last time I bought a gutted game at GameStop, the manual had grease and food remnants all over it. It also already had a saved game. That was the last time I purchased anything at GameStop.
What about games like MMOs? I've never played one for the console, but Final Fantasy XI would apply here. I'm pretty sure the game will become useless to anyone else after the first person played it.
I stand corrected. Came over here to post my findings, and you've already found something as well.
I just saw a similar article today on ars technica.
It looks like other music services are affected by this as well. From the article this line sums it up, "...pricing changes that the labels have managed to negotiate into their contracts with digital music distributors." The blame is squarely on the record labels in this case.
The pricing structures that I'm talking about are Apple prices and... let's call them... sane prices.
Here's a quick example, since you asked:
4.0 GB of RAM (2x2GB) SO-DIMM, 1066MHz DDR3 (PC3-8500)
Apple store $200
Newegg (highest price) $69.99
Feel free to find more on your own. Try comparing hard drives if you'd like. I haven't checked myself and maybe I'm wrong, but I have a hunch you'd find another good example. I hope you understand what I mean by Apple's pricing structures.
Now... how about providing a link regarding your statement about the record labels deciding what price Apple was going to set for music in iTunes? I mean, if you're going to call someone out, certainly you are prepared to back up your own statements as well...
Not a big fan of logic I take it? Easier to try to tear someone down by claiming brand hatred than it is to prove your point, eh?
If it was the labels 'forcing' this price down Apple's throat, it seems awfully strange that Amazon and Zune are unaffected. It occurs to me that since iTunes sells MORE music than any other music service, that they would have more bargaining power, and would be one of the last services to be 'forced' to change their pricing structure.
No... based on Apple's past pricing structures, I'd be more inclined to believe that Apple is just taking the opportunity to pad their wallets even more. Don't get me wrong... they're perfectly within their rights to do that. Heck, more power to them!
As long as I still have alternatives, I could care less about the people duped into paying the Apple tax.
No, it was excellent. That wasn't Deus Ex Machina. You could tell that they planned for this ending. They didn't just drop it in there because they couldn't figure out how else to end it.
I have tried that, and unfortunately it doesn't work. What they don't tell you initially is that the content is not only tied to your GamerTag, but it is also tied to console hardware itself. It will work on ANY console as long as you are logged in with your GamerTag AND connected to XBox Live. But if you want other people to use your content, when your GamerTag is not logged in, it can only be on the actual hardware that you used when you purchased it.
As soon as you get a console with a new serial number, you can no longer play it in 'offline' mode.
In your specific case, it may not be inaccessible. However, in my case it is. If you have other people using your 360 with their own gamertags, only the gamertag that PURCHASED the content from the XBox Marketplace is allowed to use it. Also, it only works if you are connected to the internet on your 360.
Unfortunately, I purchased many of the arcade games for my kids, who have their own gamertags. Now they can no longer play the titles.
This is a HUGE problem in my opinion, and I've been screwed over by Microsoft regarding this issue since August, 2007. I have called them on multiple occasions, and they have even called me once. Unfortunately every single interaction results in them saying that it will be fixed, but that they have no idea when.
This can also be translated to: Screw you, we took your money and we don't have to do anything to help you now.
I really like the games on the 360, but stuff like this is very very frustrating. There seems to be no recourse that can be taken in order to get your points refunded, or the games reactivated on the console. I've spent a decent amount of money on downloadable content... maybe $150 - $200. Maybe they just don't want to bother, but I sure won't be buying any more until the problem is fixed.
If anyone HAS had success with this, I'd really like to know how you went about getting the problem resolved.
By that logic, movies would be better if they were 24 hours long, and novels should be 100,000 pages.
I love movies, and books, and games. That means I actually want to experience many of them, not buy one book and spend the next 5 months reading it, or reading it over and over again.
You make a GREAT point, but it only applies to certain types of games. Specifically, I'm referring to NON-competetive games.
You are correct in that you wouldn't want a 24 hour movie, that's what ongoing TV programs like Lost are for:). 100,000 page books aren't really feasible either, but Jordan's gotta be getting close if you sum up the Wheel of Time series.
In any case, one shot games, or at least the single player story line of games shouldn't take forever to play. Most RPGs that 'boast' a 100 hour gameplay duration turn me off. I'd like to get through the story in max 20 hours.
Competetive aspects of games are a different beast. Think of these more like a sport, where the more you practice, the better you get. My drug of choice in the competetive arena is the RTS genre. Sometimes the single player portion of an RTS is decent, but I don't spend a ton of time on them. I really enjoy the multiplayer aspect, and could easily spend 100 hours on it, as long as the gameplay is pretty tight.
This equates well to a sport that you might enjoy playing. I spend a lot of time trying to get a better tennis game. Other people spend hundreds of hours trying to improve their golf game (even playing the same course over and over). A multiplayer game doesn't have a 'built-in' longevity (i.e. playing through the story a bunch of times). It has longevity because it's just fun. Like tennis, golf, or any other activity that someone enjoys.
So, when you talk about a game as a story. I completely agree that a HUGE time commitment isn't necessarily a good thing. But for a multiplayer game, I think replayability is absolutely crucial. Counterstrike, Battlefield, Call of Duty, Warcraft 3, Age of Empires, etc... All of those had single player storylines. But what made them stand the test of time was how much fun they are to play with/against other people.
Wow, I'm amazed. In my dealings with Apple support, I've had the worst experiences. I tried getting support for an iPod that my son had purchased. The support folks I've talked to really didn't know all that much. Not only that, Apple wanted to charge me money just to talk on the phone to them. In my opinion, that's absolutely ridiculous and turned me off to Macs entirely.
Now, granted I'm making an assumption that the computer support is just as bad, and expensive. If it isn't I'll stand corrected, but considering a lot of people have iPods but not Macs means that Apple is making a very poor impression.
On the contrary, my dealings with Microsoft support, and hardware vendors for various PC components has been relatively good. You got a few bad seeds in the hardware arena, but Microsoft has always provided great support, and it was free.
Maybe a better way of saying it would be like this:
Person A has a 4 year old Honda Civic, and the gas station decides that it will charge person A $4.00 per gallon for regular unleaded gas.
Person B has a brand new 7 series BMW, and the gas station decides to charge person B $2.00 per gallon for regular unleaded gas.
Person A is paying MORE than Person B for the same type of gas. It really doesn't matter that the guy with the Civic has a less expensive car. The gas is still costing Person A more money.
Slashdot Mirror
You're right there is no humor in it.
There is a lot of DARK humor in the fact that a large percentage of our population would disagree with your statement, though.
Not just dark humor either... there might also be some SHADOW humor. (sorry couldn't help it).
Steam has a tendency to lock accounts that log in from multiple IP addresses. 'Cause, you know, that's a crime.
Hahah! Spoken like someone who has never used Steam. As others have pointed out... this is a flat out lie. I log in from my computer at work, my laptop, and my home PC. I've never had this problem. Not one time. Not only that, but the Steam cloud appears to ENCOURAGE the use of Steam on multiple computers. I love that Torchlight was updated to use this. Being able to use the same saved games on my laptop and my home PC is fantastic.
I'd make it even more generic: Friends don't let friends GO to Best Buy.
You negelct to realize that every day brings WoW closer to it's death. You know how many people jsut get so damn bored of it already? Do you think eternal life is possible, even for a given product?
Not that I completely disagree with you, but I think you underestimate the brand loyalty that Blizzard has built up with WoW.
On one hand, what you said is irrefutable (in fact it applies to every multiplayer game). I could be reading into your statement a bit, but if you are implying that WoW is going to be gone or diminish significantly any time soon I think you are quite mistaken. Look at some of the more popular early MMOs, such as Everquest. It's still around, and it had nowhere near the subscriber number that WoW has.
That said, I think everyone gets bored of WoW, but they seem to keep a good flow of content to keep their subscriber numbers very high. With (last I read...) 12.5 million subscribers, I think it will be around for a very VERY long time.
I'm a huge fan of WoW (if you can't tell by my comments), however, I am also a huge fan of PC gaming. I love competition and innovative products, which is why I'll definitely be giving Aion a shot. I really hope it does succeed.
I think what companies need to stop comparing to WoW. WoW is an anomaly. It has subscription numbers that dwarf any MMO, so far. The important thing is figuring out what numbers will make an MMO a success (generate a profit), and shoot for those numbers. If you hit those, then do what you can to keep improving the product in order to maintain/grow your subscriber base.
Did he just use the words Quality and Journalism in the same sentence? I needed a good laugh today.
Trying to make your comment seem more valid by saying "most of us" doesn't fly. Should I make my comment seem more valid by saying, "Most of us prefer to skip time wasting commercials?"
If you read through the comments here, there are other people that feel the same way I do. That said, and as others have also pointed out, if you want "free" + commercials just grab an antenna. Broadcast TV should suit you just fine.
Anyhow, if you'll read my comment, you'll notice that I don't have cable. Almost all TV shows I watch come from Hulu. The exception being a show that I watch on ABC. So as you can see, I'm all for "free" content as well.
My whole point was that it really isn't free. It may be free to you, but someone is footing the bill. If they start charging money for a subscription, the only way I would pay is if it was for content without commercials. And yes, I would be happy to pay for content in order to skip commercials... as long as the price is right.
The only thing I'm seriously surprised about is that you thought they were giving away their content for free. It sounds to me like you may want to watch a show or two on Hulu before commenting.
Hulu has commercials. Not as many as cable (thank goodness), but they do have commercials. They are given money in exchange for those commercials.
Now, if what you were trying to say is that they were giving content for "free" to the user. I'd only partially agree with that. When I used to have cable, I used TiVo to skip commercials. I own no time shifting devices or software for skipping commercials on Hulu. I would much rather pay for content than have to suffer through inane commercials.
Now, if Hulu starts charging subscription fees, AND removes commercials, that would be completely fine with me. If they keep commercials AND charge a subscription, they are no different than a cable company, or satellite (with the exception of maybe offering an al a cart subscription). In which case, I'd probably sign up for satellite where I could watch programming commercial free again.
I currently use a Zune, after getting hooked on the Zune pass subscription. Sorry... but as far as I'm concerned I don't really care what casing surrounds my hard drive/flash storage media. At the end of the day I just want to listen to music, podcasts, and audiobooks. The Zune does all three of these things just fine. The whole "it's cool to have an Apple" thing is lost on me.
That said, the only thing Zune has going for it is the Zune Pass. I can buy tunes off of iTunes, if I couldn't find the tracks on Zune or Amazon. However, I CAN'T use my Zune pass on my iPod.
If the Zune pass goes away, I'm not sure how MS can hope to even keep up the pitiful competition that they currently have. (If you can even call it competition)
HD Zune might be okay, but like I said before, I just want it for Audio. I could care less about all the other stuff.
Well, I read Gaiman's article, and if that's the approach an author wants to take, then so be it.
At the end, Gaiman states, "...the simple and unanswerable truth: George R. R. Martin is not working for you."
If Martin is not working for the reader, who IS he working for? Who pays his salary, and more to the point, who pays his royalties? In the end, it IS the reader. Without us spending our money on his books, there is no publishing deal and no royalties.
If I go with Gaiman's line of reasoning, then my response is this. Fine, go ahead, write your stories. I'll only purchase them when you finish the entire series, and not a second before that. What motivation could I possibly have to read half of a series and not get to the ending? It just tells me that Gaiman and Martin take their readers for granted.
If more readers decide to take this approach, then here's a clue BOOK ONE WILL NEVER SELL! It's not hard to figure this out. If book one does not sell, the publisher is not going publish book two.
Therefore, while it is debatable that Martin does not work for us, the reader is buying the book(s) in an unfinished series in good faith that the series WILL in fact be finished. One could go further and expect some communication should there be an inordinate delay.
At least I know where Martin (and Gaiman) stand here. I will not purchase any more of the Song of Ice and Fire books until the series is complete. It just sounds to me like Martin got enough money, and he doesn't feel like finishing it. If that's not the case, here's a clue, let your readers know!
Right... but let's say the GameStop employee decides to "check out" the new copy of FFXI. Doesn't that essentially lock anyone else out of using that particular copy of the game?
In the PC world that is absolutely the case. If I purchased a copy of WoW, which I have, you use up that unique key. You can resell the disk, but it will be completely worthless to the buyer (unless of course you sold your account to go along with it.)
Lay off the FUD, if you do have this happen, then you will return it and get a new copy of the game.
You're missing the point... Now this person has to drive home, pop the game in, enter the code, find out it's broken, drive back, argue for a new copy (which might not be new), drive home and repeat the cycle?
The point is, if the game is sold as being NEW, then it should be NEW.
The last time I bought a gutted game at GameStop, the manual had grease and food remnants all over it. It also already had a saved game. That was the last time I purchased anything at GameStop.
What about games like MMOs? I've never played one for the console, but Final Fantasy XI would apply here. I'm pretty sure the game will become useless to anyone else after the first person played it.
I stand corrected. Came over here to post my findings, and you've already found something as well.
I just saw a similar article today on ars technica.
It looks like other music services are affected by this as well. From the article this line sums it up, "...pricing changes that the labels have managed to negotiate into their contracts with digital music distributors." The blame is squarely on the record labels in this case.
The pricing structures that I'm talking about are Apple prices and... let's call them... sane prices.
Here's a quick example, since you asked:
4.0 GB of RAM (2x2GB) SO-DIMM, 1066MHz DDR3 (PC3-8500)
Apple store $200
Newegg (highest price) $69.99
Feel free to find more on your own. Try comparing hard drives if you'd like. I haven't checked myself and maybe I'm wrong, but I have a hunch you'd find another good example. I hope you understand what I mean by Apple's pricing structures.
Now... how about providing a link regarding your statement about the record labels deciding what price Apple was going to set for music in iTunes? I mean, if you're going to call someone out, certainly you are prepared to back up your own statements as well...
Not a big fan of logic I take it? Easier to try to tear someone down by claiming brand hatred than it is to prove your point, eh?
If it was the labels 'forcing' this price down Apple's throat, it seems awfully strange that Amazon and Zune are unaffected. It occurs to me that since iTunes sells MORE music than any other music service, that they would have more bargaining power, and would be one of the last services to be 'forced' to change their pricing structure.
No... based on Apple's past pricing structures, I'd be more inclined to believe that Apple is just taking the opportunity to pad their wallets even more. Don't get me wrong... they're perfectly within their rights to do that. Heck, more power to them!
As long as I still have alternatives, I could care less about the people duped into paying the Apple tax.
Thank god.
This made me chuckle.
Your comment (as it was probably intended) could be taken as, "I hated this show, it's finally over."
The funny thing is, your comment when taken within the context of the finale, sums things up rather nicely.
No, it was excellent. That wasn't Deus Ex Machina. You could tell that they planned for this ending. They didn't just drop it in there because they couldn't figure out how else to end it.
I hadn't heard of JungleDisk, I'll look into that as well. Thanks.
Unfortunately I don't have an off site box, but I'm considering switching to Syncback for my local network at home.
I'm glad I read this. I've been balancing Mozy and Carbonite for my home backup solution.
Needless to say, finding this out has convinced me that I will NOT be using Carbonite.
I have tried that, and unfortunately it doesn't work. What they don't tell you initially is that the content is not only tied to your GamerTag, but it is also tied to console hardware itself. It will work on ANY console as long as you are logged in with your GamerTag AND connected to XBox Live. But if you want other people to use your content, when your GamerTag is not logged in, it can only be on the actual hardware that you used when you purchased it.
As soon as you get a console with a new serial number, you can no longer play it in 'offline' mode.
In your specific case, it may not be inaccessible. However, in my case it is. If you have other people using your 360 with their own gamertags, only the gamertag that PURCHASED the content from the XBox Marketplace is allowed to use it. Also, it only works if you are connected to the internet on your 360.
Unfortunately, I purchased many of the arcade games for my kids, who have their own gamertags. Now they can no longer play the titles.
This is a HUGE problem in my opinion, and I've been screwed over by Microsoft regarding this issue since August, 2007. I have called them on multiple occasions, and they have even called me once. Unfortunately every single interaction results in them saying that it will be fixed, but that they have no idea when.
This can also be translated to: Screw you, we took your money and we don't have to do anything to help you now.
I really like the games on the 360, but stuff like this is very very frustrating. There seems to be no recourse that can be taken in order to get your points refunded, or the games reactivated on the console. I've spent a decent amount of money on downloadable content... maybe $150 - $200. Maybe they just don't want to bother, but I sure won't be buying any more until the problem is fixed.
If anyone HAS had success with this, I'd really like to know how you went about getting the problem resolved.
...or Sony paying Disney not to release HD-DVD titles?
You make a GREAT point, but it only applies to certain types of games. Specifically, I'm referring to NON-competetive games.
You are correct in that you wouldn't want a 24 hour movie, that's what ongoing TV programs like Lost are for
In any case, one shot games, or at least the single player story line of games shouldn't take forever to play. Most RPGs that 'boast' a 100 hour gameplay duration turn me off. I'd like to get through the story in max 20 hours.
Competetive aspects of games are a different beast. Think of these more like a sport, where the more you practice, the better you get. My drug of choice in the competetive arena is the RTS genre. Sometimes the single player portion of an RTS is decent, but I don't spend a ton of time on them. I really enjoy the multiplayer aspect, and could easily spend 100 hours on it, as long as the gameplay is pretty tight.
This equates well to a sport that you might enjoy playing. I spend a lot of time trying to get a better tennis game. Other people spend hundreds of hours trying to improve their golf game (even playing the same course over and over). A multiplayer game doesn't have a 'built-in' longevity (i.e. playing through the story a bunch of times). It has longevity because it's just fun. Like tennis, golf, or any other activity that someone enjoys.
So, when you talk about a game as a story. I completely agree that a HUGE time commitment isn't necessarily a good thing. But for a multiplayer game, I think replayability is absolutely crucial. Counterstrike, Battlefield, Call of Duty, Warcraft 3, Age of Empires, etc... All of those had single player storylines. But what made them stand the test of time was how much fun they are to play with/against other people.
Wow, I'm amazed. In my dealings with Apple support, I've had the worst experiences. I tried getting support for an iPod that my son had purchased. The support folks I've talked to really didn't know all that much. Not only that, Apple wanted to charge me money just to talk on the phone to them. In my opinion, that's absolutely ridiculous and turned me off to Macs entirely.
Now, granted I'm making an assumption that the computer support is just as bad, and expensive. If it isn't I'll stand corrected, but considering a lot of people have iPods but not Macs means that Apple is making a very poor impression.
On the contrary, my dealings with Microsoft support, and hardware vendors for various PC components has been relatively good. You got a few bad seeds in the hardware arena, but Microsoft has always provided great support, and it was free.
Maybe a better way of saying it would be like this:
Person A has a 4 year old Honda Civic, and the gas station decides that it will charge person A $4.00 per gallon for regular unleaded gas.
Person B has a brand new 7 series BMW, and the gas station decides to charge person B $2.00 per gallon for regular unleaded gas.
Person A is paying MORE than Person B for the same type of gas. It really doesn't matter that the guy with the Civic has a less expensive car. The gas is still costing Person A more money.