Ditto. It's frustrating, since wine is now a pretty solid platform for gaming.
I'd love to give Valve money, but I'm not paying a Microsoft Tax in order to do so. I guess we're far too small a market for them to care about though.
Purleeease. There are no "less biased" news spigots, just ones that spurt your favourite flavour of Kool-Aid. Nobody ever made money by telling half their readers what they didn't want to hear.
Well, duh. So cheating is not a serious issue, which is actually consistent with Valve playing whack-a-hack in the wild.
Please note the title of my post: what I'm calling Valve on is the inconsistency between their actions (vulnerable designs) and their words (ZOMG cheating > piracy). Gobshites.
If they're so super-serial about cheating, why oh why oh why do they keep developing games with vulnerabilities designed in?
Whack-a-hack is always a losing prospect. If you trust the client, then you're boned. There are far more people with far more incentive trying to pop your cheat cherry than you've got available to protect your virtue. Your best case scenario is that you make a profit before your game is totally owned.
Cracked games come from copies stolen from the retail channel, not bought over the counter, so sales will be zero.
Meanwhile, back in the real world, Joe Desktop won't give a damn because Ubisoft will give enough advertising revenue to 'reviewers' to suppress any serious warnings about this DRM, and the games will continue to sell just fine.
Why are we even considering that "more lines of code" is a good thing? It's more bugs. I'd rather write half as much code, spend half as much time debugging it, and go home. I fear enthusiastic younglings who thrash out a thousand lines in a caffeine fuelled late night Code Rage, then spend the next two days thrashing out yet more code to fix their mistakes - or more usually, press on to screwing up the next new feature, and leave us old guys to clean up after them.
Ooh, nice spot. So the incumbents would be too big to fail, and nobody new would ever be able to break into the market. Business as usual, in other words.
Slashdot Mirror
Ditto. It's frustrating, since wine is now a pretty solid platform for gaming.
I'd love to give Valve money, but I'm not paying a Microsoft Tax in order to do so. I guess we're far too small a market for them to care about though.
Axiomatically, nobody ever believes they're suffering from cognitive dissonance.
Purleeease. There are no "less biased" news spigots, just ones that spurt your favourite flavour of Kool-Aid. Nobody ever made money by telling half their readers what they didn't want to hear.
Well, duh. So cheating is not a serious issue, which is actually consistent with Valve playing whack-a-hack in the wild.
Please note the title of my post: what I'm calling Valve on is the inconsistency between their actions (vulnerable designs) and their words (ZOMG cheating > piracy). Gobshites.
If they're so super-serial about cheating, why oh why oh why do they keep developing games with vulnerabilities designed in?
Whack-a-hack is always a losing prospect. If you trust the client, then you're boned. There are far more people with far more incentive trying to pop your cheat cherry than you've got available to protect your virtue. Your best case scenario is that you make a profit before your game is totally owned.
Yes, "if". The way Joel's "free as in unemployable" defence is going, they could easily appeal him all the way into the electric chair.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, get tenure.
How is Google sending Wikimedia traffic keeping them "afloat"? Every unpaid-for GET is an anchor, not a lifebelt.
Granted, but the important metric isn't code per day, it's code that makes it into the build that you sell.
That's nice. How did your protest against DRM work out? Spoiler: the story we're discussing here contains the salient evidence.
Meanwhile, back in the real world, Joe Desktop won't give a damn because Ubisoft will give enough advertising revenue to 'reviewers' to suppress any serious warnings about this DRM, and the games will continue to sell just fine.
If you pirate it, then you're not buying it. Their shareholders will get the message.
Why are we even considering that "more lines of code" is a good thing? It's more bugs. I'd rather write half as much code, spend half as much time debugging it, and go home. I fear enthusiastic younglings who thrash out a thousand lines in a caffeine fuelled late night Code Rage, then spend the next two days thrashing out yet more code to fix their mistakes - or more usually, press on to screwing up the next new feature, and leave us old guys to clean up after them.
They're full of bags of ice bought with food stamps. Do I have to explain everything?
...and how would you get to Ludicrous Speed without them?
Ooh, nice spot. So the incumbents would be too big to fail, and nobody new would ever be able to break into the market. Business as usual, in other words.
Sure, they can "offer" it, for only $9999.99 per month (plus taxes where not void). Any takers? Aaaaanyone at all?
They don't have electricity in Georgia.
I deny that as a species we pump way too much crap into our atmosphere.
Good heavens. As it turns out, you were incorrect. There is denying of it. I wonder what else you're wrong about.
I've noticed that the The Spandex ones tend to break more laws than the beer belly ones; like at every intersection.
Interns don't just give blowjobs; they smarter ones can be trained to sign your name for you.
They're not trying very hard then. Explain why dead cats have more kittens than live ones.
Dead cats that don't mate produce more kittens than neutered cats that do?
Do you work in Australian politics, by any chance?
That's unfair. He could easily be both.
Wait - maybe they're processing future frames. Using one core to predict your inputs...
Oh, facts? You can use them to prove anything that's even remotely true.