"I've never understood the point of limiting a mouse to one button. I mean, I have a three-button mouse with a scroll wheel, and I've got it set up so I can use all four buttons in conjunction with World of Warcraft."
Sounds like you started on a Windows box. Sadly, you lose the benefit of a one-button mouse in that respect. (Fortunately, as mentioned by another, you can plug in a 2/3 button mouse and it'll work.)
Think of it this way: Imagine learning to drive. You can choose between a stick shift and an automatic. Do I really need to take this idea much farther? Most will learn the automatic quite a bit faster. A stick shift takes longer, but when somebody learns on one, they get annoyed at how the automatic behaves.
"I know (from experience) that it takes no more than five minutes to explain left- and right-clicking to a three-year-old child."
Err ok. Except that isn't the problem. The problem is: How do you let the user know what the difference between those buttons is? How would a user know, for example, that right clicking on text will allow you to copy/paste it? There are no indicators of what will happen.
Anybody can be confused by that, not just people with mental defects. It's good that a lot of us know that typically right mouse button tends to be context sensitive, but that's not always enough. UI design has to be good for that to work. Don't believe me? Ask PS1 owners about their first day using the controller.
Re:For Christ's Sake, a Little Frickin' Perspectiv
on
Steam Users Steamed
·
· Score: 1
"Your game network's down? Go pick up a book, and be glad you've got a hand to do it with and aren't facing sniper fire while you do it. Jeez."
What would you say if you couldn't read your book because the publisher decided you have to call and ask permission first? Would you take your own advice, or would you quite rightly complain that it was unnecessary in the first place?
"And you'll pirate Half-Life 3, and Half-Life 3's authentication system will be even worse for legitimate users? That makes a lot of sense, sure thing."
I don't care. After Half Life 2, I ain't buyin Half Life 3. Sooner or later they'll figure out that pirates are being treated better than legitimate users. If they don't, let 'em rot.
Re:So the shit's finally hit the fan, has it?
on
Steam Users Steamed
·
· Score: 1
"They don't guarantee 100% uptime. A lawsuit would lose."
They require up-time even though the game doesn't technically need it. They may or may not win, but it's not a given.
"If you're going to sue over games, there are lots of other options "
Are you kidding? HL2/Valve is the perfect option.
- High profile game with LOTS of customers fucked by it
- Server validation to play in this case isn't necessary despite being in the name of fighting piracy.
- They didn't put a strong enough infastructure in place to deal with the demand.
There are two reasons to sue: 1.) To get compensation from Valve's incompetence. 2.) To send a message to the rest of the industry not to pull this shit. This would be a great time to sue. Otherwise, when HL3 comes out, we can expect this all over again.
Ya know, I damn near jumped on the "What the hell is it useful for?!" bandwagon. But the truth is, it's all in fun. Nothing wrong with enjoying something for what it is instead of for what it's not.
Besides, having Tetris on your iPod when it's all you've got isn't the worst thing in the world. I usually carry just my cell phone around even though I've got a GBA etc. Okay, my cell phone isn't going to replace my GBA or a PDA with 802.11, but if I don't carry those with me anyway, my cell phone is > 0.
"Could you please stop being silly and instead try and do something worth while. We're still looking for a cancer cure, aids cure and countless other things we need today. Even if you're not smart enough to work on that sort of thing, you could always do charity work or earn extra money to donate."
Out of curiosity, do you have any hobbies? If so, you're wasting valuable time you could be using on cancer research you frickin clown.
"XBOX and PocketPC are still being worked on. I do not give PocketPC better than a 25% shot at it(linux is moving up and ipod is a prelude to a pocket PC)..."
Eh. Linux on it's own isn't going to replace the PocketPC. Microsoft's not only working on the OS, but on making apps that are useful as well. For example, PocketPCs work really well with Office. Also, Microsoft's moves to make WMP a more widely adopted video standard are going to pay off on the PPC as well. A Linux based PDA would need to address this sort of thing and work on doing even more. I'm not saying it won't or can't happen, but definitely can't say I've seen a lot of leaning in that direction.
As for the XBOX... Microsoft could end up with a monopoly there, but the only way they're going to do it is if everybody decides they like the XBOX the best. Nintendo and Sony aren't going to let that happen, and Microsoft can't put a gun to everybody's head and make them buy one. De-facto is the key word here.
"I like how Microsoft, like Apple, is moving beyond just PCs."
You left out HP and Sony. But, yes, Microsoft is obviously following Apple's every move even though any company in their position would diversify, too.
"You do realize you can get these for PCs, don't you?"
Yes. I have one, and it's a pain in the ass because there's no real standard. I have to go in and configure it. That is, assuming the game is meant for it.
"My last three video cards all had an S-video port for the TV"
Not terribly helpful. A.) You have to have your computer near a TV. B.) SVideo out looks crummy. C.) Anybody who's ever set up SVideo on their PC knows it's a bitch and a half to get going. Then there's the whole problem of getting your keyboard and mouse into a comfortable position. Unless you've got your TV sitting on your desk, this is not comfortable.
" And if you're one of those people and you don't have the ability to customize, life can be pretty hard."
Err ok. I'm talking about time wasted here, not ability. One of the reasons that consoles DON'T require installation of games is because they are the same hardware every single time. Games on general purpose computers don't have this luxury, and it makes them a pain in the ass to use as game machines. It's not as bad today, but ask anybody who's ever tried to get their SoundBlaster working in DOS.
"How do you feel about the fact that my PC graphics pretty much put your PS2 graphics to shame right now and you've got at least another year 'till you can fix the situation."
I honestly don't care.
A.) Once I play a game, I'm done with it. Getting higher res graphics 6 months to a year later is not all that enticing to me.
B.) All PS2 games were designed with PS2 hardware in mind. So it's not like I was getting a limited performance to begin with.
c.) All PS2 games were designed to run at that resolution. Clearer imagery is nice and all, but on the PS2 it just plain doesn't make as big of difference. PC games, however, are made to fit the lowest common denominator. Graphic cards are rarely used to their fullest potential because of this. It's a real shame sometimes.
Meanwhile, the customization you did on your computer cost you a couple of hundred bucks, and you had to muck around with your software to actually make it work. For the cost of the hardware (but without the cost of configuration) I could have bought a different console and greatly expanded my potential game library. Higher resolution and higher frame rates aren't all that interesting compared to getting new games.
PC Gaming is unpleasant compared to console gaming. The only real reason it's alive and strong right now is the internet.
"Why get a PS3 when you can play it on your computer?"
Installation takes up space I'd rather use for porn. For a lot of games, I prefer the PS2 (and I assume the PS3) controller over a mouse and keyboard. I don't want to dick around with drivers. I don't want to configure games to suit my system. I'd rather play on my 27" TV. ETC.
" so if your computer can run it, no need for a PS3."
None of what I mentioned would be addressed this way.
Slashdot Mirror
"I've never understood the point of limiting a mouse to one button. I mean, I have a three-button mouse with a scroll wheel, and I've got it set up so I can use all four buttons in conjunction with World of Warcraft."
Sounds like you started on a Windows box. Sadly, you lose the benefit of a one-button mouse in that respect. (Fortunately, as mentioned by another, you can plug in a 2/3 button mouse and it'll work.)
Think of it this way: Imagine learning to drive. You can choose between a stick shift and an automatic. Do I really need to take this idea much farther? Most will learn the automatic quite a bit faster. A stick shift takes longer, but when somebody learns on one, they get annoyed at how the automatic behaves.
That sorta make sense?
"I know (from experience) that it takes no more than five minutes to explain left- and right-clicking to a three-year-old child."
Err ok. Except that isn't the problem. The problem is: How do you let the user know what the difference between those buttons is? How would a user know, for example, that right clicking on text will allow you to copy/paste it? There are no indicators of what will happen.
Anybody can be confused by that, not just people with mental defects. It's good that a lot of us know that typically right mouse button tends to be context sensitive, but that's not always enough. UI design has to be good for that to work. Don't believe me? Ask PS1 owners about their first day using the controller.
"Your game network's down? Go pick up a book, and be glad you've got a hand to do it with and aren't facing sniper fire while you do it. Jeez."
What would you say if you couldn't read your book because the publisher decided you have to call and ask permission first? Would you take your own advice, or would you quite rightly complain that it was unnecessary in the first place?
"How about putting the big bucks to help your own people?"
How about looking ahead a few years?
"And you'll pirate Half-Life 3, and Half-Life 3's authentication system will be even worse for legitimate users? That makes a lot of sense, sure thing."
I don't care. After Half Life 2, I ain't buyin Half Life 3. Sooner or later they'll figure out that pirates are being treated better than legitimate users. If they don't, let 'em rot.
"They don't guarantee 100% uptime. A lawsuit would lose."
They require up-time even though the game doesn't technically need it. They may or may not win, but it's not a given.
"If you're going to sue over games, there are lots of other options "
Are you kidding? HL2/Valve is the perfect option.
- High profile game with LOTS of customers fucked by it
- Server validation to play in this case isn't necessary despite being in the name of fighting piracy.
- They didn't put a strong enough infastructure in place to deal with the demand.
There are two reasons to sue: 1.) To get compensation from Valve's incompetence. 2.) To send a message to the rest of the industry not to pull this shit. This would be a great time to sue. Otherwise, when HL3 comes out, we can expect this all over again.
"Geez, its only a game..." ... that a lot of people paid $50 to not be able to play.
I'd be mad as well if I hadn't been warned about Steam before buying it.
"Um... Sure, I can see it'd be frustrating, but dude it's a *game*."
Point of game: Entertainment.
Game not in operation: Not entertainment.
Cost of Game: $50
Parent poster: Clueless.
"combustion? since when was boiling water a chemical reaction? But yah, other than the incredible lack of science, funny joke."
I thought it was funny until you said that. Thanks. >:I
"Maybe after everyone else has died from skin cancer, geeks will inherit the earth. That 'outside' thing was always overrated anyway."
Yeah but until it becomes fashionable for femmes to become geeks, we'll be the last great generation.
"It's like reaching for the tissue AFTER..."
Ooohhh!!!
Ooohhh....
Crap.
"it's like putting on a second condom AFTER sex when the first one proved to be leaking."
Oh....
Er.. could we use metaphors that most of us could wrap our minds around?
Ya know, I damn near jumped on the "What the hell is it useful for?!" bandwagon. But the truth is, it's all in fun. Nothing wrong with enjoying something for what it is instead of for what it's not.
Besides, having Tetris on your iPod when it's all you've got isn't the worst thing in the world. I usually carry just my cell phone around even though I've got a GBA etc. Okay, my cell phone isn't going to replace my GBA or a PDA with 802.11, but if I don't carry those with me anyway, my cell phone is > 0.
"Could you please stop being silly and instead try and do something worth while. We're still looking for a cancer cure, aids cure and countless other things we need today. Even if you're not smart enough to work on that sort of thing, you could always do charity work or earn extra money to donate."
Out of curiosity, do you have any hobbies? If so, you're wasting valuable time you could be using on cancer research you frickin clown.
"No, but they tried like hell on IIS and MSN."
Duh. It's called bidness.
"XBOX and PocketPC are still being worked on. I do not give PocketPC better than a 25% shot at it(linux is moving up and ipod is a prelude to a pocket PC)..."
Eh. Linux on it's own isn't going to replace the PocketPC. Microsoft's not only working on the OS, but on making apps that are useful as well. For example, PocketPCs work really well with Office. Also, Microsoft's moves to make WMP a more widely adopted video standard are going to pay off on the PPC as well. A Linux based PDA would need to address this sort of thing and work on doing even more. I'm not saying it won't or can't happen, but definitely can't say I've seen a lot of leaning in that direction.
As for the XBOX... Microsoft could end up with a monopoly there, but the only way they're going to do it is if everybody decides they like the XBOX the best. Nintendo and Sony aren't going to let that happen, and Microsoft can't put a gun to everybody's head and make them buy one. De-facto is the key word here.
"To save bandwidtch they are going to compress the hell out of it. I am certainly not buying this."
Yeah, because it'll be successful regardless of video quality.
"You have changed the channel. Your TV must reboot for this change to take effect...."
"To change the channel, please edit chnnl.conf and restart the IPTVstrm deamon."
"Now, they need a new monopoly."
Yes because everything they touch becomes a monoply. IIS, XBOX, PocketPC, MSN...
"I like how Microsoft, like Apple, is moving beyond just PCs."
You left out HP and Sony. But, yes, Microsoft is obviously following Apple's every move even though any company in their position would diversify, too.
"what i'd like to know is: when was the last time gates did something usefull?"
As if Slashdot would post something like that.
"You do realize you can get these for PCs, don't you?"
Yes. I have one, and it's a pain in the ass because there's no real standard. I have to go in and configure it. That is, assuming the game is meant for it.
"My last three video cards all had an S-video port for the TV"
Not terribly helpful. A.) You have to have your computer near a TV. B.) SVideo out looks crummy. C.) Anybody who's ever set up SVideo on their PC knows it's a bitch and a half to get going. Then there's the whole problem of getting your keyboard and mouse into a comfortable position. Unless you've got your TV sitting on your desk, this is not comfortable.
" And if you're one of those people and you don't have the ability to customize, life can be pretty hard."
Err ok. I'm talking about time wasted here, not ability. One of the reasons that consoles DON'T require installation of games is because they are the same hardware every single time. Games on general purpose computers don't have this luxury, and it makes them a pain in the ass to use as game machines. It's not as bad today, but ask anybody who's ever tried to get their SoundBlaster working in DOS.
"How do you feel about the fact that my PC graphics pretty much put your PS2 graphics to shame right now and you've got at least another year 'till you can fix the situation."
I honestly don't care.
A.) Once I play a game, I'm done with it. Getting higher res graphics 6 months to a year later is not all that enticing to me.
B.) All PS2 games were designed with PS2 hardware in mind. So it's not like I was getting a limited performance to begin with.
c.) All PS2 games were designed to run at that resolution. Clearer imagery is nice and all, but on the PS2 it just plain doesn't make as big of difference. PC games, however, are made to fit the lowest common denominator. Graphic cards are rarely used to their fullest potential because of this. It's a real shame sometimes.
Meanwhile, the customization you did on your computer cost you a couple of hundred bucks, and you had to muck around with your software to actually make it work. For the cost of the hardware (but without the cost of configuration) I could have bought a different console and greatly expanded my potential game library. Higher resolution and higher frame rates aren't all that interesting compared to getting new games.
PC Gaming is unpleasant compared to console gaming. The only real reason it's alive and strong right now is the internet.
"Why get a PS3 when you can play it on your computer?"
Installation takes up space I'd rather use for porn. For a lot of games, I prefer the PS2 (and I assume the PS3) controller over a mouse and keyboard. I don't want to dick around with drivers. I don't want to configure games to suit my system. I'd rather play on my 27" TV. ETC.
" so if your computer can run it, no need for a PS3."
None of what I mentioned would be addressed this way.
"6) People dual boot Linux for games, eventually dump windows"
Erm. Why not just play games on your PS3?
"What's there to 'get' about Star Wars?"
Well, if you're confusing SkyWalker with the name of a Native America, you probably don't get Star Wars.
Didn't think I'd have to explain that part of my post.