So don't buy it. And do us a favor, and don't read about it. If you already know you aren't going to get it, why post in every thread about it? Yeah, we know you feel self righteous because your principles are so much higher than everyone else. We disagree...and the sutff Blizzard is doing isn't a big deal. I don't feel like a criminal. I feel excited to continue a story I loved over 10 years ago.
Clearly games aren't important to you. It is just espousing Slashdot group-think to gain karma or have like minded people telling you how right you are.
The stuff Blizzard did in the past was completely reasonable if you look at the reality of the situation rather than the polarized slashdot group-think that is shoved down your throat. And even if you count that, how old is Starcraft? Right...and they are still supporting it today. So your analogy with Ubisoft fails in so many ways.
No, not having LAN play isn't a lighter version of that DRM, and no, it does not lead to always be connected. You sound like a stupid gun nut complaining that if the government bans the right for civilians to own rocket launchers its next move will be to ban all knives.
Blizzard has worked very hard to produce solid games that are always polished better than any other game. You can now upload keys from your old games to the Battle.net website and always have access to download and play your games on any computer. They do more than any other game company to earn our dollars and you are too stupid to realize it because of it lacking a feature that you probably won't even notice isn't there.
You guys complain about everything. Maybe you are too old for gaming now and should just sit on your front porch drinking beer with your buddies and whine about kids these days.
Yeah, but who would actually know that? Usually, if you have a "show", when you are interviewed off that show, you show who you really are. If he is acting, he is doing it 24/7. Maybe he knows a lot about history...but his grasp of what history means and how it applies today would get an F- by any reasonable historian.
Just because you say things, doesn't make it true. Pretty much everyone I know like Stewart and they are all well educated, non-drug using people. My PhD physicist dad likes him. So no, your first theory is a way the right try to dismiss his popularity, but it isn't true.
The Daily Show has always been about making fun of the news. It does it well. People are taking it more seriously because they realize he asks better questions than the "real" news stations. He points out the stupid things people do and gives a more accurate portrayal of what is really happening all while being funny. Does he make more fun of the right than the left? Heck yes. But the right is much easier to make fun of because they love really dumb people. Example: Palin.
Colbert is also quite amusing. He plays the part so well there are many conservatives that watch him and agree with him and don't have the slightest clue that he is making fun of them.
I imagine it is offensive to people who have been brain washed that one way is the right way. But for those of us who enjoy seeing hypocrites and liars being called out, it's good fun.
Uh, no. That's a load of crap. The only time people say anything like that is in regards to Steam. I have never seen the opinion that when MS took down its live service on the original xbox that they were going to open things up.
So stop making stuff up so that you could feel smug.
Yet Blizzard still supports Starcraft. So they don't have to stop supporting it so soon. Heck, all they need to do is give the power for users to run dedicated servers and let them shoulder the expense. It's the right thing to do.
Eh, all these ideas that people throw out on solving PvP are always dumb. If you get to be powerful after you die, then people will just purposely die to become more powerful.
PvP in MMOs is not popular for a lot of different reasons. Some people don't like PvP. Generally, one person has a huge advantage over another based on gear. For Eve, it is that there are fairly harsh consequences to death that encourages people to stack the deck so that a normal player doesn't even have a chance as they warp in to a swarm. This causes people to take less risk and make PvP boring. People just fly around camping at gates hoping for hours that some poor guy will come through.
PvP is never going to appeal to some people. But to do it to appeal to the most, it simply needs to have a couple of qualities: small penalties for death and an even playing field. That's why online FPS's are popular. In general it is a fair fight with a simple respawn.
Man, what is wrong with you? Something good happens for Linux and you still have to make a negative out of it. This site is moving from technology enthusiasts to depressing old whiners that can't be happy about anything. I pity your sad little life.
Probably the least interesting part is the algorithm to play Tetris. Could you do a better job in a day? Maybe. The interesting part is the DSP/robot aspect of it. Anyone can write a program to play checkers or chess or whatever. Getting the program to rely on external sensors and be able to manipulate its environment...now that's cool.
I know you are trying to be funny. But you bring up an interesting point. Us gamers are going to say games are art. But what about reality shows? Maybe people who really like them would consider them art. Now try to argue why reality shows aren't art. Suddenly you are in Ebert's position.
The guy doesn't want to make a philosophical point. He just wants to gain karma for saying something everyone on here who has read for the last month already knows.
Why do we have to have someone like you on every copyright post. Yeah, we know it isn't literally theft. But it is easy to say stealing that it is to say copyright infringing. You are utilizing something that you should be paying for, but you are not. It's close enough to "stealing" for every normal person out there.
You may think you are clever or that you are being informative but you really aren't. All you are doing is detracting from the discussion by being pedantic.
No one was trying to be disingenuous except maybe you. Instead of actually debating the issue you want to cry about terminology. Grow up.
Somewhere along the line, Slashdot changed from a news for nerds site to news for "Nerds who are so smart that everything sucks and you better agree with my Libertarian views or get off my lawn" site.
I think they haven't updated it because the former is more catchy.
I'd normally agree with you, but this is a different case. You lose PSN access if you decide you want to keep a feature that Sony advertised. It's fine, they can do what they want on their network. If they want to ban hackers or pirates, I have little pity. But you can either update and lose a feature that was advertised or not update and lost a major functionality of the PS3. Neither is a good option for the consumer and Sony should have the crap sued out of them for this.
Congratulations on linking something completely unrelated to what I am talking about! I was talking about government regulation of business. Is that an index of that? No. Oh well, try again.
Hey, it's the conservative types that love to blow the crap out of people. Besides, your point is stupid since so many wars are fought for oil. Is it government or capitalism when the oil companies pay off so many? I guess there was no capitalism involved with Haliburton getting a no-bid contract out there. The thing you don't get is that government and business is so intertwined, you don't know which is which. The government is capable of great good and great evil. So is capitalism. So excuse me if I don't mind when the government regulates Internet use but I do mind when we decide to kill people. Seriously, it is like debating with 2 year olds. A bunch of noise and nothing but what you hear grown ups tell you on the tv back.
I so agree. I wish people would analyze what they mean instead of having this mindset of Capitalism vs. Socialism. How slow can people be to not understand that our government is a blend of these isms and it can be a good thing when done correctly.
Why would you draw the line on "only things that kill you" should be regulated? So it is ok for a corporation to rape and torture someone without government intervention?
This is what I mean when I say you are blinded by your ideology. The Internet is build upon government infrastructure. Of course this should be regulated. The Internet is a wonderful tool to provide education to so many people. Why should we allow corporations to only give us the news they want us to see or only allows us to touch certain parts of the net if we pay a subscription to see those parts? It makes no sense to let Comcast control something that was provided by the government. Your arbitrary lines of where the government should and should not play shows your inability to logically think about the situation.
Your assumption is completely wrong. I am all for capitalism. Unregulated capitalism is stupid and bad for the consumer. That's why you need anti-collusion and anti-monopoly laws. Clearly you don't have a clue what you are talking about. All governments are a blend of -isms. The right balance matters. You can have capitalism and government regulations and it be a net positive for society when too much of either and you have a disaster.
So we declare them out of compliance of the non-proliferation treaty and we can use nukes. If it came to something like that, we would find a way to use what we had. All these things are more symbolic in nature. You can go back to worrying about getting your sound card drivers working. (I kid! at least the last line I do)
It's profitable because the artists have major labels behind them that make it financially more beneficial for them to play their crap rather than indy crap. Just look at the political radio scene. All the powerful antennas are owned by corporations that want to push out the anti-government, pro-business agenda. Then they say that conservative radio is more popular since more people listen while liberal radio is put on weak antennas. It's government airwaves being used against itself. I suppose that is a bit amusing...but when business own government I guess it doesn't matter much.
How in the heck can you call the situation that the cable companies are in the "crazy libertarian way"? The crazy libertarian way wouldn't have a nation-wide Internet. You would have state Internet and maybe they would connect to other states but it wouldn't work very well because we would all have our own state protocols. Eh, forget that, the libertarian way wouldn't even have the Internet. We'd all be running around with guns trying to keep Texas from taking over the continent.
Slashdot Mirror
So don't buy it. And do us a favor, and don't read about it. If you already know you aren't going to get it, why post in every thread about it? Yeah, we know you feel self righteous because your principles are so much higher than everyone else. We disagree...and the sutff Blizzard is doing isn't a big deal. I don't feel like a criminal. I feel excited to continue a story I loved over 10 years ago.
Clearly games aren't important to you. It is just espousing Slashdot group-think to gain karma or have like minded people telling you how right you are.
I'm sorry, but you are full of crap.
The stuff Blizzard did in the past was completely reasonable if you look at the reality of the situation rather than the polarized slashdot group-think that is shoved down your throat. And even if you count that, how old is Starcraft? Right...and they are still supporting it today. So your analogy with Ubisoft fails in so many ways.
No, not having LAN play isn't a lighter version of that DRM, and no, it does not lead to always be connected. You sound like a stupid gun nut complaining that if the government bans the right for civilians to own rocket launchers its next move will be to ban all knives.
Blizzard has worked very hard to produce solid games that are always polished better than any other game. You can now upload keys from your old games to the Battle.net website and always have access to download and play your games on any computer. They do more than any other game company to earn our dollars and you are too stupid to realize it because of it lacking a feature that you probably won't even notice isn't there.
You guys complain about everything. Maybe you are too old for gaming now and should just sit on your front porch drinking beer with your buddies and whine about kids these days.
Dear sir, you have no idea what you are talking about. Please learn to shut your mouth, lest your ignorance be shown to the world.
I hope I die before I become as cynical as you.
Yeah, but who would actually know that? Usually, if you have a "show", when you are interviewed off that show, you show who you really are. If he is acting, he is doing it 24/7. Maybe he knows a lot about history...but his grasp of what history means and how it applies today would get an F- by any reasonable historian.
Just because you say things, doesn't make it true. Pretty much everyone I know like Stewart and they are all well educated, non-drug using people. My PhD physicist dad likes him. So no, your first theory is a way the right try to dismiss his popularity, but it isn't true.
The Daily Show has always been about making fun of the news. It does it well. People are taking it more seriously because they realize he asks better questions than the "real" news stations. He points out the stupid things people do and gives a more accurate portrayal of what is really happening all while being funny. Does he make more fun of the right than the left? Heck yes. But the right is much easier to make fun of because they love really dumb people. Example: Palin.
Colbert is also quite amusing. He plays the part so well there are many conservatives that watch him and agree with him and don't have the slightest clue that he is making fun of them.
I imagine it is offensive to people who have been brain washed that one way is the right way. But for those of us who enjoy seeing hypocrites and liars being called out, it's good fun.
Uh, no. That's a load of crap. The only time people say anything like that is in regards to Steam. I have never seen the opinion that when MS took down its live service on the original xbox that they were going to open things up.
So stop making stuff up so that you could feel smug.
Yet Blizzard still supports Starcraft. So they don't have to stop supporting it so soon. Heck, all they need to do is give the power for users to run dedicated servers and let them shoulder the expense. It's the right thing to do.
Eh, all these ideas that people throw out on solving PvP are always dumb. If you get to be powerful after you die, then people will just purposely die to become more powerful.
PvP in MMOs is not popular for a lot of different reasons. Some people don't like PvP. Generally, one person has a huge advantage over another based on gear. For Eve, it is that there are fairly harsh consequences to death that encourages people to stack the deck so that a normal player doesn't even have a chance as they warp in to a swarm. This causes people to take less risk and make PvP boring. People just fly around camping at gates hoping for hours that some poor guy will come through.
PvP is never going to appeal to some people. But to do it to appeal to the most, it simply needs to have a couple of qualities: small penalties for death and an even playing field. That's why online FPS's are popular. In general it is a fair fight with a simple respawn.
Man, what is wrong with you? Something good happens for Linux and you still have to make a negative out of it. This site is moving from technology enthusiasts to depressing old whiners that can't be happy about anything. I pity your sad little life.
Probably the least interesting part is the algorithm to play Tetris. Could you do a better job in a day? Maybe. The interesting part is the DSP/robot aspect of it. Anyone can write a program to play checkers or chess or whatever. Getting the program to rely on external sensors and be able to manipulate its environment...now that's cool.
I know you are trying to be funny. But you bring up an interesting point. Us gamers are going to say games are art. But what about reality shows? Maybe people who really like them would consider them art. Now try to argue why reality shows aren't art. Suddenly you are in Ebert's position.
Nor would I really consider it art. And you can win at it in some aspects...for example the disc competitions.
The guy doesn't want to make a philosophical point. He just wants to gain karma for saying something everyone on here who has read for the last month already knows.
Why do we have to have someone like you on every copyright post. Yeah, we know it isn't literally theft. But it is easy to say stealing that it is to say copyright infringing. You are utilizing something that you should be paying for, but you are not. It's close enough to "stealing" for every normal person out there.
You may think you are clever or that you are being informative but you really aren't. All you are doing is detracting from the discussion by being pedantic.
No one was trying to be disingenuous except maybe you. Instead of actually debating the issue you want to cry about terminology. Grow up.
Somewhere along the line, Slashdot changed from a news for nerds site to news for "Nerds who are so smart that everything sucks and you better agree with my Libertarian views or get off my lawn" site.
I think they haven't updated it because the former is more catchy.
I'd normally agree with you, but this is a different case. You lose PSN access if you decide you want to keep a feature that Sony advertised. It's fine, they can do what they want on their network. If they want to ban hackers or pirates, I have little pity. But you can either update and lose a feature that was advertised or not update and lost a major functionality of the PS3. Neither is a good option for the consumer and Sony should have the crap sued out of them for this.
Congratulations on linking something completely unrelated to what I am talking about! I was talking about government regulation of business. Is that an index of that? No. Oh well, try again.
Hey, it's the conservative types that love to blow the crap out of people. Besides, your point is stupid since so many wars are fought for oil. Is it government or capitalism when the oil companies pay off so many? I guess there was no capitalism involved with Haliburton getting a no-bid contract out there. The thing you don't get is that government and business is so intertwined, you don't know which is which. The government is capable of great good and great evil. So is capitalism. So excuse me if I don't mind when the government regulates Internet use but I do mind when we decide to kill people. Seriously, it is like debating with 2 year olds. A bunch of noise and nothing but what you hear grown ups tell you on the tv back.
So it ok if companies poison us, drug us, etc? Silly. Unrealistic. Your worship of capitalism is foolish.
I so agree. I wish people would analyze what they mean instead of having this mindset of Capitalism vs. Socialism. How slow can people be to not understand that our government is a blend of these isms and it can be a good thing when done correctly.
Why would you draw the line on "only things that kill you" should be regulated? So it is ok for a corporation to rape and torture someone without government intervention?
This is what I mean when I say you are blinded by your ideology. The Internet is build upon government infrastructure. Of course this should be regulated. The Internet is a wonderful tool to provide education to so many people. Why should we allow corporations to only give us the news they want us to see or only allows us to touch certain parts of the net if we pay a subscription to see those parts? It makes no sense to let Comcast control something that was provided by the government. Your arbitrary lines of where the government should and should not play shows your inability to logically think about the situation.
Your assumption is completely wrong. I am all for capitalism. Unregulated capitalism is stupid and bad for the consumer. That's why you need anti-collusion and anti-monopoly laws. Clearly you don't have a clue what you are talking about. All governments are a blend of -isms. The right balance matters. You can have capitalism and government regulations and it be a net positive for society when too much of either and you have a disaster.
So we declare them out of compliance of the non-proliferation treaty and we can use nukes. If it came to something like that, we would find a way to use what we had. All these things are more symbolic in nature. You can go back to worrying about getting your sound card drivers working. (I kid! at least the last line I do)
It's profitable because the artists have major labels behind them that make it financially more beneficial for them to play their crap rather than indy crap. Just look at the political radio scene. All the powerful antennas are owned by corporations that want to push out the anti-government, pro-business agenda. Then they say that conservative radio is more popular since more people listen while liberal radio is put on weak antennas. It's government airwaves being used against itself. I suppose that is a bit amusing...but when business own government I guess it doesn't matter much.
How in the heck can you call the situation that the cable companies are in the "crazy libertarian way"? The crazy libertarian way wouldn't have a nation-wide Internet. You would have state Internet and maybe they would connect to other states but it wouldn't work very well because we would all have our own state protocols. Eh, forget that, the libertarian way wouldn't even have the Internet. We'd all be running around with guns trying to keep Texas from taking over the continent.