I just wish Apple was more like Google. It's like Hitler is slowly being over taken by Darth Vader. Sure, you don't have concentration camps, but there is that death star issue.
Your post is just a long-winded way of saying PC gaming is dying which quite frankly is a load of crap.
Do people with Macs have more money or just more debt? Macs don't tend to come with very powerful video cards. For the same price, you can get a PC that is much more powerful. There are still more games out there for the PC. Plenty of games that are on the 360 are on Windows as well. Some of them, like Dragon Age Origins have compelling reason why the PC will be a better experience. Do you really think piracy won't be a problem on the Macs? All of a sudden these hackers who can break any DRM known to man will be helpless against the power of Mac security? You have been drinking way too much of the kool aid my friend.
I am not anti-Mac. I think it is great that Steam is doing this. But you gotta keep your fanboism under control. No one thinks you are special other than people with Macs and your Mom. And Apple is about as evil as a company can get. I still love my iPod Touch though:)
I agree. Though I think it should just have a cd key and that should be enough. Save money on not developing complicated DRM and still stop the non-techs from pirating.
Your view is the popular one here. And certainly over restrictive DRM is going to lose customers. But I think it should be pointed out that you have absolutely no idea how DRM effects sales. You can't know if someone would just decide to buy a game if they couldn't get a pirated copy. Just as I can't know if the company didn't use DRM that people would buy the game. Sure, you can get a few anecdotal things on Slashdot of people claiming they would. But it really seems that most of the piracy crowd on here are ready to get pissed at anything minor to justify not paying for stuff.
Obviously, the claims of game companies losing millions of dollars due to piracy are false. But you stating that DRM won't cause some people to buy the game that otherwise wouldn't is also garbage.
I swear though, every DRM article is the same on here. Someone needs to just compile all the +5 posts on here and put it in one post. Slashdot mods the same things up every time despite all the intellectual dishonesty in them.
It's simple. People aren't checking mail on a server. They are designed to be secure. People using Windows are using it as their home computer and clicking on all kinds of e-mail attachment and websites. Completely different user model.
My blah blah blah wasn't hand waving what you were saying away, it was that while you write a lot, you aren't really making any point that matters. But let me address why I think this...I honestly am not trying to be flamebait.
I disagree with your assertion that a company (millionaires or not) can create a perfectly secure OS. Linux is not secure. Macs are not secure. 7 has actually made a lot of effort at being more secure. But as long as you are connected to a network, you are vulnerable. I don't care how good your coders or how much money you have, for a computer to function, there are going to be vulnerabilities. That's why if people really want to secure their data, they have stand alone networks.
Can MS do a better job? Sure. Is it the garbage that Slasdotters like to claim? Not at all. It isn't the most ubiquitous OS ever because it does everything poorly.
Ok, so your main point is that Windows users are dumb for using Windows and they deserve to be infected with malware. As a security researcher, this strikes me as extremely naive. Any OS that gains a majority of the marketshare is going to be a prime target. And if you are honest, the way most computer are infected are through social engineering. I.e. making people click on stuff they shouldn't click on. Users are going to always be the weak point of the system regardless of OS. Windows is targeted because it has the most users and the majority of business is conducted on windows so it is going to be a target. If Linux takes over, I guarantee you will see that issue.
I find your view that you shouldn't care about people to be a bit sad. Your argument is similar to saying "well, she dressed slutty, she deserved to be raped." Yeah, you don't use Windows, so you don't care. Great. A lot of people do. What is the best way to deal with vulnerabilities on any platform? Just release it to the public and let the hackers go crazy with it? That sure puts pressure on the company to patch it, but it leaves people vulnerable until they are able to find the best way to fix it. Or you can tell the company privately there is a problem and hope they fix it. But we know that doesn't put much pressure. So, as I stated, a common sense approach would be to tell them privately and then release it publicly after a reasonable amount of time.
Your argument about not caring about Windows users because they should be putting market pressure on MS to change is just fantasy. It isn't going to happen. I am a factual person as well and I am dealing in reality. People are going to be use Windows no matter how much you say they shouldn't. You are debating whether people should be using Windows...which just isn't realistic. They are going to be using it. So we get back to the real debate which is how to disclose vulnerabilities.
Not really. Considering there are actually statistics showing violent crimes going down since video games have become popular, their conclusions don't make sense. Also, there are obvious flaws with their methodology.
Fox News wants you to believe that human actions has no effect on the environment. Fairly different.
I didn't RTFA, so not sure how outrageous their claims are. But isn't something like gravity conclusively proven? If we can't conclusively prove anything, does that mean that we know nothing?
Morons. Seriously, what good is going to come of it? Acting like a bunch of juveniles is the reason we have DRM in the first place. Just don't buy the game. It is both effective and legal.
Consoles are a very restrictive form of DRM. Fortunately, they have upsides (like the things you pointed out) as well. It's the DRM that adds value (such as steam) that will be the successful model.
I think the answer is simple. We all knew the Spore DRM was going to be terrible. I decided not to buy it because of that.
The honest truth is that as much as Slashdot complains, they have no idea how much DRM changes how a game is sold. They want to believe that less people buy the game when it has DRM, but I haven't seen any real evidence to support those claims.
One thing that blows me away is for Slashdotter to encourage downloading and installing executables from strangers. Sure, you deleted it, but what else is left over? Was it really worth risking your bank account or personal information over?
So really, just look at reviews, if they go too far with DRM, don't buy it. If it is acceptable, support the developers who make something you enjoy. Of course, if everyone was like me, there would be no DRM, because I play by the rules. The pirates don't, and so we are all stuck with the aftermath.
Oh, you are so full of crap. Not all DRM is like that. Why are you getting on this guy when you have no idea what kind of DRM he uses? Yes, AC2 goes too far. But you aren't being treated like a criminal.
"Oh my god, my bank made me show my id. They treat me like a criminal!"
I like a lot of games. I tend to go for more of the games you talk about. Something that has an interesting battle system and a deep plot that can explore multiple characters. I wouldn't really say that was "adult" though. I liked that type of game since I was a kid.
As far as the article goes, I don't necessarily agree. We are given books in high school like "Of Mice and Men" that are pretty screwed up. Can you imagine a video game like that being approved for Teens? There is a double standard that goes in to it. Maybe since it is interactive? I am not sure, but literature and games aren't treated the same. Great literature is something that moves you and persists as being great for generations. Games are really new...what would be a classic? Starcraft, I suppose? Will Halo stand the test of time? (I doubt it) A great game doesn't need a story. I can play counter strike all day and have fun, but I don't think my life is enriched by it. There is no story other than "You know that one round when it was me on 5 and I won? Oh yeah, that was sweet."
Well, I am kind of rambling, but I think gaming is still finding itself as an entertainment media. I believe it can take on any subject in literature and movies. I believe, in the future, the games that last will be the ones that move us the most. I could see the great games of the past being remade with updated graphics to be introduced to a new audience. So that my children's children can get completely pissed off when *super old spoiler alert* Sepheroth kills Aerith and you play the rest of the damn game trying to bring her back to life because you leveled her and she was really cute. It's funny, I still remember the way I felt when it happened. Obviously, as an adult, I might perceive it as something less than what it meant to me then. But I still think it would be interesting to see how my kids and their kids would react. I think it would be more accessible if they remade it on modern systems. Then again, people still read Shakespere.
Well, you could look at Mac's history and see how being a closed platform and controlling anything almost destroyed the company. It wasn't that long ago to already forget.
Can't people just be excited about a game without your ideology being inserted everywhere? If you chose Linux, you probably shouldn't bother with the games section. Others of us can run both Linux and Windows or whatever else and not worry about such things. It's great that you can save time, but I consider all those games time well spent.
I am sure there is a big community that likes the mods. But I honestly don't care, I enjoy the base game enough that I could care less what the mod community does with it. So it won't lose my purchase if it isn't moddable.
You wrote a lot but you make it overly complex. It isn't, it is very simple.
When people by new games, the game company gets money. When people by used games, the game company doesn't get money. How you want to define harming is up to you, but the above it a fact. So they came up with a scheme where they can make money off of those used sales now. IANAL, but they sell you a license to use the game...not the game itself. They can legally charge whatever they want because you are exchanging a license. They can just say certain parts of the license doesn't transfer and make the other person pay.
Slashdot Mirror
I just wish Apple was more like Google. It's like Hitler is slowly being over taken by Darth Vader. Sure, you don't have concentration camps, but there is that death star issue.
Stop complaining. You got Tux Racer. That should be enough for anyone!
Your post is just a long-winded way of saying PC gaming is dying which quite frankly is a load of crap.
:)
Do people with Macs have more money or just more debt? Macs don't tend to come with very powerful video cards. For the same price, you can get a PC that is much more powerful. There are still more games out there for the PC. Plenty of games that are on the 360 are on Windows as well. Some of them, like Dragon Age Origins have compelling reason why the PC will be a better experience. Do you really think piracy won't be a problem on the Macs? All of a sudden these hackers who can break any DRM known to man will be helpless against the power of Mac security? You have been drinking way too much of the kool aid my friend.
I am not anti-Mac. I think it is great that Steam is doing this. But you gotta keep your fanboism under control. No one thinks you are special other than people with Macs and your Mom. And Apple is about as evil as a company can get. I still love my iPod Touch though
I am sure it will be. I remember playing HL2 Ep2 and there being something in there with Aperture Science in there. So it is in the same universe.
I can't even remember what happened at the end of Episode 2 any more. :(
Because its awesomeness can't be contained in just one game.
I agree. Though I think it should just have a cd key and that should be enough. Save money on not developing complicated DRM and still stop the non-techs from pirating.
Your view is the popular one here. And certainly over restrictive DRM is going to lose customers. But I think it should be pointed out that you have absolutely no idea how DRM effects sales. You can't know if someone would just decide to buy a game if they couldn't get a pirated copy. Just as I can't know if the company didn't use DRM that people would buy the game. Sure, you can get a few anecdotal things on Slashdot of people claiming they would. But it really seems that most of the piracy crowd on here are ready to get pissed at anything minor to justify not paying for stuff.
Obviously, the claims of game companies losing millions of dollars due to piracy are false. But you stating that DRM won't cause some people to buy the game that otherwise wouldn't is also garbage.
I swear though, every DRM article is the same on here. Someone needs to just compile all the +5 posts on here and put it in one post. Slashdot mods the same things up every time despite all the intellectual dishonesty in them.
It's simple. People aren't checking mail on a server. They are designed to be secure. People using Windows are using it as their home computer and clicking on all kinds of e-mail attachment and websites. Completely different user model.
My blah blah blah wasn't hand waving what you were saying away, it was that while you write a lot, you aren't really making any point that matters. But let me address why I think this...I honestly am not trying to be flamebait.
I disagree with your assertion that a company (millionaires or not) can create a perfectly secure OS. Linux is not secure. Macs are not secure. 7 has actually made a lot of effort at being more secure. But as long as you are connected to a network, you are vulnerable. I don't care how good your coders or how much money you have, for a computer to function, there are going to be vulnerabilities. That's why if people really want to secure their data, they have stand alone networks.
Can MS do a better job? Sure. Is it the garbage that Slasdotters like to claim? Not at all. It isn't the most ubiquitous OS ever because it does everything poorly.
Ok, so your main point is that Windows users are dumb for using Windows and they deserve to be infected with malware. As a security researcher, this strikes me as extremely naive. Any OS that gains a majority of the marketshare is going to be a prime target. And if you are honest, the way most computer are infected are through social engineering. I.e. making people click on stuff they shouldn't click on. Users are going to always be the weak point of the system regardless of OS. Windows is targeted because it has the most users and the majority of business is conducted on windows so it is going to be a target. If Linux takes over, I guarantee you will see that issue.
I find your view that you shouldn't care about people to be a bit sad. Your argument is similar to saying "well, she dressed slutty, she deserved to be raped." Yeah, you don't use Windows, so you don't care. Great. A lot of people do. What is the best way to deal with vulnerabilities on any platform? Just release it to the public and let the hackers go crazy with it? That sure puts pressure on the company to patch it, but it leaves people vulnerable until they are able to find the best way to fix it. Or you can tell the company privately there is a problem and hope they fix it. But we know that doesn't put much pressure. So, as I stated, a common sense approach would be to tell them privately and then release it publicly after a reasonable amount of time.
Your argument about not caring about Windows users because they should be putting market pressure on MS to change is just fantasy. It isn't going to happen. I am a factual person as well and I am dealing in reality. People are going to be use Windows no matter how much you say they shouldn't. You are debating whether people should be using Windows...which just isn't realistic. They are going to be using it. So we get back to the real debate which is how to disclose vulnerabilities.
Sheesh, blah blah blah. What your parent said isn't a talking point. His point was much better than yours in less words.
All a researcher has to do is notify MS. Give them a reasonable amount of time that you clearly specify(say a month) and then publicly disclose it.
Your disdain of MS shouldn't erode your common sense.
Not really. Considering there are actually statistics showing violent crimes going down since video games have become popular, their conclusions don't make sense. Also, there are obvious flaws with their methodology.
Fox News wants you to believe that human actions has no effect on the environment. Fairly different.
I didn't RTFA, so not sure how outrageous their claims are. But isn't something like gravity conclusively proven? If we can't conclusively prove anything, does that mean that we know nothing?
Morons. Seriously, what good is going to come of it? Acting like a bunch of juveniles is the reason we have DRM in the first place. Just don't buy the game. It is both effective and legal.
Consoles are a very restrictive form of DRM. Fortunately, they have upsides (like the things you pointed out) as well. It's the DRM that adds value (such as steam) that will be the successful model.
I think the answer is simple. We all knew the Spore DRM was going to be terrible. I decided not to buy it because of that.
The honest truth is that as much as Slashdot complains, they have no idea how much DRM changes how a game is sold. They want to believe that less people buy the game when it has DRM, but I haven't seen any real evidence to support those claims.
One thing that blows me away is for Slashdotter to encourage downloading and installing executables from strangers. Sure, you deleted it, but what else is left over? Was it really worth risking your bank account or personal information over?
So really, just look at reviews, if they go too far with DRM, don't buy it. If it is acceptable, support the developers who make something you enjoy. Of course, if everyone was like me, there would be no DRM, because I play by the rules. The pirates don't, and so we are all stuck with the aftermath.
Oh, you are so full of crap. Not all DRM is like that. Why are you getting on this guy when you have no idea what kind of DRM he uses? Yes, AC2 goes too far. But you aren't being treated like a criminal.
"Oh my god, my bank made me show my id. They treat me like a criminal!"
I like a lot of games. I tend to go for more of the games you talk about. Something that has an interesting battle system and a deep plot that can explore multiple characters. I wouldn't really say that was "adult" though. I liked that type of game since I was a kid.
As far as the article goes, I don't necessarily agree. We are given books in high school like "Of Mice and Men" that are pretty screwed up. Can you imagine a video game like that being approved for Teens? There is a double standard that goes in to it. Maybe since it is interactive? I am not sure, but literature and games aren't treated the same. Great literature is something that moves you and persists as being great for generations. Games are really new...what would be a classic? Starcraft, I suppose? Will Halo stand the test of time? (I doubt it) A great game doesn't need a story. I can play counter strike all day and have fun, but I don't think my life is enriched by it. There is no story other than "You know that one round when it was me on 5 and I won? Oh yeah, that was sweet."
Well, I am kind of rambling, but I think gaming is still finding itself as an entertainment media. I believe it can take on any subject in literature and movies. I believe, in the future, the games that last will be the ones that move us the most. I could see the great games of the past being remade with updated graphics to be introduced to a new audience. So that my children's children can get completely pissed off when *super old spoiler alert* Sepheroth kills Aerith and you play the rest of the damn game trying to bring her back to life because you leveled her and she was really cute. It's funny, I still remember the way I felt when it happened. Obviously, as an adult, I might perceive it as something less than what it meant to me then. But I still think it would be interesting to see how my kids and their kids would react. I think it would be more accessible if they remade it on modern systems. Then again, people still read Shakespere.
How is it unhealthy?
Well, you could look at Mac's history and see how being a closed platform and controlling anything almost destroyed the company. It wasn't that long ago to already forget.
Can't people just be excited about a game without your ideology being inserted everywhere? If you chose Linux, you probably shouldn't bother with the games section. Others of us can run both Linux and Windows or whatever else and not worry about such things. It's great that you can save time, but I consider all those games time well spent.
Are they made of squares?
I am sure there is a big community that likes the mods. But I honestly don't care, I enjoy the base game enough that I could care less what the mod community does with it. So it won't lose my purchase if it isn't moddable.
You wrote a lot but you make it overly complex. It isn't, it is very simple.
When people by new games, the game company gets money. When people by used games, the game company doesn't get money. How you want to define harming is up to you, but the above it a fact. So they came up with a scheme where they can make money off of those used sales now. IANAL, but they sell you a license to use the game...not the game itself. They can legally charge whatever they want because you are exchanging a license. They can just say certain parts of the license doesn't transfer and make the other person pay.
So buy the games that give you the features you want and don't buy the games that don't.