Makes me wonder if he really IS a "programmer" and not just a "HTML/CSS" scripter. You would be surprised at how many HTML/CSS monkeys, calls themselves "programmers" these days.
We have had the same problem in Denmark previously (site not being able to cope, not the wrong identity problem). This year they introduced a new queue system, which actually seemed to work.
You were put in queue for a few mins, and no one seemed to have problems with site not responding and the likes. Sure, you might have to wait a few mins in queue, but at least you knew you're turn were up soon, as opposed to not knowing when the site is ready to handle the traffic.
On screen buttons or wheels take care of the hot-keys problem. There is a "dungeon hack'n'slash" similar to Diablo on the iPad, that apparently is quite well build for that sort of input.
Don't forget, though, that even though Blizzard are denying it, Diablo 3 is prepared for console/tablets. It was obvious with the changes they made.
This is actually want impress me the must. My smartphone (HTC Desire) have more computing power, than my PC I used back in 1994 did.
If I were in one of those bad "time traveller" movies, and brought my cellphone, they wouldn't believe I only came from 18 years in the future with the amount of power my cellphone have.
Well, usually you're innocent until proven guilty, so I guess they'd have to proof you didn't forget and are actually withholding it. But how do you ever prove something like that?
There's lots of passwords I can't remember on the top of my head, I got password managers to take care of obscure passwords. If it was me, I'd would genuinely say I wouldn't know the password.
No amount of threat, pressure or even torture would make me give up a password I don't know.
All the people I know installed Chrome for one entirely different reason: Speed. Chrome is so much faster than Firefox and doesn't use nearly as many resources.
The game-play is.. well, MW. Not much have changed, a few new game modes and so on.
I won't comment of the actual game-play, but I do have a huge beef with MW3:
Matchmaking.
What...the...fuck... is IW thinking? After all the crap they got from MW2's matchmaking and lack of dedicated servers, they fuck people over AGAIN with the same P2P matchmaking, but with a twist. They gave us dedicated servers. UNRANKED.
Why can't they do it like BO? That worked perfectly. Ranked dedicated servers.
Why do we have to endure this P2P Matchmaking if we don't want to? Already in my second round, there was huge host advantages, everyone else "was 3 bars or less" (again, ignored the community asking for a real ms indicator).
Fine, I get it. On unranked dedicated servers, we can control everything. Server admins can decide which unlocks you get, or let you progress normally (only on that server of course).
But please, COD is about the progression, why take that away on dedicated servers?
Sorry if this comes off as bitter, but I kind of am.
Eventually, when people have progressed through the first few prestiges, it probably won't matter any more, as they won't care about progression and will must likely end up on a handful of dedicated servers where they've gotten to know people and the server settings and rules are to their liking.
Google have used types of desserts as naming scheme for Android since 1.5 (April 2009), and I can't see a problem with it.
No one is forcing you to use the names, however. If you need to have a meeting with your bosses, feel free to use the actual version number, which is 4.0 for Ice cream Sandwich.
A lot of software use naming schemes, it's very common in OSS community.
There is a reason for that closed distribution service.
The console makers (Sony, MS, etc) doesn't make money on the consoles themselves for a long period of time doing their life-cycle, they get the bulk of the income from software sold on their distributions service and psychical game sales.
If they spend a huge amount of money developing the console hardware, it doesn't make sense to allow third party distribution services on their consoles. Which is also why they are locked down so tight, unauthorized third party distributions is even worse.
I, however, do appreciate the sentiment from Valve, I'm just afraid it isn't realistic.
The only alternative I see, is if they started to licence third party distribution services, but that kinda defeats the entire "open" point.
Maybe Valve comes up with a cheap way to produce the hardware and also keep it compatible with regular PC games. I'm not just talking architecture, like the Xbox360 (x86), I'm talking direct compatibility with PC Games, with a specific controller scheme attached. That way, it's pretty much a PC-in-a-box (using a term to make the point, I know a console is already a PC-in-a-box, strictly speaking), where the only requirement to the game is that is has some sort of compatible controller scheme for the console controllers. And of course, the minimum requirements with whatever hardware is in it.
My post is getting rather lengthy, and I could go on, but I suppose I've included enough to get my point across.
Slashdot Mirror
Makes me wonder if he really IS a "programmer" and not just a "HTML/CSS" scripter.
You would be surprised at how many HTML/CSS monkeys, calls themselves "programmers" these days.
We have had the same problem in Denmark previously (site not being able to cope, not the wrong identity problem).
This year they introduced a new queue system, which actually seemed to work.
You were put in queue for a few mins, and no one seemed to have problems with site not responding and the likes.
Sure, you might have to wait a few mins in queue, but at least you knew you're turn were up soon, as opposed to not knowing when the site is ready to handle the traffic.
I never for the life of me understood, why they didn't just keep PvP and PvE separate in WoW.
When you enter Arena/BG, your skill trees are tweaked for PvP.
Outside of Arena/BG, your skills are tweaed for PvE.
Why is that so hard?
They pretty much killed world PvP anyway, when they introduced BGs.
This.
And more this.
People, you don't need to keep clicking, hold down the mouse button.
On screen buttons or wheels take care of the hot-keys problem.
There is a "dungeon hack'n'slash" similar to Diablo on the iPad, that apparently is quite well build for that sort of input.
Don't forget, though, that even though Blizzard are denying it, Diablo 3 is prepared for console/tablets.
It was obvious with the changes they made.
Wooooosh
Oh please, you couldn't figure out on your own, that I meant "what"?
This is actually want impress me the must.
My smartphone (HTC Desire) have more computing power, than my PC I used back in 1994 did.
If I were in one of those bad "time traveller" movies, and brought my cellphone, they wouldn't believe I only came from 18 years in the future with the amount of power my cellphone have.
Well, usually you're innocent until proven guilty, so I guess they'd have to proof you didn't forget and are actually withholding it.
But how do you ever prove something like that?
There's lots of passwords I can't remember on the top of my head, I got password managers to take care of obscure passwords.
If it was me, I'd would genuinely say I wouldn't know the password.
No amount of threat, pressure or even torture would make me give up a password I don't know.
Blizzard said Diablo 3 is PvE focused and they will not balance to PvP.
But they said a lot of things...
So did I.
All the people I know installed Chrome for one entirely different reason: Speed.
Chrome is so much faster than Firefox and doesn't use nearly as many resources.
I see what you did there.
woooosh
2 very different games, I don't understand why people compare them in the first place.
The game-play is.. well, MW.
Not much have changed, a few new game modes and so on.
I won't comment of the actual game-play, but I do have a huge beef with MW3:
Matchmaking.
What...the...fuck... is IW thinking?
After all the crap they got from MW2's matchmaking and lack of dedicated servers, they fuck people over AGAIN with the same P2P matchmaking, but with a twist.
They gave us dedicated servers. UNRANKED.
Why can't they do it like BO? That worked perfectly.
Ranked dedicated servers.
Why do we have to endure this P2P Matchmaking if we don't want to?
Already in my second round, there was huge host advantages, everyone else "was 3 bars or less" (again, ignored the community asking for a real ms indicator).
Fine, I get it. On unranked dedicated servers, we can control everything.
Server admins can decide which unlocks you get, or let you progress normally (only on that server of course).
But please, COD is about the progression, why take that away on dedicated servers?
Sorry if this comes off as bitter, but I kind of am.
Eventually, when people have progressed through the first few prestiges, it probably won't matter any more, as they won't care about progression and will must likely end up on a handful of dedicated servers where they've gotten to know people and the server settings and rules are to their liking.
+1 funny.
Made me laugh at least.
Neither does jumping.
I never said he was a good person, sorry to burst YOUR bubble.
I think he's an ass.
Don't assume what I think.
However, I don't think he raped those women, reading all the material online.
So you don't care someone is being railroaded on bogus accusations?
Google have used types of desserts as naming scheme for Android since 1.5 (April 2009), and I can't see a problem with it.
No one is forcing you to use the names, however.
If you need to have a meeting with your bosses, feel free to use the actual version number, which is 4.0 for Ice cream Sandwich.
A lot of software use naming schemes, it's very common in OSS community.
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Hogel
You can't BUY anything from those implementation.
The Portal 2 for PS3 links your PSN account to your Steam account, that's pretty much it.
You can't download a steam client for PS3 and buy Portal 2, the Steam functionality comes when you buy the game.
Fair enough, my mistake.
There is a reason for that closed distribution service.
The console makers (Sony, MS, etc) doesn't make money on the consoles themselves for a long period of time doing their life-cycle, they get the bulk of the income from software sold on their distributions service and psychical game sales.
If they spend a huge amount of money developing the console hardware, it doesn't make sense to allow third party distribution services on their consoles.
Which is also why they are locked down so tight, unauthorized third party distributions is even worse.
I, however, do appreciate the sentiment from Valve, I'm just afraid it isn't realistic.
The only alternative I see, is if they started to licence third party distribution services, but that kinda defeats the entire "open" point.
Maybe Valve comes up with a cheap way to produce the hardware and also keep it compatible with regular PC games. I'm not just talking architecture, like the Xbox360 (x86), I'm talking direct compatibility with PC Games, with a specific controller scheme attached.
That way, it's pretty much a PC-in-a-box (using a term to make the point, I know a console is already a PC-in-a-box, strictly speaking), where the only requirement to the game is that is has some sort of compatible controller scheme for the console controllers.
And of course, the minimum requirements with whatever hardware is in it.
My post is getting rather lengthy, and I could go on, but I suppose I've included enough to get my point across.