It honestly don't look too much more advanced than Titan's Quest. I'm willing to bet money that at the very least, they'll make this game compatible with DirectX 8 users.
If they allowed for mouse and keyboard support on a console, those FPS's would be so god damn easy that people would actually complain and stop buying their craptacular games. People would be forced to realize how easy those games were, and the only challenge to them is the control scheme. Not withstanding that, if only some people have a mouse and keyboard setup, the ones that did would rape every single person who didn't when playing online.
Yeah, because knowing all the hip slang on the interwebz will get you into the best college and eventually will land you a 500k salary job when you get out of school...
Guess what? PG-13 is the new R these days. Sex? How do you think you were conceived? Furthermore, how do you intend to prove that these type of video games make society worse, not better?
In the end, you can be a prude and say retarded things all day. We'll just mock you for them. However, what happened to freedom of expression? This clearly wasn't being forced upon anyone.
That right there causes a lot of hot, young, starlets to quit the business. After their 8 man gangbang where they go through all sorts of things, like rectal tearing, with a big fucking smile on their face and not wincing once, they decide to call it quits.
If the reviews are based on a pirated copy of the game, and the released versions game play is different then Atari has every right in the world to not only sue these guys, but put them out of business.
That's bullshit. It's Atari's and the developers fault for allowing such a leak like that to happen in the first place. If they can't keep tighter wraps on their content, why should the people who are previewing it get in trouble?
I stopped visiting YouTube and watching their original content when they started asking for age verification and took some of the shows that I had liked off after that point. I also hated the new layout they had gotten after that point. I personally think their older layout was a lot less ugly and easier to navigate.
If it's based on incomplete code, not only is that Atari's fault, it's also the developers fault. Both should know better than to allow leaks like that out.
I don't see why people think it's a good idea to allow people to preview a shitty, incomplete version of your product.
Back when YouTube first came about, they had original regular running series. Some of them were actually decent too. Then things started to change and now we have a different YouTube.
Besides, it's not as if people don't already do this on YouTube themselves. I'm more surprised that at some point they haven't aggressively tried making money from this in some fashion.
I couldn't really find how long the print had to be there in TFA, but it did say that once the print is on there, abrasive methods had to be used to remove it, i.e. removing a layer of the metal.
From what I gather there, it's not the methodology that's at fault, it's human error. Perhaps they need better training? In the end I wouldn't say that what we currently have is useless, but only that we should trust those examining the fingerprints a little less, perhaps.
Those very avenues aren't necessarily better. A lot of crap can still get through, and it does. If the major players are making oodles of cash, it's probably because they've found a way to market what a good portion of people might like.
Or they found a way to monopolize various distribution channels, ensuring that a good portion of people only know what they're selling.
Despite the monopoly, I would think that people are perfectly capable of going out to a bar or a club every now and then and listening to something local. Hell, most radio stations tend to promote local bands in some fashion. "Hey, we're going to be at "hooligans" (or whatever you want to call your bar) from happy hour to midnight. Band X will be playing!" It's not hard for a local band to get heard if they're good enough.
Ever sit and think that maybe people aren't interested in classical music these days? Ever sit and think that people might enjoy pretty women singing with synthesized voices? Music changes over time.
Ever sit and think that maybe people aren't interested in classical music *because* it's not marketed at all? Ever sit and think that people may only buy albums by pretty women singing with synthetized voices, because a huge part of their media is focused on making them feel that if they don't, they're "weird" and "uncool"?
I think you'd be hard pressed to find someone who hasn't heard classical music in some fashion. It may not be anything contemporary, but still in the genre. The fact is, there are people out there who just don't like certain genre's of music. Classical music certainly doesn't interest me any unless it's mixed with some techno (or any variation of that genre).
And that cool thing? It dies down as you get older. There are plenty of adults who enjoy that stuff too. It's just not the children. I doubt the adults like it because if they don't, they'll feel weird or uncool.
But wait, you were trying to imply earlier that major label music isn't worth as much as non-major label music.
I'm not. I'm only saying that the labels tend to market easier-to-produce bands and musicians because it's more easily replaceable, but it's perfectly possible that some of that *is* good. It's just not the most efficient method for getting good music.
There probably is no efficient way of trying to rake in talent from the sea of millions upon millions. Easy to produce can be more mass marketable. That hopefully generates more revenue. People eat that stuff up. People will listen to whatever someone tells them is popular, with or without this system in place.
I'm not saying your point in some form isn't valid. Sure, every artists might potentially have a larger share of the pie without the major labels. However, seeing how technology is, you can't be entirely sure things wouldn't be similar. You will still probably have your super-star musicians. Some good musicians will remain in obscurity. I don't exactly see how your scenario is infinitely better.
What would you prefer, as a music-listener: 5 artists making millions a year each, or 500 artists making a nice living, and another 2000 at least being able to pay for their food, all from the same customer base? my choice is obvious, and the only way to achieve it is to remove those who would monopolize distribution channels to eliminate the competition and decide what we must like.
I don't think it's as dire as you make it to be. Yes, there are some "starving" musicians, but that very well could be their own fault in some fashion. Local musicians tend to make a comfortable living. They get paid a $5000 (when they become popular enough), or more, to play at a place a few nights a week for a few hours. I don't exactly see how they're having a hard time. A lot of these people can't make good music. They're only good at using other people's music and bringing in a crowd.
I've been to plenty of places where I've seen these people try to do something original. They bombed big time if the audience wasn't drunk.
I hate to break it to you, but major labels are currently a necessity. An evil one, but they're there for a reason. The fact is, a good portion of the population doesn't want to take the time to find out what is good by sifting through 1 million shitty bands just to find that one good one. The major labels do this for us. They help promote the music that they think we, as a whole, want to listen to. (I realize "good" is subjective here.) No, people will still hear and learn about music through print, the radio, clubs, friends, and the web. Without the major labels there wouldn't be a monopoly over the radio stations, you would have more variety, and better music would rise to the top. In fact it would be a similar to what existed in the 70s before they started chopping radio stations down into formats and controlling the play lists. (and major labels started to exist).
Oh, you mean the same era where people were still buying full albums that had only one or two good songs? The same era where stations played only the marketable songs? Man, things sure are different today aren't they!
It's not a matter of sifting through 1 million shitty bands. It's matter of just being open minded and little more receptive in cases where you're hearing things that aren't familiar. But, as a music fan, I can attest that it's extremely hard to get people to hear new music.
It's not as bad as you make it out to be. People tend to be more accepting of music when it's at the very least in a genre they tend to like.
I hate to break it to you, but major labels are currently a necessity. An evil one, but they're there for a reason.
No, they aren't.
Oh, such a compelling counter point!
The fact is, a good portion of the population doesn't want to take the time to find out what is good by sifting through 1 million shitty bands just to find that one good one.
The vast majority of the population doesn't want to take the time to find out what is good by shifting through 1 million shitty websites either, but they don't have to. Blogs, websites like last.fm, or even good ol' fashioned word-of-mouth would be good enough if they didn't have to compete with the RIAA's million-dollar marketing machine.
Those very avenues aren't necessarily better. A lot of crap can still get through, and it does. If the major players are making oodles of cash, it's probably because they've found a way to market what a good portion of people might like. Is there better out there? Probably. However, contrary to popular belief, everything you hear in the mainstream isn't pure crap. I know, everyone on the opposite side of the fence would love to believe this, but it's not true.
The major labels do this for us. They help promote the music that they think we, as a whole, want to listen to. (I realize "good" is subjective here.)
No they don't, they drown us in advertising for music that they think it's cheaper and easier to produce. Just take a look at how much they advertise the various genres and see for yourself. Good classical composers are a statistical anomaly, and are barely mentioned if they're even signed at all. Good-looking 18-years-old with synthetizers are a dime a dozen, and you can't even read the fucking BBC without getting Britney and Amy pushed on your face.
Ever sit and think that maybe people aren't interested in classical music these days? Ever sit and think that people might enjoy pretty women singing with synthesized voices? Music changes over time.
Without either NiN or Radiohead having been famous, their model probably wouldn't have worked out to well for them in the first place. They probably wouldn't have become famous without a major label.
As famous as they are? no, maybe not. The internet wasn't as big around the time they got famous, so they couldn't have used it as well as they could now. But all in all, provided they didn't have to compete with the RIAA's marketing machine, I think they would've done just fine.
But wait, you were trying to imply earlier that major label music isn't worth as much as non-major label music. Those two bands were a part of the avenue. It's not as if somehow their music suddenly becomes a thousand times better because they're now without a major-label.
I'm not saying your point in some form isn't valid. Sure, every artists might potentially have a larger share of the pie without the major labels. However, seeing how technology is, you can't be entirely sure things wouldn't be similar. You will still probably have your super-star musicians. Some good musicians will remain in obscurity. I don't exactly see how your scenario is infinitely better.
I hate to break it to you, but major labels are currently a necessity. An evil one, but they're there for a reason. The fact is, a good portion of the population doesn't want to take the time to find out what is good by sifting through 1 million shitty bands just to find that one good one. The major labels do this for us. They help promote the music that they think we, as a whole, want to listen to. (I realize "good" is subjective here.)
Without either NiN or Radiohead having been famous, their model probably wouldn't have worked out to well for them in the first place. They probably wouldn't have become famous without a major label.
That's not exactly what the MPAA is claiming. They're claiming they don't need any sort of proof to start accusing people. What they're saying is that if a person makes a file available, it shows intent. And based off of said intent, a copyright holder shouldn't need to show further proof of infringement.
It is a bit of a slippery slope, sure. Some people don't actually realize they're sharing files. Some do. They're going to have to prove something at some point, whether it be "intent" or actual infringement, I would assume.
Slashdot Mirror
It honestly don't look too much more advanced than Titan's Quest. I'm willing to bet money that at the very least, they'll make this game compatible with DirectX 8 users.
If they allowed for mouse and keyboard support on a console, those FPS's would be so god damn easy that people would actually complain and stop buying their craptacular games. People would be forced to realize how easy those games were, and the only challenge to them is the control scheme. Not withstanding that, if only some people have a mouse and keyboard setup, the ones that did would rape every single person who didn't when playing online.
Translation:
At least the parents don't know "leet" (elite) speak yet.
Haha! Now they do!
You're missing the point. WTF is very very common acronym, especially so if you're even remotely versed in technology, like a computer.
Are you kidding? Everyone needs retarded pictures to help illustrate retarded points.
1 TIT plz! K thx bai!
Yeah, because knowing all the hip slang on the interwebz will get you into the best college and eventually will land you a 500k salary job when you get out of school...
I bet any amount of money they made the majority of those up to look tech savvy.
I imagin if I started typing PAL all the time while chatting, my friends would just think I'm trying to shout the word, not use it as an acronym.
Guess what? PG-13 is the new R these days. Sex? How do you think you were conceived? Furthermore, how do you intend to prove that these type of video games make society worse, not better?
In the end, you can be a prude and say retarded things all day. We'll just mock you for them. However, what happened to freedom of expression? This clearly wasn't being forced upon anyone.
And what are those wrong things? Some of those things you consider wrong, women actually like. Don't knock it till you've tried it, twice.
That right there causes a lot of hot, young, starlets to quit the business. After their 8 man gangbang where they go through all sorts of things, like rectal tearing, with a big fucking smile on their face and not wincing once, they decide to call it quits.
Haha, bloody fun...
That gives a whole new meaning to VD!
If the reviews are based on a pirated copy of the game, and the released versions game play is different then Atari has every right in the world to not only sue these guys, but put them out of business.
That's bullshit. It's Atari's and the developers fault for allowing such a leak like that to happen in the first place. If they can't keep tighter wraps on their content, why should the people who are previewing it get in trouble?
I stopped visiting YouTube and watching their original content when they started asking for age verification and took some of the shows that I had liked off after that point. I also hated the new layout they had gotten after that point. I personally think their older layout was a lot less ugly and easier to navigate.
If it's based on incomplete code, not only is that Atari's fault, it's also the developers fault. Both should know better than to allow leaks like that out.
I don't see why people think it's a good idea to allow people to preview a shitty, incomplete version of your product.
Back when YouTube first came about, they had original regular running series. Some of them were actually decent too. Then things started to change and now we have a different YouTube.
Besides, it's not as if people don't already do this on YouTube themselves. I'm more surprised that at some point they haven't aggressively tried making money from this in some fashion.
Great, now someone will think my plastic AK-47 is real. Thanks a lot, Science!
I couldn't really find how long the print had to be there in TFA, but it did say that once the print is on there, abrasive methods had to be used to remove it, i.e. removing a layer of the metal.
From what I gather there, it's not the methodology that's at fault, it's human error. Perhaps they need better training? In the end I wouldn't say that what we currently have is useless, but only that we should trust those examining the fingerprints a little less, perhaps.
Or they found a way to monopolize various distribution channels, ensuring that a good portion of people only know what they're selling.
Despite the monopoly, I would think that people are perfectly capable of going out to a bar or a club every now and then and listening to something local. Hell, most radio stations tend to promote local bands in some fashion. "Hey, we're going to be at "hooligans" (or whatever you want to call your bar) from happy hour to midnight. Band X will be playing!" It's not hard for a local band to get heard if they're good enough.
Ever sit and think that maybe people aren't interested in classical music these days? Ever sit and think that people might enjoy pretty women singing with synthesized voices? Music changes over time.Ever sit and think that maybe people aren't interested in classical music *because* it's not marketed at all? Ever sit and think that people may only buy albums by pretty women singing with synthetized voices, because a huge part of their media is focused on making them feel that if they don't, they're "weird" and "uncool"?
I think you'd be hard pressed to find someone who hasn't heard classical music in some fashion. It may not be anything contemporary, but still in the genre. The fact is, there are people out there who just don't like certain genre's of music. Classical music certainly doesn't interest me any unless it's mixed with some techno (or any variation of that genre).
And that cool thing? It dies down as you get older. There are plenty of adults who enjoy that stuff too. It's just not the children. I doubt the adults like it because if they don't, they'll feel weird or uncool.
But wait, you were trying to imply earlier that major label music isn't worth as much as non-major label music.I'm not. I'm only saying that the labels tend to market easier-to-produce bands and musicians because it's more easily replaceable, but it's perfectly possible that some of that *is* good. It's just not the most efficient method for getting good music.
There probably is no efficient way of trying to rake in talent from the sea of millions upon millions. Easy to produce can be more mass marketable. That hopefully generates more revenue. People eat that stuff up. People will listen to whatever someone tells them is popular, with or without this system in place.
I'm not saying your point in some form isn't valid. Sure, every artists might potentially have a larger share of the pie without the major labels. However, seeing how technology is, you can't be entirely sure things wouldn't be similar. You will still probably have your super-star musicians. Some good musicians will remain in obscurity. I don't exactly see how your scenario is infinitely better.What would you prefer, as a music-listener: 5 artists making millions a year each, or 500 artists making a nice living, and another 2000 at least being able to pay for their food, all from the same customer base? my choice is obvious, and the only way to achieve it is to remove those who would monopolize distribution channels to eliminate the competition and decide what we must like.
I don't think it's as dire as you make it to be. Yes, there are some "starving" musicians, but that very well could be their own fault in some fashion. Local musicians tend to make a comfortable living. They get paid a $5000 (when they become popular enough), or more, to play at a place a few nights a week for a few hours. I don't exactly see how they're having a hard time. A lot of these people can't make good music. They're only good at using other people's music and bringing in a crowd.
I've been to plenty of places where I've seen these people try to do something original. They bombed big time if the audience wasn't drunk.
Oh, you mean the same era where people were still buying full albums that had only one or two good songs? The same era where stations played only the marketable songs? Man, things sure are different today aren't they!
It's not a matter of sifting through 1 million shitty bands. It's matter of just being open minded and little more receptive in cases where you're hearing things that aren't familiar. But, as a music fan, I can attest that it's extremely hard to get people to hear new music.It's not as bad as you make it out to be. People tend to be more accepting of music when it's at the very least in a genre they tend to like.
No, they aren't.
Oh, such a compelling counter point!
The fact is, a good portion of the population doesn't want to take the time to find out what is good by sifting through 1 million shitty bands just to find that one good one.The vast majority of the population doesn't want to take the time to find out what is good by shifting through 1 million shitty websites either, but they don't have to. Blogs, websites like last.fm, or even good ol' fashioned word-of-mouth would be good enough if they didn't have to compete with the RIAA's million-dollar marketing machine.
Those very avenues aren't necessarily better. A lot of crap can still get through, and it does. If the major players are making oodles of cash, it's probably because they've found a way to market what a good portion of people might like. Is there better out there? Probably. However, contrary to popular belief, everything you hear in the mainstream isn't pure crap. I know, everyone on the opposite side of the fence would love to believe this, but it's not true.
The major labels do this for us. They help promote the music that they think we, as a whole, want to listen to. (I realize "good" is subjective here.)No they don't, they drown us in advertising for music that they think it's cheaper and easier to produce. Just take a look at how much they advertise the various genres and see for yourself. Good classical composers are a statistical anomaly, and are barely mentioned if they're even signed at all. Good-looking 18-years-old with synthetizers are a dime a dozen, and you can't even read the fucking BBC without getting Britney and Amy pushed on your face.
Ever sit and think that maybe people aren't interested in classical music these days? Ever sit and think that people might enjoy pretty women singing with synthesized voices? Music changes over time. Without either NiN or Radiohead having been famous, their model probably wouldn't have worked out to well for them in the first place. They probably wouldn't have become famous without a major label.As famous as they are? no, maybe not. The internet wasn't as big around the time they got famous, so they couldn't have used it as well as they could now. But all in all, provided they didn't have to compete with the RIAA's marketing machine, I think they would've done just fine.
But wait, you were trying to imply earlier that major label music isn't worth as much as non-major label music. Those two bands were a part of the avenue. It's not as if somehow their music suddenly becomes a thousand times better because they're now without a major-label.
I'm not saying your point in some form isn't valid. Sure, every artists might potentially have a larger share of the pie without the major labels. However, seeing how technology is, you can't be entirely sure things wouldn't be similar. You will still probably have your super-star musicians. Some good musicians will remain in obscurity. I don't exactly see how your scenario is infinitely better.
I hate to break it to you, but major labels are currently a necessity. An evil one, but they're there for a reason. The fact is, a good portion of the population doesn't want to take the time to find out what is good by sifting through 1 million shitty bands just to find that one good one. The major labels do this for us. They help promote the music that they think we, as a whole, want to listen to. (I realize "good" is subjective here.)
Without either NiN or Radiohead having been famous, their model probably wouldn't have worked out to well for them in the first place. They probably wouldn't have become famous without a major label.
It is a bit of a slippery slope, sure. Some people don't actually realize they're sharing files. Some do. They're going to have to prove something at some point, whether it be "intent" or actual infringement, I would assume.