>"How are software companies making MORE profit by implementing anti-piracy measures that themselves cost money to implement?
>>Primarily speaking software is much more expensive than it needs to be and the public accepts the effective cartel stranglehold that major software companies hold over the price of software. A company is far more than the product on the shelves. Investments, agreements, collaborations... all of the nebulous parts of business which gamers have no knowledge of. The business world is a complex place.
Valve profits indirectly from serving the Windows platform. By serving the Windows platform Valve is aiding Microsoft in asserting its dominance as an OS--regardless of the merits of Windows vs its competitors. Microsoft has priced software primarily at the stranglehold level which has elevated the public's tolerance for what the fair price of software is. But, should the tables ever turn and people find out that quality software can be much more inexpensive, then the public will begin to wonder why games cost so much. Should Valve then engage in anti-Linux measures or should it adapt to Linux and a community that would not tolerate such insults as online verification?
Congratulations, 200 words and you still didn't answer the question. Something about indirect profitting, cartels, Microsoft (everyone hates Micro$oft)...but no answer. You'd make a good politician. You didn't answer because you don't have a logical answer. Because there's no logical reason to think that software companies spend money on anti-piracy just so that they can piss off users. What do they get out of it? Hint: it has something to do with piracy.
"And, if you would quit arguing and start doing something productive, you would aid those of us who are attempting to rail Valve to oblivion for even thinking of such a preposterous and insulting idea."
Can't believe they're not asking for our first born child as well. (Since you seem to like hyperbole)
And you're not arguing right, lol. You're on a "campaign", and that is not arguing. Get a grip.
Yes, it's still (relatively) a free market economy. Perhaps you know of an economy that's more free than the US's? Let us in, what country is it, and why is the US economy the largest in the world, while being based on a free market?
"You (and software companies) think that the world owes you a watchdog."
I think software companies don't owe you anything (non verification) for something you buy voluntarily.
"You feel that I owe you my tax money so that you can hunt down people who share software."
Huh? I never mentioned taxes or the federal government.
"I don't owe you anything and neither does the world."
Agreed. Did I ever suggeset otherwise?
"If you make something which is easily copied then people are going to copy it. That is REALITY. Deal with it."
So you do agree that piracy is a problem!? Seems to me that's exactly what Valve is doing, dealing with it.
You still haven't answered the question: How are software companies making MORE profit by implementing anti-piracy measures that themselves cost money to implement? Why are they doing this when they know users are going to be annoyed (=lost profit)? You've got your head in the proverbial sand thinking piracy isn't an issue companies have to deal with.
So software companies use activation on a product that NO ONE is forced to buy. But you seem to feel you're owed a non-verification version of the product. Why? Because you think you have a better business model? You know there's one way to prove that, start your own company and make your own game and sell it. You should have no problem with all the business acumen you seem to have.
"If software was priced fairly, there would be little point in stealing it."
What is a fair price? Perhaps companies should consult with you before releasing products to help them determine what is a fair price. OR they could use the free market system already in place where prices are determined by a supply-demand dynamic. Perhaps you've heard of this system. It goes like this; if you want (demand) something they got (supply), and you pay for it, then it's priced just right. If you want it, buy it somewhere else cheaper, it's priced too high.
Judging by how many people bought HL2, I'd say it's priced just right.
"If software was priced fairly, there would be little point in stealing it."
Except for the fact that it would STILL COST SOMETHING. Good job succinctly giving us "the world owes me" point of view.
Because this is Slashdot, where software piracy is only an argument at best.
We all know that evil software companies only use anti-piracy measures just to piss us off. Those companies only care about the bottom dollar and using anti-piracy makes them more money....somehow, damnit. Aww the horror of it all!
Riiiight, software companies use anti-piracy measures that piss off users, just so that....they can piss off users!? Get real. Software piracy is a real problem for companies.
Tell me: how, exactly, are software companies making more profit by pissing off users on measures that themsleves cost money to implement?
So basically you resent anti-piracy measures (activation at least) as they currently exist. These measures place you in a situation/relationship that evokes the profound emotion of resentment.
What I don't understand is why you resent the company rather than the thieves who've forced companies to take this position. Where's your resentment towards the thieves? Don't they figure into this whole equation?
Your post seems like an honest effort to descibe what you feel and why. But this effort seems disingenuous without a mention of software thieves and alternate anti-piracy measures.
"For better or worse, I don't buy this crap anyway."
No wonder the software piracy problem is huge.
"[I]t's quite obvious that the concept of IP is absurd and robs the public at large."
Yep, as obvious as shit stinks. What is obvious is that no matter what the laws are you would still be trying to half-ass rationalize your position that the world owes you something. Obviously the position of someone who's never actually made anything and tried to sell it.
Congratulations, I'm sure you've just discovered a problem that Valve was completely unaware of: that using some anit-piracy measures annoy paying customers.
Is it possible that they are aware and decided to implement said measures anyway?
How "loyal" are customers that side with thieves on protection v.s. convenience issues?
Seems to me that the only legimate users who got caught in the noose are the ones who ran a NoCD crack or used a bogus key. How can you blame Vavle for interpretting these activities as illegitimate.
There's a simple solution: DON'T run NoCD cracks or use stolen keys, and keep your CD handy. Direct your anger towards the people that forced this situation, the thieves (and spare us the whinning).
Do you think Valvee would be using these anti-piracy measures if piracy weren't such a huge problem?
Well, I guess the first thing you'll be doing after (hopefully before) purchasing a game is: Finding out if using a NoCD crack is going to get you banned.
Is that so bad? Valve has decided that running such a crack places you in the banned category. Simple solution, don't run the crack and keep your CD handy. Directing your angst against Valve instead of the thieves who've forced this situation in the first place is illogical and whinny. If you don't like it, DON'T BUY THE GAME.
After reading so many "My game I should be able to do what I want" posts, you'd think gamers here have no clue as to the size of the piracy problem.
We ALL want to be able to buy software and then run/tweak/crack it sans consequences. The reality is that a HUGE percentage of people want to play without paying, so publishers/developers employ anti-piracy tactics.You would do the same thing if you ran a software gaming company.
The only thing Valve seems guilty of is not alerting purchasers to the consequences of using NoCD cracks.
This guy's asking how he might setup a race car for the NASCAR circuit. And you're telling him; forget about $big block engines, forget about $super injected fuel & exhaust flow, forget about $blue-printing the motor...you can get the same performance from your Escort, just press harder on the gas pedal!
I continue to be impressed by the level of intellegent and thoughtful responses on Slashdot. I also find a fair amount of borish and careless posts as well.
In the case of this thread, I'm dissapointed by the number of responses that go something like "dude, not the right forum", and then offer no advice or insights whatsoever. Don't you think the author was aware of where they were posting? Is there such limited bandwidth and topical real estate that there's no room for any discussions other than those on tech/programming? Really, is there a trend of increasingly off-topic threads? I don't see it. And while I may not post much, Slashdot has been part of my daily reading for quite some time.
I prefer to see Slashdot as a community of people, not just a forum for programmers.
Maybe it's just me, but shutting down a help seeker, on technical grounds, comes off very un-samaritan. If you haven't any help for people seeking it, fine. Move on to another article.
As for the current topic: I know about a dozen people who have been diagnosed with at least one mental disorder/disease. Several of these aquantances and friends have been institutionalized. I'll echo what has been posted earlier that taking the meds is an important part of recovery and treatment, especially for manics who definitely feel that they don't need them anymore. I've seen a couple people take the less traditional track of spiritually based treaments as well: meditation, chi balancing, certain types of yoga, breathing, etc. They have had marvelous results with these treatments, but included the medications in tandem.
I would beware of any treatment program that does not include medications. I also encourage an openess towards non-traditional treatments, which I believe can multiply the results given from chemicals alone.
Whichever type(s) of treatment one receives, two things will augment any program's success, love and understanding.
My biggest disappointment for 2003...
1.) Battlefield 1942
Really? You must not like FPS in the war genre!
BF1942 is great, the DesertCombat mod makes it even better. BF1942 is the second most played online FPS, behind CS, and it's been that way for almost all of 2003.
BF1942 Rawks!
My fav for the year, ahead of -
2) RTCW
3) AoM (Imma sucka for the series)
No dissapointments really, because I don't buy anything I haven't already played and like.
Why does the intent to solely do research ("too promosing to waste") render the act of harvesting stem cells unethical?
What if the research is attemping to increase human fertility? Seems like we need a rational answer to the question: What's the harm in creating stem cells for research?
Basically you've presented the "gateway" argument against: Once we've begun creating cells for research, we'll end up with "drone humans" and a genetic caste social system.
Huh? Where's the evidence to support this (besides science fiction novels)?
The War on Drugs is very fond of the "gateway" argument, maybe you've heard of it: You start smoking a little grass and the next thing you know your wife's gone and the house has been sold to support your crack habbit!
I believe you think you're not a fanatic. But your argument borders on it. Let's be sure we're not limiting people's freedom just to appease other people's overgrown & irrational sense of life's sacredness.
Human cloning and other genetic manipulations are inevitable. They're also modern man's Tower of Babel.
With every major dicovery/invention, there's always been the fear factor. It makes even the smartest humans act in the most irrational ways. Granted, rationality has never been man's halmark. However, ingenuity, using our skull muscle to put things together and create new things, is. Man, the creator on Earth, is getting ready to graduate to the next level. And this scares people.
Some people are scared because of the potentional harm we may do to ourselves or the environment. Others are scared because they don't think man should create life, or at least human life.
If we're banning human cloning because of the large risk involved, fine (btw, I haven't read any study that can show a significant risk to the overall population as a result of human stem cell manipulations). But to criminalize scientists because of ethical/moral hangups is a tragedy. Kinda like the tragedy in the Bible where God malevolently strikes down the inspired worshippers of Babylon for trying to build a tower to heaven.
Huh?
That's right. God deliberately punished and confused man for trying to get a peak past the pearly gates. I can't help but think that's exactly what some people are trying to do today: confuse and punish man for trying to be more than he is and reach past his limitations.
I remember reading an article on this a year ago wherein a U.S. researcher was quoted as saying he will simply move to a country that does not prohibit cloning if it comes to that. Also, he said his colleagues will do the same. If human cloning is relatively harmful, then ban. If not, move over small minds, it's time for the big boys to play.
But really, a demonstration of Flash being useful - I still haven't seen it. It's concept is promising enough, but the results... bleh!"
I'm not sure what you mean by "useful". I guess animations, movies, and games are not useful to you? No, Flash won't be used by Disney in their next animated feature film. No, the next rip roaring FPS won't be coded in ActionScript. But millions of people are watching millions of hours of animations and movies online created in Flash. Also, millions of $$ are being spent to buy and play games created in Flash. All those people using and working in Flash and I wonder how many of them stop themselves and ask, "Is this useful though?"
Silly.
So you don't use or work in Flash and either you're not aware of how much Flash content is out there OR you are aware but don't find any of it useful. Anthropologists try to figure out the "usefulness" of human endeavors, rating such endeavors as an agent of some cultural construct. Flash is useful to me, I get to create games and Web sites. And when I get my paycheck, I don't find myself wondering whether any of it was useful, just was it fun and does the client like/buy it.
Slashdot Mirror
>"How are software companies making MORE profit by implementing anti-piracy measures that themselves cost money to implement?
>>Primarily speaking software is much more expensive than it needs to be and the public accepts the effective cartel stranglehold that major software companies hold over the price of software. A company is far more than the product on the shelves. Investments, agreements, collaborations... all of the nebulous parts of business which gamers have no knowledge of. The business world is a complex place.
Valve profits indirectly from serving the Windows platform. By serving the Windows platform Valve is aiding Microsoft in asserting its dominance as an OS--regardless of the merits of Windows vs its competitors. Microsoft has priced software primarily at the stranglehold level which has elevated the public's tolerance for what the fair price of software is. But, should the tables ever turn and people find out that quality software can be much more inexpensive, then the public will begin to wonder why games cost so much. Should Valve then engage in anti-Linux measures or should it adapt to Linux and a community that would not tolerate such insults as online verification?
Congratulations, 200 words and you still didn't answer the question. Something about indirect profitting, cartels, Microsoft (everyone hates Micro$oft)...but no answer. You'd make a good politician. You didn't answer because you don't have a logical answer. Because there's no logical reason to think that software companies spend money on anti-piracy just so that they can piss off users. What do they get out of it? Hint: it has something to do with piracy.
"And, if you would quit arguing and start doing something productive, you would aid those of us who are attempting to rail Valve to oblivion for even thinking of such a preposterous and insulting idea."
Can't believe they're not asking for our first born child as well. (Since you seem to like hyperbole)
And you're not arguing right, lol. You're on a "campaign", and that is not arguing. Get a grip.
Yes, it's still (relatively) a free market economy. Perhaps you know of an economy that's more free than the US's? Let us in, what country is it, and why is the US economy the largest in the world, while being based on a free market?
"You (and software companies) think that the world owes you a watchdog."
I think software companies don't owe you anything (non verification) for something you buy voluntarily.
"You feel that I owe you my tax money so that you can hunt down people who share software."
Huh? I never mentioned taxes or the federal government.
"I don't owe you anything and neither does the world."
Agreed. Did I ever suggeset otherwise?
"If you make something which is easily copied then people are going to copy it. That is REALITY. Deal with it."
So you do agree that piracy is a problem!? Seems to me that's exactly what Valve is doing, dealing with it.
You still haven't answered the question: How are software companies making MORE profit by implementing anti-piracy measures that themselves cost money to implement? Why are they doing this when they know users are going to be annoyed (=lost profit)? You've got your head in the proverbial sand thinking piracy isn't an issue companies have to deal with.
So software companies use activation on a product that NO ONE is forced to buy. But you seem to feel you're owed a non-verification version of the product. Why? Because you think you have a better business model? You know there's one way to prove that, start your own company and make your own game and sell it. You should have no problem with all the business acumen you seem to have.
"If software was priced fairly, there would be little point in stealing it."
What is a fair price? Perhaps companies should consult with you before releasing products to help them determine what is a fair price. OR they could use the free market system already in place where prices are determined by a supply-demand dynamic. Perhaps you've heard of this system. It goes like this; if you want (demand) something they got (supply), and you pay for it, then it's priced just right. If you want it, buy it somewhere else cheaper, it's priced too high.
Judging by how many people bought HL2, I'd say it's priced just right.
"If software was priced fairly, there would be little point in stealing it."
Except for the fact that it would STILL COST SOMETHING. Good job succinctly giving us "the world owes me" point of view.
Why not play by the rules?
Because this is Slashdot, where software piracy is only an argument at best.
We all know that evil software companies only use anti-piracy measures just to piss us off. Those companies only care about the bottom dollar and using anti-piracy makes them more money....somehow, damnit. Aww the horror of it all!
Riiiight, software companies use anti-piracy measures that piss off users, just so that....they can piss off users!? Get real. Software piracy is a real problem for companies.
Tell me: how, exactly, are software companies making more profit by pissing off users on measures that themsleves cost money to implement?
Get off "the world owes me something" bandwagon.
So basically you resent anti-piracy measures (activation at least) as they currently exist. These measures place you in a situation/relationship that evokes the profound emotion of resentment.
What I don't understand is why you resent the company rather than the thieves who've forced companies to take this position. Where's your resentment towards the thieves? Don't they figure into this whole equation?
Your post seems like an honest effort to descibe what you feel and why. But this effort seems disingenuous without a mention of software thieves and alternate anti-piracy measures.
"For better or worse, I don't buy this crap anyway."
No wonder the software piracy problem is huge.
"[I]t's quite obvious that the concept of IP is absurd and robs the public at large."
Yep, as obvious as shit stinks. What is obvious is that no matter what the laws are you would still be trying to half-ass rationalize your position that the world owes you something. Obviously the position of someone who's never actually made anything and tried to sell it.
Congratulations, I'm sure you've just discovered a problem that Valve was completely unaware of: that using some anit-piracy measures annoy paying customers.
Is it possible that they are aware and decided to implement said measures anyway?
How "loyal" are customers that side with thieves on protection v.s. convenience issues?
Seems to me that the only legimate users who got caught in the noose are the ones who ran a NoCD crack or used a bogus key. How can you blame Vavle for interpretting these activities as illegitimate.
There's a simple solution: DON'T run NoCD cracks or use stolen keys, and keep your CD handy. Direct your anger towards the people that forced this situation, the thieves (and spare us the whinning).
Do you think Valvee would be using these anti-piracy measures if piracy weren't such a huge problem?
Well, I guess the first thing you'll be doing after (hopefully before) purchasing a game is: Finding out if using a NoCD crack is going to get you banned.
Is that so bad? Valve has decided that running such a crack places you in the banned category. Simple solution, don't run the crack and keep your CD handy. Directing your angst against Valve instead of the thieves who've forced this situation in the first place is illogical and whinny. If you don't like it, DON'T BUY THE GAME.
After reading so many "My game I should be able to do what I want" posts, you'd think gamers here have no clue as to the size of the piracy problem.
We ALL want to be able to buy software and then run/tweak/crack it sans consequences. The reality is that a HUGE percentage of people want to play without paying, so publishers/developers employ anti-piracy tactics.You would do the same thing if you ran a software gaming company.
The only thing Valve seems guilty of is not alerting purchasers to the consequences of using NoCD cracks.
Lemme guess, your just not having a very good day!?
Amen!
I so tired of hearing the "We've got to save the earth NOW from global warming!!" bullshit.
It's a modern phenomenon how many educated people think the debate is OVER, that man-made atmospheric warming is REAL.
Just because all your favorite Hollywood stars and MSM have accepted man-as-the-earth-terminator line, does not make it true.
-d
You've got to kidding, right?!
This guy's asking how he might setup a race car for the NASCAR circuit. And you're telling him; forget about $big block engines, forget about $super injected fuel & exhaust flow, forget about $blue-printing the motor...you can get the same performance from your Escort, just press harder on the gas pedal!
Thanks for the laugh! LOL
-d
It's just you.
lol...Only true if you're playing 5 year olds.
Really though, didn't you mean to say, "If you move first, you can never lose"?
If not, I can only assume you haven't played anyone with skills greater than the average elementary school student.
I continue to be impressed by the level of intellegent and thoughtful responses on Slashdot. I also find a fair amount of borish and careless posts as well.
In the case of this thread, I'm dissapointed by the number of responses that go something like "dude, not the right forum", and then offer no advice or insights whatsoever. Don't you think the author was aware of where they were posting? Is there such limited bandwidth and topical real estate that there's no room for any discussions other than those on tech/programming? Really, is there a trend of increasingly off-topic threads? I don't see it. And while I may not post much, Slashdot has been part of my daily reading for quite some time.
I prefer to see Slashdot as a community of people, not just a forum for programmers. Maybe it's just me, but shutting down a help seeker, on technical grounds, comes off very un-samaritan. If you haven't any help for people seeking it, fine. Move on to another article.
As for the current topic: I know about a dozen people who have been diagnosed with at least one mental disorder/disease. Several of these aquantances and friends have been institutionalized. I'll echo what has been posted earlier that taking the meds is an important part of recovery and treatment, especially for manics who definitely feel that they don't need them anymore. I've seen a couple people take the less traditional track of spiritually based treaments as well: meditation, chi balancing, certain types of yoga, breathing, etc. They have had marvelous results with these treatments, but included the medications in tandem.
I would beware of any treatment program that does not include medications. I also encourage an openess towards non-traditional treatments, which I believe can multiply the results given from chemicals alone. Whichever type(s) of treatment one receives, two things will augment any program's success, love and understanding.
-d
My biggest disappointment for 2003...
1.) Battlefield 1942
Really? You must not like FPS in the war genre!
BF1942 is great, the DesertCombat mod makes it even better. BF1942 is the second most played online FPS, behind CS, and it's been that way for almost all of 2003.
BF1942 Rawks!
My fav for the year, ahead of -
2) RTCW
3) AoM (Imma sucka for the series)
No dissapointments really, because I don't buy anything I haven't already played and like.
Why does the intent to solely do research ("too promosing to waste") render the act of harvesting stem cells unethical? What if the research is attemping to increase human fertility? Seems like we need a rational answer to the question: What's the harm in creating stem cells for research?
Basically you've presented the "gateway" argument against: Once we've begun creating cells for research, we'll end up with "drone humans" and a genetic caste social system.
Huh? Where's the evidence to support this (besides science fiction novels)? The War on Drugs is very fond of the "gateway" argument, maybe you've heard of it: You start smoking a little grass and the next thing you know your wife's gone and the house has been sold to support your crack habbit!
I believe you think you're not a fanatic. But your argument borders on it. Let's be sure we're not limiting people's freedom just to appease other people's overgrown & irrational sense of life's sacredness.
Human cloning and other genetic manipulations are inevitable. They're also modern man's Tower of Babel.
With every major dicovery/invention, there's always been the fear factor. It makes even the smartest humans act in the most irrational ways. Granted, rationality has never been man's halmark. However, ingenuity, using our skull muscle to put things together and create new things, is. Man, the creator on Earth, is getting ready to graduate to the next level. And this scares people.
Some people are scared because of the potentional harm we may do to ourselves or the environment. Others are scared because they don't think man should create life, or at least human life.
If we're banning human cloning because of the large risk involved, fine (btw, I haven't read any study that can show a significant risk to the overall population as a result of human stem cell manipulations). But to criminalize scientists because of ethical/moral hangups is a tragedy. Kinda like the tragedy in the Bible where God malevolently strikes down the inspired worshippers of Babylon for trying to build a tower to heaven.
Huh?
That's right. God deliberately punished and confused man for trying to get a peak past the pearly gates. I can't help but think that's exactly what some people are trying to do today: confuse and punish man for trying to be more than he is and reach past his limitations.
I remember reading an article on this a year ago wherein a U.S. researcher was quoted as saying he will simply move to a country that does not prohibit cloning if it comes to that. Also, he said his colleagues will do the same.
If human cloning is relatively harmful, then ban. If not, move over small minds, it's time for the big boys to play.
I've applied your professor's logic to another one of our senses, sight.
"If a tree lives in a forest and there's no one there to see it, does it exist?"
Hmmm...I like this kind. Nutty on the outside, and chewey in the center.
I'm not sure what you mean by "useful". I guess animations, movies, and games are not useful to you? No, Flash won't be used by Disney in their next animated feature film. No, the next rip roaring FPS won't be coded in ActionScript. But millions of people are watching millions of hours of animations and movies online created in Flash. Also, millions of $$ are being spent to buy and play games created in Flash. All those people using and working in Flash and I wonder how many of them stop themselves and ask, "Is this useful though?" Silly. So you don't use or work in Flash and either you're not aware of how much Flash content is out there OR you are aware but don't find any of it useful. Anthropologists try to figure out the "usefulness" of human endeavors, rating such endeavors as an agent of some cultural construct. Flash is useful to me, I get to create games and Web sites. And when I get my paycheck, I don't find myself wondering whether any of it was useful, just was it fun and does the client like/buy it.