How are companies buying into the DRM thing when every single DRM scheme has been cracked within days of release?
X3: Reunion's DRM was not cracked. Eventually the company removed the DRM like they do with their past titles and then it became piracy galore. The only way to get a pirated copy of the game working was to install it, then physically disconnect your CDROM drives from the system and run it.
X3: Terran Conflict - Similar situation to above, nobody has cracked it.
Prince of Persia will probably be pirated at exactly the same rate as any other game
I actually know two people who went out and bought Crysis because the pirate torrent was going "too slow". I'm guessing the more inconvenient you make it for pirates, the more likely they will buy something.
I also laugh at many pirates who claim to pirate games to get rid of the DRM. Half of the time, the pirate copies of games people pirate for this reason are only available as disc images that work in daemon tools, which work with the DRM. All the issues the DRM has is still there, it's still on the system and it hasn't been cracked/removed.
Wait... double-take... what kind of person who is in a "financial bind", to the extent that he is worried about saving for food, is sitting around playing games on a PS3 over a broadband connection!?
Your average university and college kids, young adults who have crappy jobs and nothing better to do etc.
No wonder the economy is the way it is and these people are in financial trouble... get off your bums and do something constructive.
So, they have to do some constructive during their own 'pleasure' time? Why? What more constructive thing could they do?
I hope you're not one of those in a "financial bind"
I am, but not worried about food, home etc. - I have that. I just don't have the money to do anything or money to move to a better town/city.
the fact that you're then sitting around posting to slashdot about it just makes it even worse.
Could you give a reason? I honestly don't understand your logic.
It's extraordinarily difficult to code games for a virtually infinite number of software and hardware configurations.
Fortunately, there are things like AGAR that make it almost just as easy for developing on one platform, one set of hardware.
In addition, I never have to worry about upgrading my system to ensure that I can play the latest game with all the graphics options turned on.
I don't either, I just buy a very good computer initially and after several years, a new one, also very good.
In short, I like my console more for gaming because of its simplicity.
I've avoided consoles because they were often the worse deal.
Currently with the games I am interested in and own, which have console versions, perform, look and work a lot better on the PC than on the consoles. They don't have the numerous issues or the lagg issues from not running dedicated servers etc.
Orange box is a biggy when it comes to issues, lack of updates, worse graphics, insane amount of bugs, barely anyone seems to play it anymore on the consoles due to the bugs. UT3 doesn't work as well on the consoles (annoying irritating bugs) while the PC version is fine, the graphics are slightly poorer, Left 4 Dead - it's really poor on the consoles in terms of how the AI screws up, multi player is horrendous with lag issues and visually, on my laptop it still looks better. Call of Duty 4, having to pay to get the console updates for the new maps while PC users get free copies - I don't want to do that. The graphics in that case were still, also superior on my laptop...
Don't mistaken me for a graphics freak, having slightly lesser graphics doesn't bother me -- but when I have to compare having a portable system (laptop), spending less money by spending a bit more on a PC, not forced to upgrade every five years to play the latest greatest title, getting often superior graphics (as was in all the cases above) and usually not being on the short end of the stick when it comes to the games working on a certain platform and the capability to have all these wonderful mods people create....
I don't have to pay silly subscriptions to use my own hardware as a server on my own internet connection I paid for (see xbox live), I don't have to pay to get trivial features that should be free. I'm not restricted in what a single company decides (Microsoft, Sony) I should be able to run.
On top of that, we have the console creators (Sony, Microsoft) who charge the developers for releasing various updates to their games. Requiring numerous things like having to pay for certification (which obviously don't filter bugs or improve the game quality) to paying for just having a download available, this causes the developers to stagnate greatly on updates or just simply not release them because it's too much effort. Meanwhile, the PC versions of the game are kept fully up to date with fixes etc.
Sony has tried to make the console more complicated, more like a PC.
You know, before Microsoft came on the scene, people were joking that if Microsoft ever made a console it would crash, have numerous hardware issues. The sad thing is that when they did come on the scene, they brought it all. Crashes, hardware failures (red rings of death - really a high failure rate), it's incredible. Sony's own agenda with the PS3 was not to make it PC-like, but to push bluray on everyone.
When it comes to a choice between consoles or PC... There really isn't a choice when I look at both of them logically.
You probably spent more money on your laptop than we did
It (A HP Pavilion DV6000) was £400 at the time from Comet, just a few months ago, to replace a laptop I had for seven years - I would of actually used the older laptop longer had it not been for the fact that the keyboard keys started coming off.
I haven't personally experienced the PS3 Orange box TF2 issues that guy with the petition did, but I'm in the US, it's a separate region server wise. But it does seem like the PS3 Orange box is a lazy port
That's not the only thing I dislike on consoles....
UT3 doesn't work as well on the consoles (annoying irritating bugs) as the PC version, the graphics are slightly poorer, Left 4 Dead - it's really poor on the consoles in terms of how the AI screws up, multi player is horrendous with lag issues and visually, on my laptop it still looks better (I need to get some snapshots to show the difference). Call of Duty 4, having to pay to get the console updates for the new maps while PC users get free copies - I don't want to do that. The graphics still were also superior on my laptop...
Don't mistaken me for a graphics freak, having slightly lesser graphics doesn't bother me, but when I have to compare having a portable system, spending less money by spending a bit more on a PC, getting often superior graphics (as was in all the cases above) and usually not being on the short end of the stick when it comes to the games working on a certain platform and the capability to have all these wonderful mods people create. I don't have to pay silly subscriptions to use my own hardware as a server on my own internet connection I paid for (I'm looking at you xbox live).
It just really isn't much of a choice for me when I thought about it and I did think about because I am a Linux user and I do sometimes have issues running Windows games under it.
But probably not as well as a PS3 (which is capable of running OpenOffice via Linux) or Xbox 360 could.
I can't agree since I often find the games I own which have console versions, perform, look and work a lot better on the PC than on the consoles [1] and as such, I prefer my laptop - Which additionally, is running Linux (the sad thing is that my Windows games, running under Wine+Linux run faster and often better than they do under Windows Vista).
By the way, per your sig, on some systems (like the YDL I have installed on my PS3) netcat is "nc"
'nc' is supposed to be the name used for the original UNIX netcat application (by *hobbit*), while 'netcat' is supposed to be the GNU version (maintained by Giovanni Giacobbi) due to some backwards compatibility issues with parameters.
I wonder if yellow dog Linux actually has the GNU version and named it "nc".
In 4 years time, that console will still be playing new releases at decent framerates.
I think there will be a new xbox and PS3 by then and none of the new good titles will be available for it.
There'll be no worries about whether you need more RAM, a faster CPU or graphics card. It'll just work. Can you honestly say that about PCs?
From personal experience, if you buy a good gaming setup initially - yes, I can honestly say that the framerates and everything will be still decent four years later with new game releases.
If you buy a crap PC (most people), not intended at all for any gaming usage - yes, I suspect it won't be decent in four years, even if it can play current games decently.
with all features enabled as the developer intended
As "the developer intended"? Yes.
it at the native resolution of the display or will you have to turn some of the stuff down?
The only game I've had to turn graphical settings down within the past decade (and I don't upgrade often) is X3: Terran Conflict, and that's nothing to do with a crap PC - it just doesn't run well on any system without turning down the settings.
New graphics card - $299 New laser mouse - $50 Battery charger for the mouse - $30 More hard drive and RAM - $75 New CPU, if you decide yours is too slow - $200 Backup to the hard drive - $50 Headphones - $75
To upgrade my four year old work PC to a gaming system, I spent £200 on a new graphics card (with loads of onboard video RAM) and that's pretty much all I needed.
Corporate espionage is a big problem for some companies. I've known some companies to remove people immediately for using ssh on port 443 to get around the firewall to do something stupid, like chat on licq.
Your comment is extremely ignorant and indicates that you have no clue about being a network or systems admin. You can run firefox on any windows machine that has a writable directory on it, same for almost all properly written software. Good luck running a windows PC without a writable directory some where, you'll break to many legitimate apps.
Not if you set the appropriate security policies in group policies to permit software to run only in certain locations that are not writable for the user (default is windows folder and program files locations when you enable it).
What do you do about the people who install software on their own PC at home then just copy the files to a USB drive, bring it to your network and copy those files to the %TEMP% directory, or their %USERPROFILE% or %APPDATA% directories, all of which you will typically have write access to?
Consider them a security threat when I get a.exe has been downloaded onto their roaming profile warning and perhaps apply additional restrictions to that user or contact security for corporate espionage, should it look that way.
Chrome will only increase security for your network, regardless of what browser you force your users to use currently (even if that's Firefox). Go read the design docs...
Lies!
Chrome has tabs crashing occasionally - this decreases job security with your boss, the net admin gets fired over the frustrations the company has over the admin's decisions to use the browser and security is lost because there is no competent admin anymore!
When I was 11 years old, I had pretty much mastered m68k assembler. I was writing demoscene stuff with music, cracks for copy protected software, all on my little Amiga 500.
Apple has a history of pulling bait and switch tactics, often being more locked down than Microsoft is in many areas etc.
Look what you can do with a TiVo, that's supposively running on OpenSource software, you can't run your own software on the TiVo usually because it checks if the kernel running etc. is signed by a specific key.
Slashdot Mirror
X3: Reunion's DRM was not cracked. Eventually the company removed the DRM like they do with their past titles and then it became piracy galore. The only way to get a pirated copy of the game working was to install it, then physically disconnect your CDROM drives from the system and run it.
X3: Terran Conflict - Similar situation to above, nobody has cracked it.
I actually know two people who went out and bought Crysis because the pirate torrent was going "too slow". I'm guessing the more inconvenient you make it for pirates, the more likely they will buy something.
I also laugh at many pirates who claim to pirate games to get rid of the DRM. Half of the time, the pirate copies of games people pirate for this reason are only available as disc images that work in daemon tools, which work with the DRM. All the issues the DRM has is still there, it's still on the system and it hasn't been cracked/removed.
I do find it funny that people cry over other people having furry characters.
I guess it's more of a "They can't have fun like that! It's stupid! If I can have fun like that, NOBODY SHOULD!" kind of logic.
Your average university and college kids, young adults who have crappy jobs and nothing better to do etc.
So, they have to do some constructive during their own 'pleasure' time? Why? What more constructive thing could they do?
I am, but not worried about food, home etc. - I have that. I just don't have the money to do anything or money to move to a better town/city.
Could you give a reason? I honestly don't understand your logic.
Fortunately, there are things like AGAR that make it almost just as easy for developing on one platform, one set of hardware.
I don't either, I just buy a very good computer initially and after several years, a new one, also very good.
I've avoided consoles because they were often the worse deal.
Currently with the games I am interested in and own, which have console versions, perform, look and work a lot better on the PC than on the consoles. They don't have the numerous issues or the lagg issues from not running dedicated servers etc.
Orange box is a biggy when it comes to issues, lack of updates, worse graphics, insane amount of bugs, barely anyone seems to play it anymore on the consoles due to the bugs. UT3 doesn't work as well on the consoles (annoying irritating bugs) while the PC version is fine, the graphics are slightly poorer, Left 4 Dead - it's really poor on the consoles in terms of how the AI screws up, multi player is horrendous with lag issues and visually, on my laptop it still looks better. Call of Duty 4, having to pay to get the console updates for the new maps while PC users get free copies - I don't want to do that. The graphics in that case were still, also superior on my laptop...
Don't mistaken me for a graphics freak, having slightly lesser graphics doesn't bother me -- but when I have to compare having a portable system (laptop), spending less money by spending a bit more on a PC, not forced to upgrade every five years to play the latest greatest title, getting often superior graphics (as was in all the cases above) and usually not being on the short end of the stick when it comes to the games working on a certain platform and the capability to have all these wonderful mods people create....
I don't have to pay silly subscriptions to use my own hardware as a server on my own internet connection I paid for (see xbox live), I don't have to pay to get trivial features that should be free. I'm not restricted in what a single company decides (Microsoft, Sony) I should be able to run.
On top of that, we have the console creators (Sony, Microsoft) who charge the developers for releasing various updates to their games. Requiring numerous things like having to pay for certification (which obviously don't filter bugs or improve the game quality) to paying for just having a download available, this causes the developers to stagnate greatly on updates or just simply not release them because it's too much effort. Meanwhile, the PC versions of the game are kept fully up to date with fixes etc.
You know, before Microsoft came on the scene, people were joking that if Microsoft ever made a console it would crash, have numerous hardware issues. The sad thing is that when they did come on the scene, they brought it all. Crashes, hardware failures (red rings of death - really a high failure rate), it's incredible. Sony's own agenda with the PS3 was not to make it PC-like, but to push bluray on everyone.
When it comes to a choice between consoles or PC... There really isn't a choice when I look at both of them logically.
Does it contain bonus scenes?
I wasn't lucky, I made a decision to get a PC with PCI-E when I bought it.
Also something I decided to get initially.
It (A HP Pavilion DV6000) was £400 at the time from Comet, just a few months ago, to replace a laptop I had for seven years - I would of actually used the older laptop longer had it not been for the fact that the keyboard keys started coming off.
That's not the only thing I dislike on consoles....
UT3 doesn't work as well on the consoles (annoying irritating bugs) as the PC version, the graphics are slightly poorer, Left 4 Dead - it's really poor on the consoles in terms of how the AI screws up, multi player is horrendous with lag issues and visually, on my laptop it still looks better (I need to get some snapshots to show the difference). Call of Duty 4, having to pay to get the console updates for the new maps while PC users get free copies - I don't want to do that. The graphics still were also superior on my laptop...
Don't mistaken me for a graphics freak, having slightly lesser graphics doesn't bother me, but when I have to compare having a portable system, spending less money by spending a bit more on a PC, getting often superior graphics (as was in all the cases above) and usually not being on the short end of the stick when it comes to the games working on a certain platform and the capability to have all these wonderful mods people create. I don't have to pay silly subscriptions to use my own hardware as a server on my own internet connection I paid for (I'm looking at you xbox live).
It just really isn't much of a choice for me when I thought about it and I did think about because I am a Linux user and I do sometimes have issues running Windows games under it.
I said I bought a new graphic card, not a wireless mouse.
I can't agree since I often find the games I own which have console versions, perform, look and work a lot better on the PC than on the consoles [1] and as such, I prefer my laptop - Which additionally, is running Linux (the sad thing is that my Windows games, running under Wine+Linux run faster and often better than they do under Windows Vista).
'nc' is supposed to be the name used for the original UNIX netcat application (by *hobbit*), while 'netcat' is supposed to be the GNU version (maintained by Giovanni Giacobbi) due to some backwards compatibility issues with parameters.
I wonder if yellow dog Linux actually has the GNU version and named it "nc".
I think there will be a new xbox and PS3 by then and none of the new good titles will be available for it.
From personal experience, if you buy a good gaming setup initially - yes, I can honestly say that the framerates and everything will be still decent four years later with new game releases.
If you buy a crap PC (most people), not intended at all for any gaming usage - yes, I suspect it won't be decent in four years, even if it can play current games decently.
As "the developer intended"? Yes.
The only game I've had to turn graphical settings down within the past decade (and I don't upgrade often) is X3: Terran Conflict, and that's nothing to do with a crap PC - it just doesn't run well on any system without turning down the settings.
To upgrade my four year old work PC to a gaming system, I spent £200 on a new graphics card (with loads of onboard video RAM) and that's pretty much all I needed.
Laptop does that fine, check.
DVD drive, firewire, USB etc on a laptop, check.
Laptop conforms, check.
Microsoft works bundled with the laptop!
My laptop plays games! :D
Oh yeah! Good 'ol C-x M-c M.. butterfly.. in EMACS.
There is a POSIX subsystem (provided by Windows Services for Unix) available for Windows which is more compliant than OS X is.
Corporate espionage is a big problem for some companies. I've known some companies to remove people immediately for using ssh on port 443 to get around the firewall to do something stupid, like chat on licq.
Not if you set the appropriate security policies in group policies to permit software to run only in certain locations that are not writable for the user (default is windows folder and program files locations when you enable it).
Consider them a security threat when I get a .exe has been downloaded onto their roaming profile warning and perhaps apply additional restrictions to that user or contact security for corporate espionage, should it look that way.
Lies!
Chrome has tabs crashing occasionally - this decreases job security with your boss, the net admin gets fired over the frustrations the company has over the admin's decisions to use the browser and security is lost because there is no competent admin anymore!
A Opera user.. How.. Quaint.
Those aren't popular. A very, very, small segment of the Firefox users use those.
Bad console players! You're not allowed access to the console! Bad, BAD players!
Outside of the States, Linux is often the 2nd most popular OS behind Windows.
Plenty.
I find most Slackware users to be the most knowledgeable Linux users I come across usually.
When I was 11 years old, I had pretty much mastered m68k assembler. I was writing demoscene stuff with music, cracks for copy protected software, all on my little Amiga 500.
How are those good points?
Apple has a history of pulling bait and switch tactics, often being more locked down than Microsoft is in many areas etc.
Look what you can do with a TiVo, that's supposively running on OpenSource software, you can't run your own software on the TiVo usually because it checks if the kernel running etc. is signed by a specific key.