He's not saying he's burning anything to a tangible medium. He's saying he's BUYING the tangible medium, which gives him the "look, here! This is what I am Free Use-ing!" capabilities, as well as the highest-quality audio masters to rip to digital from.
He's just saying "buy CD's, and do what you want." Considering the digital alternatives are not that much CHEAPER, are lower-quality, and have licensing terms attached...
The only way to really reduce your "price-per-song" is if you're willing to sign up for a subscription service instead of paying to own.
Not an "Apple thing," though, as they've publicly stated their willingness to move all music to DRM-free tracks; if they labels met the same licensing agreements as are in place or were making only a few sensible additional requests, they could EASILY force Apple's hand on the matter.
Since they're both not offering DRM-free tracks on iTunes AND not making any public announcements to force Apple into a PR nightmare if they balk, it points in other directions instead. (Like their wanting to leverage DRM-free tracks on Amazon and other providers to create artificial competition to iTunes. Or that their licensing demands are far in excess of their current agreements, and Apple's desired business model. Probably a combination of the two and a bit of spite mixed in. Heh...)
Hence the Big Three gets no digital revenue from me until they blink. (I might have more problems if CDs weren't available for the things I really desire, but...)
"Support alternatives to iTunes so you can support the labels artificially keeping DRM on iTunes so that they can try to reduce the influence of iTunes! It is the only thing that makes sense!"
Hence why I don't purchase MP3's from the Big Three RIAA labels anywhere, DRM or not. Once they stop playing monkey-shit with DRM, I'll be willing to be their digital consumer.
Since when do DRM-free tracks cost more than DRM-laden ones? That was the case only when iTunes Plus first rolled out, but it was quickly equalized. (IIRC, they still have the minor "upgrade cost" to convert existing tracks, which is annoying, but minor. Hopefully if they go ALL DRM-free, they'll celebrate by letting anyone and everyone "upgrade" their owned tracks regardless. For free.)
Amazon is the top RIAA label's "last, best hope to reduce the influence Apple has over them in general (and specifically in regards to iTunes licensing terms and pricing demands)." DRM-free tracks are the last card they can play.
Working in a computer store for years with people coming to us with every conceivable technical question, the sum total of people who've run into the "5 device" limit with FreePlay songs and had some come to us for advice...? None.
While that resembles "anecdote," keep in mind that's "anecdote for hundreds of people and thousands of cases in many local townships," not "me and my friends."
We've had any number of DRM questions, of course, but that's been from "one incompatible format to another," not "restrictions within FairPlay itself."
Apple certainly DID strike a good balance between consumer and studio concerns, because they got FairPlay in and accepted fast, and there have been very few people who run into the ceiling. (And those who have enough devices to run into the limitation are usually the best informed to begin with, and manage things ahead of time.)
Meanwhile, pretty much every other DRM from every other service that followed has had much more restrictive terms, and I HAVE run into people who'd hit "two computer/device" caps quite quickly, simply because they had three kids and found out that the music they bought wouldn't sync to everyone.
DRM still has plenty of issues. But FairPlay itself...? Not so much. (For now.)
In fact, there may or may not have been a letter from Apple's CEO on precisely this matter.
If Universal, Warner, and Sony (the remaining holdouts, though still the holders of vast sums of music) were seriously put-out that "APPUL DON'T LET US SELL DRM-FREE MUSIC ON THEIR STORE AND WE REEEEEEALLY WANTS TO!!" they could cause a massive PR hit to Apple and force their hand by releasing their licensing details. If the concessions they're asking for are exceedingly minor in comparison to current deals, it would still be a massive PR hit and force Apple's hand.
...but considering all we get now is *chirp-chirp* *crickets* *pin-drop*
They want SOMEONE else to possibly compete. Or they want Apple caving on their every other licensing/pricing demand. Or... [soupnazi]"NO DRM-FREE FOR YOU!"[/soupnazi]
the only revolution apple has ever pulled off is a marketing revolution. the ipod, macbook and iphone do nothing other gadgets haven't before. indeed on many technical levels they are inferior, especially the ipod.
You do realize the same GPU that's in the N95 is in the iPhone, right? (At least a slightly different MBX permutation.) Only difference right now seems to be that the iPhone is getting it USED, while Nokia is trying to resurrect N-Gage across a broad swath of devices, and doing so pretty slowly and shruggably.
Same with the iPhone's "not real" GPS. (Though seemingly the n95 added that "fake" A-GPS later on to boost quality and positioning time.) What does it get used for other than their not-nearly-as-good mapping software? (That you have to pay for upgrades to, and pay to use voice navigation...)
Other things you somehow think the iPhone lacks that it's had since launch include: TV Out
Other things that somehow you think matter only if it's "integrated" and not "better in every way, from multiple different apps" include: VoIP
Meanwhile, who in crap "raves" about Bluetooth 2.0? o_O The accelerometer is only mentioned because if it's USE, not it's "being there." The n95 used it only for photo stabilization and orientation in the beginning, but opened it up later, and had a handful of apps take advantage. It doesn't appear still to do much by default in the firmware, and doesn't appear to be as sensitive. (Though that might itself be between the firmware handling and the app support, rather than the hardware.)
Ugh... I like Verizon's network, but hate just about everything else. (Their prices and options were certainly why I didn't get a Treo to begin with.)
I'm glad to be off for a while, as I was either going to switch to at&t for the iPhone, or switch to Sprint for "as much as I could get" out of a smartphone with the price savings.
Unfortunately the Sprint network in my area has always been a bit TOO crappy, so that tipped me over the edge. Not regretting it, since at&t has expanded their network in my area quite a lot as well, so there's pretty much no difference between it now and what Verizon gave me previously.
Amusingly, I checked on app updates just after posting this, and Air Sharing just had one which added support for viewing TCL, SQL, and VB text files. Not that I have much need for those, but they keep sticking more in. ^_^
That was pretty much his point, though. The iPhone can already read Word documents and most of the common formats you'd need. (And some other apps bring more to the table. I use Air Sharing for most of my needs.)
The only thing the iPhone doesn't have innately yet (or app-enabled, to my knowledge) is the ability to modify said documents on the fly. Hence why he was only talking about modifying them.
Pre-3G there was indeed subscription revenue-sharing. (I imagine the biggest reason Verizon told them to go scratch.) But as I understand it, with the 3G the iPhone moved to "regular subsidization mode" like any other cell phone. There might be SOMETHING residual in there, but at&t also raised the iPhone data premium by $10/month (and removed the free 200 SMS, thus causing most users to pick up a $5 text monthly fee, or pay-per-text which is fine by them), so it would pretty much equal out.
...how is that a "slap in the face" any more than them selling RIM phones right now is? Or if they picked up Android, like others seem inclined to?
Are they going to REFUSE to sell iPhones at that point? Won't Apple be out of it's exclusivity period by then anyway and hopping aboard any carrier who wants them, thus assuring AT&T lose potentially millions of long-time customers who follow the phone elsewhere? Won't pretty much all the carriers be looking for "their own thing" alongside whatever iPhones, BlackBerries, Androids, or whatever diversified phones they pick up to attempt to appeal to all consumers?
The plan is $70 before tax ($40 for the lowest-price voice plan, and $30 for UL data), but there is no SMS included. It's unlimited data, not texting. (Which, IMHO, is retarded.)
If course you can certainly SMS out of other iPhone apps, so at least for sending them you never need to accrue a SMS charge.;-)
Offhand, the UL data plan is pretty competitive. Certainly it's better than Verizon's continued bullshit (which was much of why I wasn't on a Treo years before), and it seems right in line with the others. (Sprint you seem to be able to do a lot better with if you know how to get the SERO plan.)
In the end, that's pretty much the point, though. It's worth it if you plan on taking advantage of what UL data and online-access-everywhere can bring you. If THAT isn't worth the money to you, then certainly the iPhone (or just about any other smartphone) isn't worth it for you. You might as well get a regular cell phone and pick up a Touch if you want to hop on the platform, rather than cart around the data charge.
...it's kind of like bragging "my car gets better gas mileage than a Hummer," but I suppose for the overall wonkiness that has been the PS3 browser so far, even that is an accomplishment.;-)
I really don't mind them starting off from the "no background processes" perspective, because it's a door that--once opened--cannot be closed. I've seen numerous phones that start getting extremely unstable once you start playing with it; my brother's Treo used to crash 2-3x a day. If you let any app do whatever it wants, and you don't know what each app is doing... it could create a mess.
Bear in mind that they could change their stance at any time, but what they CAN'T do is "tagbacks" without seriously fucking people over (and likely prompting a ton of lawsuits), so... we'll see how this goes first. Also bear in mind that AOL can update their IM client at any point for "background-enough" processing; they don't have to sign off sessions, they can buffer messages, they can push updates... In short, they can take care of everything that an IM client would need to do in the background anyway, just with different methodology. It's a nice app, but it's the launch state, and Apple didn't really come out with the SDK Push updates until shortly before launch, so... SOMEone will take care of it, even if AOL doesn't get around to it yet. I don't think we're too far away from a multi-client IM app either. (One would think Adium would give it a shot, since they're OS X-only on the computer end, so getting their nice and clean setup onto the iPhone/Touch devices would seem to come naturally to them.
Well, previously you also tended to suck at basically everything for a while. Now, through training and Skill Focus (either from your class or through additional feats spent), you can actually be very good at something straight away (training + Focus = +8 bonus by themselves), and only a staggering level discrepency would overcome that. A feat can even make you generically better at all untrained skills, if you'd like.
Meanwhile, you even seem to be able to get cross-class flavor easier, because a single feat gives you training in any skill (or multiclassing into any class and getting one of their starting skills), instead of taking away skill points to support it. (And that majority of your points if you're trying to "catch it up.")
As well, they seem to be emphasizing using other complimentary skills (either yours or of your allies) to create a whole situational challange (grabbing situational modifiers), rather than just emphasizing one roll of one skill each time it may come up.
Adventurers simply seem to represent a quasi "pool of heroism" and generically get better in every way, rather than being Joe Schmoe from off the street who just decided to pick up a sword and whack a goblin with it.
...and it's not like "levels" weren't heavily weighted against you before, since they represented skill caps. A 1st level rogue trying to bluff a 10th level "whatever" was already at a disadvantage, since their skill was capped at 4 ranks, while the opponent could go to 13. (9, even if it wasn't a class skill.) You could use feats in 3.x to get bonuses before, and you can use feats in 4th for more bonuses now. There's still a lot of weight placed in "skill determination" if you've got it.
Meanwhile, you'll have fewer fighters who are situationally klutzes because even though they've been adventuring for 20 levels, they were always expected to Intimidate, and they had to jump and swim more than they ever had to climb, so they still fall off ladders because they never had the spare points and rolled poorly.
There's less arbitrariness about it than you'd think, and it's both a tighter skill system that flows faster, and is more fair in many ways. "Adventuring" normally reflects the accumulation of a little bit of everything from everyone in every situation that you run across, so the intrinsic level bonus reflects that. You're not going to be stymied every time you again run across a monster you've fought dozens of times before simply because you don't have the spare points to toss into the appropriate knowledge skill.
It's not true to form, but then neither was 3.x, and 2nd Edition could get downright illogical. It's quicker, easier to compensate for a character lack if you want to (or add flavor you want to), you don't feel pretty useless for the first few levels, and dedication to a skill gives you a "15 level sway" against an untrained opponent, if you want to think of it that way. That and even your stat bonus is more heavily weighted in 4e multi-roll challenges, rather than the "make a lot of rolls, and if you have bad luck ones... SUCKS TO BE YOU!"
Not everything will be answered yet, but while you may not like it conceptually, it's a lot better than you make it out to be.
Also, your dad is a higher-level fisherman than you AND has more feats to dedicate to being Focused at it, so he's probably got a good 6 points on you right there, whether or not you have a stat advantage.;-) Over a day's worth of extended casts... of COURSE he's going to be better! Hehe...
Even "spirit"-wise, I find 3E a huge step away from AD&D, especially since you find you're missing out a whole lot if you aren't playing on a battle map.
D&D might have come about from tabletop warfare origins, but it certainly didn't feel like it. (I mean, the DM read off a grid map, but he used it to describe the surroundings to the players.) 3rd edition was a HUGE step back to grid-based, tabletop play, and you really feel crimped if you're not able to take advantage of maneuvering and positioning... Your talents give you a ton of options in that vein.
3rd edition introduces a HUGE amount of multiclassing versatility--for everyone--that AD&D had in very crimped and queer and unwieldy fashion. 3rd adds a lot of versatility within your class and even race, while AD&D's were extremely static. 3rd gave melee combat a lot of flesh and substance, while AD&D's was extremely bland.
Frankly, 4th shares MUCH more with 3rd than third does with anything that came before it. Unless you were heavily in love with the spell system... Just what about it was keeping the "spirit?"
I think you're making too much of... well... I'm not even sure what. Especially since there's almost NO chance that you've looked into or exerimented with 4th enough to have a very good feel.
Seriously. I REALLY liked the Wheel of Time system, but sadly their networking was for shit. If only it had been better coded and had gone somewhere...! It would have been interesting to see where it could have gone.
I'm afraid I can't comprehend your comment after you toss out something like "3E still felt like 1E AD&D." Frankly, 3E felt more like playing Excel than AD&D.
Slashdot Mirror
He's not saying he's burning anything to a tangible medium. He's saying he's BUYING the tangible medium, which gives him the "look, here! This is what I am Free Use-ing!" capabilities, as well as the highest-quality audio masters to rip to digital from.
He's just saying "buy CD's, and do what you want." Considering the digital alternatives are not that much CHEAPER, are lower-quality, and have licensing terms attached...
The only way to really reduce your "price-per-song" is if you're willing to sign up for a subscription service instead of paying to own.
What, you want to continue to extend DRM for audiobooks now that it's dead and dying for music?
Not an "Apple thing," though, as they've publicly stated their willingness to move all music to DRM-free tracks; if they labels met the same licensing agreements as are in place or were making only a few sensible additional requests, they could EASILY force Apple's hand on the matter.
Since they're both not offering DRM-free tracks on iTunes AND not making any public announcements to force Apple into a PR nightmare if they balk, it points in other directions instead. (Like their wanting to leverage DRM-free tracks on Amazon and other providers to create artificial competition to iTunes. Or that their licensing demands are far in excess of their current agreements, and Apple's desired business model. Probably a combination of the two and a bit of spite mixed in. Heh...)
Hence the Big Three gets no digital revenue from me until they blink. (I might have more problems if CDs weren't available for the things I really desire, but...)
"Support alternatives to iTunes so you can support the labels artificially keeping DRM on iTunes so that they can try to reduce the influence of iTunes! It is the only thing that makes sense!"
Hence why I don't purchase MP3's from the Big Three RIAA labels anywhere, DRM or not. Once they stop playing monkey-shit with DRM, I'll be willing to be their digital consumer.
Since when do DRM-free tracks cost more than DRM-laden ones? That was the case only when iTunes Plus first rolled out, but it was quickly equalized. (IIRC, they still have the minor "upgrade cost" to convert existing tracks, which is annoying, but minor. Hopefully if they go ALL DRM-free, they'll celebrate by letting anyone and everyone "upgrade" their owned tracks regardless. For free.)
Especially if his name is Earl.
Amazon is the top RIAA label's "last, best hope to reduce the influence Apple has over them in general (and specifically in regards to iTunes licensing terms and pricing demands)." DRM-free tracks are the last card they can play.
Working in a computer store for years with people coming to us with every conceivable technical question, the sum total of people who've run into the "5 device" limit with FreePlay songs and had some come to us for advice...? None.
While that resembles "anecdote," keep in mind that's "anecdote for hundreds of people and thousands of cases in many local townships," not "me and my friends."
We've had any number of DRM questions, of course, but that's been from "one incompatible format to another," not "restrictions within FairPlay itself."
Apple certainly DID strike a good balance between consumer and studio concerns, because they got FairPlay in and accepted fast, and there have been very few people who run into the ceiling. (And those who have enough devices to run into the limitation are usually the best informed to begin with, and manage things ahead of time.)
Meanwhile, pretty much every other DRM from every other service that followed has had much more restrictive terms, and I HAVE run into people who'd hit "two computer/device" caps quite quickly, simply because they had three kids and found out that the music they bought wouldn't sync to everyone.
DRM still has plenty of issues. But FairPlay itself...? Not so much. (For now.)
In fact, there may or may not have been a letter from Apple's CEO on precisely this matter.
...but considering all we get now is *chirp-chirp* *crickets* *pin-drop*
If Universal, Warner, and Sony (the remaining holdouts, though still the holders of vast sums of music) were seriously put-out that "APPUL DON'T LET US SELL DRM-FREE MUSIC ON THEIR STORE AND WE REEEEEEALLY WANTS TO!!" they could cause a massive PR hit to Apple and force their hand by releasing their licensing details. If the concessions they're asking for are exceedingly minor in comparison to current deals, it would still be a massive PR hit and force Apple's hand.
They want SOMEONE else to possibly compete. Or they want Apple caving on their every other licensing/pricing demand. Or... [soupnazi]"NO DRM-FREE FOR YOU!"[/soupnazi]
the only revolution apple has ever pulled off is a marketing revolution. the ipod, macbook and iphone do nothing other gadgets haven't before. indeed on many technical levels they are inferior, especially the ipod.
No wireless. Less space than a Nomad. Lame.
You do realize the same GPU that's in the N95 is in the iPhone, right? (At least a slightly different MBX permutation.) Only difference right now seems to be that the iPhone is getting it USED, while Nokia is trying to resurrect N-Gage across a broad swath of devices, and doing so pretty slowly and shruggably.
Same with the iPhone's "not real" GPS. (Though seemingly the n95 added that "fake" A-GPS later on to boost quality and positioning time.) What does it get used for other than their not-nearly-as-good mapping software? (That you have to pay for upgrades to, and pay to use voice navigation...)
Other things you somehow think the iPhone lacks that it's had since launch include: TV Out
Other things that somehow you think matter only if it's "integrated" and not "better in every way, from multiple different apps" include: VoIP
Meanwhile, who in crap "raves" about Bluetooth 2.0? o_O The accelerometer is only mentioned because if it's USE, not it's "being there." The n95 used it only for photo stabilization and orientation in the beginning, but opened it up later, and had a handful of apps take advantage. It doesn't appear still to do much by default in the firmware, and doesn't appear to be as sensitive. (Though that might itself be between the firmware handling and the app support, rather than the hardware.)
Ugh... I like Verizon's network, but hate just about everything else. (Their prices and options were certainly why I didn't get a Treo to begin with.)
I'm glad to be off for a while, as I was either going to switch to at&t for the iPhone, or switch to Sprint for "as much as I could get" out of a smartphone with the price savings.
Unfortunately the Sprint network in my area has always been a bit TOO crappy, so that tipped me over the edge. Not regretting it, since at&t has expanded their network in my area quite a lot as well, so there's pretty much no difference between it now and what Verizon gave me previously.
Amusingly, I checked on app updates just after posting this, and Air Sharing just had one which added support for viewing TCL, SQL, and VB text files. Not that I have much need for those, but they keep sticking more in. ^_^
That was pretty much his point, though. The iPhone can already read Word documents and most of the common formats you'd need. (And some other apps bring more to the table. I use Air Sharing for most of my needs.)
The only thing the iPhone doesn't have innately yet (or app-enabled, to my knowledge) is the ability to modify said documents on the fly. Hence why he was only talking about modifying them.
Huzzah! "Sarcasm detector" has a new meme!
Pre-3G there was indeed subscription revenue-sharing. (I imagine the biggest reason Verizon told them to go scratch.) But as I understand it, with the 3G the iPhone moved to "regular subsidization mode" like any other cell phone. There might be SOMETHING residual in there, but at&t also raised the iPhone data premium by $10/month (and removed the free 200 SMS, thus causing most users to pick up a $5 text monthly fee, or pay-per-text which is fine by them), so it would pretty much equal out.
...how is that a "slap in the face" any more than them selling RIM phones right now is? Or if they picked up Android, like others seem inclined to?
Are they going to REFUSE to sell iPhones at that point? Won't Apple be out of it's exclusivity period by then anyway and hopping aboard any carrier who wants them, thus assuring AT&T lose potentially millions of long-time customers who follow the phone elsewhere? Won't pretty much all the carriers be looking for "their own thing" alongside whatever iPhones, BlackBerries, Androids, or whatever diversified phones they pick up to attempt to appeal to all consumers?
The plan is $70 before tax ($40 for the lowest-price voice plan, and $30 for UL data), but there is no SMS included. It's unlimited data, not texting. (Which, IMHO, is retarded.)
;-)
If course you can certainly SMS out of other iPhone apps, so at least for sending them you never need to accrue a SMS charge.
Offhand, the UL data plan is pretty competitive. Certainly it's better than Verizon's continued bullshit (which was much of why I wasn't on a Treo years before), and it seems right in line with the others. (Sprint you seem to be able to do a lot better with if you know how to get the SERO plan.)
In the end, that's pretty much the point, though. It's worth it if you plan on taking advantage of what UL data and online-access-everywhere can bring you. If THAT isn't worth the money to you, then certainly the iPhone (or just about any other smartphone) isn't worth it for you. You might as well get a regular cell phone and pick up a Touch if you want to hop on the platform, rather than cart around the data charge.
...it's kind of like bragging "my car gets better gas mileage than a Hummer," but I suppose for the overall wonkiness that has been the PS3 browser so far, even that is an accomplishment. ;-)
I really don't mind them starting off from the "no background processes" perspective, because it's a door that--once opened--cannot be closed. I've seen numerous phones that start getting extremely unstable once you start playing with it; my brother's Treo used to crash 2-3x a day. If you let any app do whatever it wants, and you don't know what each app is doing... it could create a mess.
Bear in mind that they could change their stance at any time, but what they CAN'T do is "tagbacks" without seriously fucking people over (and likely prompting a ton of lawsuits), so... we'll see how this goes first. Also bear in mind that AOL can update their IM client at any point for "background-enough" processing; they don't have to sign off sessions, they can buffer messages, they can push updates... In short, they can take care of everything that an IM client would need to do in the background anyway, just with different methodology. It's a nice app, but it's the launch state, and Apple didn't really come out with the SDK Push updates until shortly before launch, so... SOMEone will take care of it, even if AOL doesn't get around to it yet. I don't think we're too far away from a multi-client IM app either. (One would think Adium would give it a shot, since they're OS X-only on the computer end, so getting their nice and clean setup onto the iPhone/Touch devices would seem to come naturally to them.
Ravenloft was certainly interesting. Dark Sun was certainly cool and unique.
...but that does NOT by any stretch make 2nd Edition "the best."
Well, previously you also tended to suck at basically everything for a while. Now, through training and Skill Focus (either from your class or through additional feats spent), you can actually be very good at something straight away (training + Focus = +8 bonus by themselves), and only a staggering level discrepency would overcome that. A feat can even make you generically better at all untrained skills, if you'd like.
...and it's not like "levels" weren't heavily weighted against you before, since they represented skill caps. A 1st level rogue trying to bluff a 10th level "whatever" was already at a disadvantage, since their skill was capped at 4 ranks, while the opponent could go to 13. (9, even if it wasn't a class skill.) You could use feats in 3.x to get bonuses before, and you can use feats in 4th for more bonuses now. There's still a lot of weight placed in "skill determination" if you've got it.
;-) Over a day's worth of extended casts... of COURSE he's going to be better! Hehe...
Meanwhile, you even seem to be able to get cross-class flavor easier, because a single feat gives you training in any skill (or multiclassing into any class and getting one of their starting skills), instead of taking away skill points to support it. (And that majority of your points if you're trying to "catch it up.")
As well, they seem to be emphasizing using other complimentary skills (either yours or of your allies) to create a whole situational challange (grabbing situational modifiers), rather than just emphasizing one roll of one skill each time it may come up.
Adventurers simply seem to represent a quasi "pool of heroism" and generically get better in every way, rather than being Joe Schmoe from off the street who just decided to pick up a sword and whack a goblin with it.
Meanwhile, you'll have fewer fighters who are situationally klutzes because even though they've been adventuring for 20 levels, they were always expected to Intimidate, and they had to jump and swim more than they ever had to climb, so they still fall off ladders because they never had the spare points and rolled poorly.
There's less arbitrariness about it than you'd think, and it's both a tighter skill system that flows faster, and is more fair in many ways. "Adventuring" normally reflects the accumulation of a little bit of everything from everyone in every situation that you run across, so the intrinsic level bonus reflects that. You're not going to be stymied every time you again run across a monster you've fought dozens of times before simply because you don't have the spare points to toss into the appropriate knowledge skill.
It's not true to form, but then neither was 3.x, and 2nd Edition could get downright illogical. It's quicker, easier to compensate for a character lack if you want to (or add flavor you want to), you don't feel pretty useless for the first few levels, and dedication to a skill gives you a "15 level sway" against an untrained opponent, if you want to think of it that way. That and even your stat bonus is more heavily weighted in 4e multi-roll challenges, rather than the "make a lot of rolls, and if you have bad luck ones... SUCKS TO BE YOU!"
Not everything will be answered yet, but while you may not like it conceptually, it's a lot better than you make it out to be.
Also, your dad is a higher-level fisherman than you AND has more feats to dedicate to being Focused at it, so he's probably got a good 6 points on you right there, whether or not you have a stat advantage.
Even "spirit"-wise, I find 3E a huge step away from AD&D, especially since you find you're missing out a whole lot if you aren't playing on a battle map.
D&D might have come about from tabletop warfare origins, but it certainly didn't feel like it. (I mean, the DM read off a grid map, but he used it to describe the surroundings to the players.) 3rd edition was a HUGE step back to grid-based, tabletop play, and you really feel crimped if you're not able to take advantage of maneuvering and positioning... Your talents give you a ton of options in that vein.
3rd edition introduces a HUGE amount of multiclassing versatility--for everyone--that AD&D had in very crimped and queer and unwieldy fashion. 3rd adds a lot of versatility within your class and even race, while AD&D's were extremely static. 3rd gave melee combat a lot of flesh and substance, while AD&D's was extremely bland.
Frankly, 4th shares MUCH more with 3rd than third does with anything that came before it. Unless you were heavily in love with the spell system... Just what about it was keeping the "spirit?"
I think you're making too much of... well... I'm not even sure what. Especially since there's almost NO chance that you've looked into or exerimented with 4th enough to have a very good feel.
Seriously. I REALLY liked the Wheel of Time system, but sadly their networking was for shit. If only it had been better coded and had gone somewhere...! It would have been interesting to see where it could have gone.
...or at least could have been modded. ;-)
I... um...
I'm afraid I can't comprehend your comment after you toss out something like "3E still felt like 1E AD&D." Frankly, 3E felt more like playing Excel than AD&D.