The catch is that there are more implications than that... if you have infinite room near your TV(s), thats fine... personally, I have 2 TVs, and all the plugs near them have 1-2 power bars filled to the brim to the point Im starting to be scared of potential fire hazards, even if the wires are cleanly put away... adding more consoles mean more and more wires, especially if you have a surround sound system, etc... so it would have to (FOR ME personally) be much more than 100$ less to make me think 2 consoles is better than one:)
Sorry, NOW its like that I understand... but I was replying to a post saying that even before the recent change, with Firefox and stuff it was a pain, which I didnt remember it being so:)
You wouldn't -download- it (at least, its not what this DRM is for), because the rip could come from something else... hell, the master even, considering a lot of leaks come from within...so no matter what, the rip will be available, so its definately not what they want to stop: They want to stop people making copies so their buddies don't have to download it, and thats freakishly common in the DVD world, probably MUCH more so than downloading...
For the performance part, its easy to use DX9's past an example: remember the Geforce FX line of cards? That was totally rediculous. Same damn thing is happening to DX10: I bet you its the videocard manufacturers that are messing up again.
Considering.NET's environment, it will be a heck of a lot harder to show you did NOT have a decompiler than that you did... Virtually all.NET developers worth their salt (on Windows...but i think it works on Mono too) have Reflector installed:)
But I do get your point, though the license agreement already state a bunch of things like this in the current code, so yes they would have an explicit license agreement against you. The problem would probably be bigger now, true, but my point is that it was there all along. Again, virtually all.NET devs have been exposed to the framework's code, and are stuck with a license agreement saying you can't reverse engineer it, so its already all there...with comments!
More like, self-tuning guitar is to guitarists what 4 gen tools are to programmers: not always the right tool for the right job, but when they are, you'd be stupid not to use em when you're trying to get something done. If you're doing it as a hobby, its something else.
It doesn't introduce much. Most of the.NET stuff is written in.NET itself (as opposed to being in some natively compilable language like C++), and thus can be decompiled into something 90% alike the original (including comments), and you can look at it.
So really, it doesn't add any problem that wasn't there before... Assuming they release the stuff that was natively compiled too, it just makes the surface larger, but thats it.
Oh right, now I remember: its the Office XML format from Office -2000- that opens in IE or something first. The format from -2003- opens in Office directly, even though they both have the same extension.
I wonder if they updated or if it was always like this, but on both my XP and Vista machines, clicking on an Office 2003 XML opens in Word directly. The icon is even different (even if the extensions are exactly the same), meaning the shell itself knows before you even try to open it.
Now that, I don't know if it was always that way, but it was for me. Take with a grain of salt.
I didn't read the article, but the reason many people prefer Windows Mobile is because of the.NET framework. It just makes it too easy to make apps for it. While a binary for desktop will not run on a Windows Mobile device, the source code recompiled often will, if you avoid the subset of the language thats not available. Failing that, a Windows Mobile.NET assembly -will- work on a desktop, so its pretty cool to test stuff out. Yeah you need to pay for the (better) tools (the basic tools being freely available), but its actually quite cheap and so easy to use its almost like cheating.
Personally I was put on the spot with no mobile device experience -whatsoever-, with a 2 weeks deadline to learn it AND deliver a tested, fully working and deployable (on customer devices) remote real time inventory management software su pporting most mainstream Windows Mobile enabled barcode scanners (I realise I'm not talking hobby anymore) with nothing but the lowest version of Visual Studio that supported it (which is incredibly cheap, especially since you can get an upgrade from virtually anything, including competing products), and I actually finished ahead of time.
Then by replacing the bits that actually used the barcode scanner with a stub, we were using my boss' cellphone to demo it to customer without any changes (beyond the one I just mentionned). That was pretty fun:)
That plugin is for Office 2003 and XP to use OOXML natively, correct. It works quite well, it IS available publicly, and its quite commonly deployed (well, relative to the amount of environments using 2007, not in absolute terms).
And the Office 2003 using XML is for a totally different format, which was also available in a previous version of office (though with less features), which is literally the Office 2003 format but in XML instead of binary, and is a totally different deal than the docx format from 2007, and existed years before Office 2007 came out. It is, for example, the format that is often used to generate Office documents through XSLT. It was used a "long" time ago, and I personally still use that format since it is simpler to generate document with for internal, short term purposes compared to docx, since it doesn't require the additional operation of putting the files together and zipping (which isn't a big deal, but its nice to be able to simply invoke an XSLT processor with no additional steps).
The plugin above will use the virtually the same docx format, used the same way, as Office 2007.
As far as the "keep adding onto the endgame" trap, WoW hasn't at all fallen into this trap. Why? With each expansion, they are not adding onto the previous endgame content. They are obsoleting the previous endgame content, and adding a completely new endgame. With a new level cap of 80, all that 1337 level 70 gear the hard core raiders worked so hard for will be obsolete. They will level their characters to 80 and start working on getting new 1337 level 80 gear
Which is exactly like 90% of other MMOs out there, and what I meant:)
Also, I didn't talk about just casuals. I talked about new players. Not exactly the same thing... The problem with adding stuff at the end (or as you describe it, semantics) is that the population becomes separated. That may be what a lot of people want, but it still ruins games. WoW has actually nothing new to it aside what they -originally- did right, and the fact that they were able to hype it up to a new market... they still do the same mistakes, in the same order.
thats an Office 2003 doc XML (not quite the same thing). You'd have had to unzip the docx first if it was actually one, and then would have a crap ton of files and stuff... which I beleive is similar-ish to the "competition".
I understand this, but I'm not talking of WoW specifically. I'm talking about MMO design in general. Most MMOs start in a way that is NOT based on end game (obviously), and its how they get popular. Then a bunch of extremely vocal "end gamers" then end up being the turning point of the game, and since they are vocal, and the rest are not, the game ends up shifted about them... I did not play WoW, but I spent several thousand of hours playing just about every other MMOs out there, and it always ends the same way, based on the end game content. Yes, a large portion of the user base is 70, and play on their max level characters: because thats how the game is built and designed. It does NOT have to be that way...
The game could be designed on starting over and over (like FFXI was originally, but fell in the same darn trap), or maybe not based on levels at all, or something. I'm no designer:) But everytime I game ends up "based" around end game, the same thing happen: the same peoples stick around, the same people move on to a new game, and sooner than later, the game goes to ruin. Then a new game comes around realising that mistake, until they too cave in under the pressure of the "hardcores" and make the game yet another Everquest wannabe.
The problem with every MMO out there is that while they always start looking at others trying not to repeat the same mistakes, and initially they often succeed, is that they all fall in the same trap eventually, that is, focusing on "End Game". Most people who get hooked to an MMO, get hooked on the way, not at the end with the so called hardcores running high level events. The -vocal- majority is all there, so if you look at forums, etc, it feels like its all what people want... and its how all MMOs eventually get ruinned.
As you said, the investment to "catch up" become huge, competition becomes fierce, the amount of cheaters go up (to try and catch up), and its just a downward spiral. While its easier to say than do, MMO devs (not just WoW) need to stop thinking that the end game, "long term" players are their main customers. At any given moment, they indeed are, but for the continual longevity of the game, its not these people that will fuel it, its the constant supply of "newbies", so to speak. People rediscovering the trip from level 1.
The games should make it interesting to continually start over, that way new players and old are closer together, mix better, etc. Originally FFXI had that decently, making players continually start back up, mixing up with the new, it was quite the experience. Then somewhere along the line they got caught by the vocal majority and down it went. Its not to say that adding content at the end isn't a good idea: people who are attached to some characters will continue paying longer, but it shouldn't be the main concern like it is in 99% of long lasting MMOs out there.
Considering where Apple was back then, and where Apple is now... if the same happens with Linux, its more than we could have expected any other way, IMO.
Indeed. Plus MS makes custom deals for these things all the time... if Dell comes out with a 250$ PC, and tells Microsoft "its either you make us a deal on OEM, or we make it Linux-only", MS will give em Windows for like 5$ a pop.
I had several people a -DAY- telling me they had Windows XP even though they had Macs (Macs were fully supported btw), vice versa, people who couldn't read, and so on...
Once Linux is fully supported by many company, we'll have to expect it to be only specific distros, and even then people will lie about them and such to go around that... Just figuring out which combination of software people have installed is gonna be -insane-, nevermind actually helping em with it at that point.
"Which distro are you using?", "Which version?", "KDE or Gnome?" (dang, Enlightenment, oupsies!), which videocard drivers? (official or Free??), which KERNEL (good lord...). It will be totally insane.
Even in the Windows (and even Mac!) world, large scale companies have to define certain configs they support and don't, otherwise it quickly goes out of hand. Nevermind in Linux... Its not impossible, but considering how insanely expensive call centers and such are (not as much with outsourcing, but still incredibly expensive), its almost a definitive net loss in most cases, even if you consider the enhanced company image.
Thats a problem with videogames lately. Way too easy, no challenge, and now with Nintendo pumping out casual games all over, teenagers don't learn how to properly kill anymore. Thats why they keep failing to kill anyone./corneyjoke
The reason the punitive fine is steep is because its so freagin hard and rare to catch people like this, so the only real way to work it out is to send a "message" by being rough on the punishment, hoping that you'll stop others in the process when they learn about it (which is debatable, but its the rational behind such judgements).
Though it does make sense. Copyright violations are a bit like underage drinking, especially for stuff like games. It has very very high peer approval, so people don't "feel" wrong when they do it (both sellers AND "junkies", as you call em). The idea that you'll never get caught is most of the reason these people do what they do...so it is possible that things like these WILL work.
Slashdot Mirror
The catch is that there are more implications than that... if you have infinite room near your TV(s), thats fine... personally, I have 2 TVs, and all the plugs near them have 1-2 power bars filled to the brim to the point Im starting to be scared of potential fire hazards, even if the wires are cleanly put away... adding more consoles mean more and more wires, especially if you have a surround sound system, etc... so it would have to (FOR ME personally) be much more than 100$ less to make me think 2 consoles is better than one :)
Sorry, NOW its like that I understand... but I was replying to a post saying that even before the recent change, with Firefox and stuff it was a pain, which I didnt remember it being so :)
Last time I had to do a WGA with Firefox, the web site just told me to run some program and enter some code. Did that change?
You wouldn't -download- it (at least, its not what this DRM is for), because the rip could come from something else... hell, the master even, considering a lot of leaks come from within...so no matter what, the rip will be available, so its definately not what they want to stop: They want to stop people making copies so their buddies don't have to download it, and thats freakishly common in the DVD world, probably MUCH more so than downloading...
For the performance part, its easy to use DX9's past an example: remember the Geforce FX line of cards? That was totally rediculous. Same damn thing is happening to DX10: I bet you its the videocard manufacturers that are messing up again.
They have very, very expensive beds and bank account full of money. That helps sleeping.
Considering .NET's environment, it will be a heck of a lot harder to show you did NOT have a decompiler than that you did... Virtually all .NET developers worth their salt (on Windows...but i think it works on Mono too) have Reflector installed :)
.NET devs have been exposed to the framework's code, and are stuck with a license agreement saying you can't reverse engineer it, so its already all there...with comments!
But I do get your point, though the license agreement already state a bunch of things like this in the current code, so yes they would have an explicit license agreement against you. The problem would probably be bigger now, true, but my point is that it was there all along. Again, virtually all
More like, self-tuning guitar is to guitarists what 4 gen tools are to programmers: not always the right tool for the right job, but when they are, you'd be stupid not to use em when you're trying to get something done. If you're doing it as a hobby, its something else.
It doesn't introduce much. Most of the .NET stuff is written in .NET itself (as opposed to being in some natively compilable language like C++), and thus can be decompiled into something 90% alike the original (including comments), and you can look at it.
So really, it doesn't add any problem that wasn't there before... Assuming they release the stuff that was natively compiled too, it just makes the surface larger, but thats it.
Its mostly because the people who made those formats WANT people to think its all about said physical medium, for their bottom line.
Oh right, now I remember: its the Office XML format from Office -2000- that opens in IE or something first. The format from -2003- opens in Office directly, even though they both have the same extension.
I wonder if they updated or if it was always like this, but on both my XP and Vista machines, clicking on an Office 2003 XML opens in Word directly. The icon is even different (even if the extensions are exactly the same), meaning the shell itself knows before you even try to open it.
Now that, I don't know if it was always that way, but it was for me. Take with a grain of salt.
I didn't read the article, but the reason many people prefer Windows Mobile is because of the .NET framework. It just makes it too easy to make apps for it. While a binary for desktop will not run on a Windows Mobile device, the source code recompiled often will, if you avoid the subset of the language thats not available. Failing that, a Windows Mobile .NET assembly -will- work on a desktop, so its pretty cool to test stuff out. Yeah you need to pay for the (better) tools (the basic tools being freely available), but its actually quite cheap and so easy to use its almost like cheating.
:)
Personally I was put on the spot with no mobile device experience -whatsoever-, with a 2 weeks deadline to learn it AND deliver a tested, fully working and deployable (on customer devices) remote real time inventory management software su pporting most mainstream Windows Mobile enabled barcode scanners (I realise I'm not talking hobby anymore) with nothing but the lowest version of Visual Studio that supported it (which is incredibly cheap, especially since you can get an upgrade from virtually anything, including competing products), and I actually finished ahead of time.
Then by replacing the bits that actually used the barcode scanner with a stub, we were using my boss' cellphone to demo it to customer without any changes (beyond the one I just mentionned). That was pretty fun
That plugin is for Office 2003 and XP to use OOXML natively, correct. It works quite well, it IS available publicly, and its quite commonly deployed (well, relative to the amount of environments using 2007, not in absolute terms).
And the Office 2003 using XML is for a totally different format, which was also available in a previous version of office (though with less features), which is literally the Office 2003 format but in XML instead of binary, and is a totally different deal than the docx format from 2007, and existed years before Office 2007 came out. It is, for example, the format that is often used to generate Office documents through XSLT. It was used a "long" time ago, and I personally still use that format since it is simpler to generate document with for internal, short term purposes compared to docx, since it doesn't require the additional operation of putting the files together and zipping (which isn't a big deal, but its nice to be able to simply invoke an XSLT processor with no additional steps).
The plugin above will use the virtually the same docx format, used the same way, as Office 2007.
Also, I didn't talk about just casuals. I talked about new players. Not exactly the same thing... The problem with adding stuff at the end (or as you describe it, semantics) is that the population becomes separated. That may be what a lot of people want, but it still ruins games. WoW has actually nothing new to it aside what they -originally- did right, and the fact that they were able to hype it up to a new market... they still do the same mistakes, in the same order.
thats an Office 2003 doc XML (not quite the same thing). You'd have had to unzip the docx first if it was actually one, and then would have a crap ton of files and stuff... which I beleive is similar-ish to the "competition".
I understand this, but I'm not talking of WoW specifically. I'm talking about MMO design in general. Most MMOs start in a way that is NOT based on end game (obviously), and its how they get popular. Then a bunch of extremely vocal "end gamers" then end up being the turning point of the game, and since they are vocal, and the rest are not, the game ends up shifted about them... I did not play WoW, but I spent several thousand of hours playing just about every other MMOs out there, and it always ends the same way, based on the end game content. Yes, a large portion of the user base is 70, and play on their max level characters: because thats how the game is built and designed. It does NOT have to be that way...
:) But everytime I game ends up "based" around end game, the same thing happen: the same peoples stick around, the same people move on to a new game, and sooner than later, the game goes to ruin. Then a new game comes around realising that mistake, until they too cave in under the pressure of the "hardcores" and make the game yet another Everquest wannabe.
The game could be designed on starting over and over (like FFXI was originally, but fell in the same darn trap), or maybe not based on levels at all, or something. I'm no designer
The problem with every MMO out there is that while they always start looking at others trying not to repeat the same mistakes, and initially they often succeed, is that they all fall in the same trap eventually, that is, focusing on "End Game". Most people who get hooked to an MMO, get hooked on the way, not at the end with the so called hardcores running high level events. The -vocal- majority is all there, so if you look at forums, etc, it feels like its all what people want... and its how all MMOs eventually get ruinned.
As you said, the investment to "catch up" become huge, competition becomes fierce, the amount of cheaters go up (to try and catch up), and its just a downward spiral. While its easier to say than do, MMO devs (not just WoW) need to stop thinking that the end game, "long term" players are their main customers. At any given moment, they indeed are, but for the continual longevity of the game, its not these people that will fuel it, its the constant supply of "newbies", so to speak. People rediscovering the trip from level 1.
The games should make it interesting to continually start over, that way new players and old are closer together, mix better, etc. Originally FFXI had that decently, making players continually start back up, mixing up with the new, it was quite the experience. Then somewhere along the line they got caught by the vocal majority and down it went. Its not to say that adding content at the end isn't a good idea: people who are attached to some characters will continue paying longer, but it shouldn't be the main concern like it is in 99% of long lasting MMOs out there.
Considering where Apple was back then, and where Apple is now... if the same happens with Linux, its more than we could have expected any other way, IMO.
Indeed. Plus MS makes custom deals for these things all the time... if Dell comes out with a 250$ PC, and tells Microsoft "its either you make us a deal on OEM, or we make it Linux-only", MS will give em Windows for like 5$ a pop.
I almost fell down my chair reading that one. Funny +6. Mostly because its true.
I had several people a -DAY- telling me they had Windows XP even though they had Macs (Macs were fully supported btw), vice versa, people who couldn't read, and so on...
Once Linux is fully supported by many company, we'll have to expect it to be only specific distros, and even then people will lie about them and such to go around that... Just figuring out which combination of software people have installed is gonna be -insane-, nevermind actually helping em with it at that point.
"Which distro are you using?", "Which version?", "KDE or Gnome?" (dang, Enlightenment, oupsies!), which videocard drivers? (official or Free??), which KERNEL (good lord...). It will be totally insane.
Even in the Windows (and even Mac!) world, large scale companies have to define certain configs they support and don't, otherwise it quickly goes out of hand. Nevermind in Linux... Its not impossible, but considering how insanely expensive call centers and such are (not as much with outsourcing, but still incredibly expensive), its almost a definitive net loss in most cases, even if you consider the enhanced company image.
The reason the punitive fine is steep is because its so freagin hard and rare to catch people like this, so the only real way to work it out is to send a "message" by being rough on the punishment, hoping that you'll stop others in the process when they learn about it (which is debatable, but its the rational behind such judgements).
Though it does make sense. Copyright violations are a bit like underage drinking, especially for stuff like games. It has very very high peer approval, so people don't "feel" wrong when they do it (both sellers AND "junkies", as you call em). The idea that you'll never get caught is most of the reason these people do what they do...so it is possible that things like these WILL work.
Funny enough, Excel 2007 is a decent OLAP client... so I guess its not Excel itself doing the maths, but its still analysing data =P