"The obvious question is why should they? Just because we're geeks and we care about such things doesn't mean that they're actually important."
Because they ARE IMPORTANT. It's like saying 'just because we think morality is important, doesn't mean it is!'
Ultimately stallman despite his flaws is getting at the MORALITY of software ownership, right to modify, right to fix, etc. Games especially could benefit from what stallman is preaching. It's really about taking back the public domain, which is important whether or not the masses don't realize it.
Things like this occur because of our insane IP laws.
That is the kind of society we live in where fan's cannot take stuff they invested their own money in and create their own works based off it or fix up / refurbish old games.
There are a tonne of old games that could be kept updated with the various changes in operating systems and direct x updates, a game like Mech warrior 2 could run natively on modern hardware without resorting to more cumbersome fixes if we had the source code.
Just because the people who care and are smart enough to modify their own software does not mean these people do not benefit society as a whole by being able to spread derivative works or fixing up old software for others. That is the kind of society we should want to create.
"Really, so you're also suggesting that AUTHORS have been made obsolete somehow by technology?"
We do this all the time for other occupations, no one has any problem offshoring/outsourcing/destroying jobs when new technologies that make their skills obsolete (i.e. robots vs manual labor). I doubt you'd say "what about those poor factory workers/mcdonalds workers?", when we finally develop robots that can do manual labor and do food service/house work.
There are tonnes of jobs who've had their skillsets devalued to next to nothing or outright obliterated and none of THOSE people had the law to protect their livelihoods.... perhaps they needed job copyrights? The real issue is just coming up with alternative ways to make money. Creating "digital libraries" that try to treat information like it is scarce is not a solution.
Unfortunately the climate and intellect of people in the US is nowhere near sane solutions, you'll hear cries of "socialism" or other such nonsense, human beings are very territorial and not very intelligent.
The real issue is that there are no good solutions because people will always abuse the system, we already see it in the software industry where you never own your software. You can't modify the source code, etc, etc. Due to 'copyright', 'patents' and 'ip'. There are a whole list of downsides with current systems as they are implemented, there is no public domain since 'ip' never gets released into the public domain due to corporate lobbying. There are possible solutions but the *psychologies' of the people involved will make sure no good solutions are possible.
When you give people money/power/rights people always want to expand those rights especially when money is involved.
"I have an honest question: How is an author going to be paid for their time writing the books if we allow one person to purchase the book, and then lend it to an infinite number of people at once?"
I have an honest question, how are we to protect horse and buggy makers from this new fangled technology called the car?
"Freedom means you should also be able to make money and act selfishly with your distro or open source project. I really don't get why it's always such a problem for open source advocates. If you want truly free software you let everyone do whatever they want with it."
I agree with this post. There is this thing that developers need $ to pay the bills, and the only way I could ever see Ubuntu going mainstream is if they basically cloned windows GUI to ease the transition. Some days I wonder if anyone is sane at the wheel of these companies.
Why is it that many nerdy types have horrible business sense?
"I find it curious that Linux on the desktop should be so well accepted in some markets (especially Latin America) and resisted so vigorously in others. Anyway, this is sad news, whatever the reasons."
People just don't want to learn new things, the truth is linux distro's that wanted to be desktops really should have copied windows UI and apps and just cloned them for wider acceptance, to take the learning curve out of it. Linux is evidence of what happens when you leave development of an OS to programmer and engineering types - they develop for themselves rather for the masses more often then not.
"Me, like most every reasonable person in the world, certainly does not want to have You Tube, general web browsing, email, IRC, streaming music, game playing, or any of a number of other services negatively affected because Joe down the street is downloading his fifth illegal movie for the day,"
The problem with this stance is that ISP's naturally oversold bandwidth in the past, and this argument is tenuous today given technological advances and the huge decrease in bandwidth costs that have not been passed along to customers. Higher download speeds means you get stuff done faster, i.e. the time it takes you to download a file decreases and you can only consume so much content per day. Especially with GB caps. For instance say you download a couple movies you want to watch, at high speed it takes less time to get these things. There is a natural fall off point to consuming bandwidth once you've received what you are downloading.
Also I am on business package and I can tell you I always get near maximum speeds at peak times so the "so and so is downloading xx/yy" is a myth. The real issue is they are purposely delaying lighting up additional bandwidth to extract as much money as they can from users. Trying to deflect attention from themselves with arguments like the 'bandwidth hog' argument, which isn't an argument at all given other countries have 10 times the speed North Americans have for more bandwidth and better rates.
"Yes. And members of these unwashed masses who can see the origins of the problem have a responsibility to propose workarounds to their instruments of monopoly. There are many in my view, they all just require organization by lots of people."
Problem is too many people are ignorant / apathetic, I always see people defending corporations and corporations rights over peoples, it's pretty disturbing how easily brainwashed people are.
Somebody who wants to charge for demos DOES NOT CARE about the PC as a platform. Most dev's these days (at AAA houses) couldn't give less of a shit as you see with their sloppy ports to PC and draconian DRM (assassins creed 2).
Nerds with high ideals may make jokes but they don't rape women. I know the type Assange is and he is one of the last people you'd find hurting women on purpose. Jaded and cynical about women? absolutely... but that's entirely different thing altogether.
Guess we can't expect the ability to discern subtlety between the two when it comes to the average human being.
... are too easy to game by way of ignorance and overwhelming the staffs ability to approve them. Not to mention lobbying, bribes and kickbacks. People just do not have the skills to properly assess patents/copyright, I mean come on amazon's 1 click patent and others relating checkout? I mean seriously.
They will just be abused endlessly, they should be junked. What really needs to be innovated is the business model, laws that grant legal monopolies would merely force innovation on the business model end, instead of through the legal system. The idea that there are no solutions or "there would be no incentive" suffers from a complete lack of imagination on the part of the critic.
... and the guy who wrote the book smells like a smear campaign, lets not forget the rape fiasco and the U.S. wanting to extradite him from sweden, etc,etc. Lets not forget what assange is on the end of where as this other guy and open leaks smells rotten.
If you cannot justify your perspective then when trying to argue civ 5 is equal or better the previous games then it's over for your 'perspective'.
Not all perspectives are created equal, same like not everyone is born equally intelligent or discerning, therefore their vision is greater then others. The idea that everything is relative is nonsense. There are hard explanations for things in the end even if they are inaccessible to you. This is how we know really bad games from really good ones.
The real issue is people do not have access to their understanding since most thought is unconscious. Your whole worldview is based on enlightenment thinking (which was seriously wrong in many respects) and science has shown so.
This means you can emotionally like something like Civ 5 but are unable to justify your argument why Civ 5 is just as good as previous civs. So I could tell you the facts and you will not reason to the right conclusion, this is not how the mind works. Some minds are better then others at realizing this.
Man you are proof that gamers are blind. There were serious game breaking flaws all over the game at release, the game has serious performance issues as well. The fact that the game is LIKABLE by new people who've never played past games or by the inexperienced is quite irrelevant because they are incapable of making any kind of serious observations about the rules of the game. Therefore they are incapable of judgement about the quality of the game in relation to what has come before. Civ 5 has moved from outstandingly great to below average.
It is worse then all previous civ games and the reviews all over the net not by the "review industry" say so. Each civ has been at least as good as the previous one whenever a sequel happened, Civ 5 substantially dropped in game quality. I would rather play Civ 4 then Civ 5, and many other civ fans feel the same way.
First - this game isn't really "Sid Meier's Civilization". It's nothing like the other games in the series. It's really "Jon Shafer's Civilization", the 26-year old "lead designer" of Civ 5 at Firaxis. This was his first game as "lead designer".
Second - the game is utterly unbalanced. There are a million flaws in the game that were never playtested. For example, producing wealth is irrelevant because you get far more gold from producing a unit and then deleting it. Certain civilizations are far more powerful than others, or can exploit certain tech/policy combinations to easily defeat other civilizations. The worst elements are things that were fine in Civ 4 and made worse in Civ 5, like exploiting Great Scientists. The Wonders of the World are mostly useless now, or not worth the hammers.
Third - So much content has been actually removed or downgraded, like Civics -> Social Policies, or the number of leaders and civilizations.
Finally - This game is just such a total betrayal of Civ 4, abandoning everything interesting and good. I'm really sad that they trusted a totally new Lead Designer for such an important game.
In every regard Civ 5 is a step downward, with a few exceptions like hex tile. They took one step forward in one area but 3 steps back in another which leaves the game seriously mediocre. The problem is the game is below average and coming from previous games you have to force yourself to play it, the city states (like food) were so abusable on release and the AI was just brain dead.
"remove power from laws" is a good idea, then they truly don't understand what they are endorsing. "
Does the law work now with the ability to buy and sell it like a commodity and oh lets not forget the bail out? The law is mostly a fiction today... Money buys laws and politicians which makes the whole concept farcical, those with the most money get to ignore the law and avoid taxes, the law has limited reach against powerful people in a high tech age.
Note what I said retard: "Sandy bridge is not that much faster then a Core 2 machine, in fact the i7 was roughly on 40% faster at most, in the majority of applications."
None of what you posted DISPROVED this statement at ALL and the article I pointed to on ANAND proves it in spades.
The opposite is true... you are just willfully ignorant aren't you? The so called numbers you posted, the charts are not comparable, you really sound like you do not understand tech at all.
Lets take a look at a RESPECTABLE website that builds a review of the GENERAL USER CASE.
Notice also in the crap you posted that you are comparing a 3.4Ghz cpu to a 3.0 ghz cpu, most intelligent people who understand their PC's overclock their CPU's. Most people who know what they are doing and game overclock, so say you have an E8400 you're running it @ 3.6-4ghz, so it makes those performance comparisons moot.
Clock for clock (running at same ghz) the i7 and sandybridge is barely faster then core 2 in a cubic shit load of applications. There are special use cases like 3D rendering or video encoding, but for the average user and average gamer (most people) there is not a desperate overwhelming need to upgrade. You never countered my value for $ argument at all you just came up with corner cases not the general use case just to argue for no reason.
You are missing the point ENTIRELY... you made no rational numbers backed points what-so-ever, just rhetoric. As for the GPU limitation bullshit comment, you are just lying out your ass. There are plenty of other games which aren't GPU limited which show the same or worse trends.
When people upgrade they look for significant performance increase over what they already own, so if you are a gamer and I7 is only 30% faster then there is no point in upgrading and this is true for all PC gamers. Most modern games show shit percentage increases in performance moving from core 2 to i7/sandybridge over what they already own. You only upgrade when there is significant value for $ unless you like wasting money or are rich.
This is why I qualified my first post by users who are interested in other work based apps.
Man somedays I wonder what is wrong with the internet....
The i7 is not even 30% faster then the core 2 E8400 in UT3, and Sandybridge is barely faster then the i7 at the same clockspeed. Everyone benching using nothing less then the latest apps is fudging the data purposely.
Sandy bridge is not that much faster then a Core 2 machine, in fact the i7 was roughly on 40% faster at most, in the majority of applications. The Sandybridge as of this time is just i7 redux with slightly higher clockspeeds.
No one should need to upgrade until you see at least double the performance of a core 2 machine unless one is doing specialized work where every gain is important to the task/business.
"If anything games are becoming more like computer games overall"
No. Clearly Civ 5, Supreme commander 2 and a host of other games suffer from neutered game design. As well as game designers reigning in their game mechanics for accessibility (i.e. dumbing down in the belief of attracting a wider audience)
Metacritic: Supcom 2 - User score: 6.1 Civ 5 - User score: 7.0
... that is under served. The game company who can serve the under served with the right game that doesn't dumb down it's game will hit it big.
The real issue is that game developers are losing touch with gamers by trying to copy WoW and are caught up in multiplayer hysteria, when EA says it is the "end for the single player game" I laugh. These jokers are just creating markets for other more ambitious and far seeing people to move into.
Slashdot Mirror
"The obvious question is why should they? Just because we're geeks and we care about such things doesn't mean that they're actually important."
Because they ARE IMPORTANT. It's like saying 'just because we think morality is important, doesn't mean it is!'
Ultimately stallman despite his flaws is getting at the MORALITY of software ownership, right to modify, right to fix, etc. Games especially could benefit from what stallman is preaching. It's really about taking back the public domain, which is important whether or not the masses don't realize it.
Things like this occur because of our insane IP laws.
http://www.opcoder.com/projects/chrono/
That is the kind of society we live in where fan's cannot take stuff they invested their own money in and create their own works based off it or fix up / refurbish old games.
There are a tonne of old games that could be kept updated with the various changes in operating systems and direct x updates, a game like Mech warrior 2 could run natively on modern hardware without resorting to more cumbersome fixes if we had the source code.
Just because the people who care and are smart enough to modify their own software does not mean these people do not benefit society as a whole by being able to spread derivative works or fixing up old software for others. That is the kind of society we should want to create.
... is crap. It must be said, even the 'good' stuff isn't all that great.
"Really, so you're also suggesting that AUTHORS have been made obsolete somehow by technology?"
We do this all the time for other occupations, no one has any problem offshoring/outsourcing/destroying jobs when new technologies that make their skills obsolete (i.e. robots vs manual labor). I doubt you'd say "what about those poor factory workers/mcdonalds workers?", when we finally develop robots that can do manual labor and do food service/house work.
There are tonnes of jobs who've had their skillsets devalued to next to nothing or outright obliterated and none of THOSE people had the law to protect their livelihoods.... perhaps they needed job copyrights? The real issue is just coming up with alternative ways to make money. Creating "digital libraries" that try to treat information like it is scarce is not a solution.
Unfortunately the climate and intellect of people in the US is nowhere near sane solutions, you'll hear cries of "socialism" or other such nonsense, human beings are very territorial and not very intelligent.
The real issue is that there are no good solutions because people will always abuse the system, we already see it in the software industry where you never own your software. You can't modify the source code, etc, etc. Due to 'copyright', 'patents' and 'ip'. There are a whole list of downsides with current systems as they are implemented, there is no public domain since 'ip' never gets released into the public domain due to corporate lobbying. There are possible solutions but the *psychologies' of the people involved will make sure no good solutions are possible.
When you give people money/power/rights people always want to expand those rights especially when money is involved.
"I have an honest question: How is an author going to be paid for their time writing the books if we allow one person to purchase the book, and then lend it to an infinite number of people at once?"
I have an honest question, how are we to protect horse and buggy makers from this new fangled technology called the car?
"Freedom means you should also be able to make money and act selfishly with your distro or open source project. I really don't get why it's always such a problem for open source advocates. If you want truly free software you let everyone do whatever they want with it."
I agree with this post. There is this thing that developers need $ to pay the bills, and the only way I could ever see Ubuntu going mainstream is if they basically cloned windows GUI to ease the transition. Some days I wonder if anyone is sane at the wheel of these companies.
Why is it that many nerdy types have horrible business sense?
"I find it curious that Linux on the desktop should be so well accepted in some markets (especially Latin America) and resisted so vigorously in others. Anyway, this is sad news, whatever the reasons."
People just don't want to learn new things, the truth is linux distro's that wanted to be desktops really should have copied windows UI and apps and just cloned them for wider acceptance, to take the learning curve out of it. Linux is evidence of what happens when you leave development of an OS to programmer and engineering types - they develop for themselves rather for the masses more often then not.
"Me, like most every reasonable person in the world, certainly does not want to have You Tube, general web browsing, email, IRC, streaming music, game playing, or any of a number of other services negatively affected because Joe down the street is downloading his fifth illegal movie for the day,"
The problem with this stance is that ISP's naturally oversold bandwidth in the past, and this argument is tenuous today given technological advances and the huge decrease in bandwidth costs that have not been passed along to customers. Higher download speeds means you get stuff done faster, i.e. the time it takes you to download a file decreases and you can only consume so much content per day. Especially with GB caps. For instance say you download a couple movies you want to watch, at high speed it takes less time to get these things. There is a natural fall off point to consuming bandwidth once you've received what you are downloading.
Also I am on business package and I can tell you I always get near maximum speeds at peak times so the "so and so is downloading xx/yy" is a myth. The real issue is they are purposely delaying lighting up additional bandwidth to extract as much money as they can from users. Trying to deflect attention from themselves with arguments like the 'bandwidth hog' argument, which isn't an argument at all given other countries have 10 times the speed North Americans have for more bandwidth and better rates.
Mirror's edge 1 was nothing revolutionary it was FPS with platforming mechanics... I quite dislike how FPS style has come to take over the industry.
"Yes. And members of these unwashed masses who can see the origins of the problem have a responsibility to propose workarounds to their instruments of monopoly. There are many in my view, they all just require organization by lots of people."
Problem is too many people are ignorant / apathetic, I always see people defending corporations and corporations rights over peoples, it's pretty disturbing how easily brainwashed people are.
"is to seriously piss off one of the few remaining developers who really cares about the PC as a platform"
Headline: CEO Cevat Yerli defends EA’s controversial PDLC strategy, remains unsure on Crysis 2 demo...
http://www.develop-online.net/news/34545/Crytek-foresees-the-end-of-free-game-demos
Somebody who wants to charge for demos DOES NOT CARE about the PC as a platform. Most dev's these days (at AAA houses) couldn't give less of a shit as you see with their sloppy ports to PC and draconian DRM (assassins creed 2).
Nerds with high ideals may make jokes but they don't rape women. I know the type Assange is and he is one of the last people you'd find hurting women on purpose. Jaded and cynical about women? absolutely... but that's entirely different thing altogether.
Guess we can't expect the ability to discern subtlety between the two when it comes to the average human being.
... are too easy to game by way of ignorance and overwhelming the staffs ability to approve them. Not to mention lobbying, bribes and kickbacks. People just do not have the skills to properly assess patents/copyright, I mean come on amazon's 1 click patent and others relating checkout? I mean seriously.
They will just be abused endlessly, they should be junked. What really needs to be innovated is the business model, laws that grant legal monopolies would merely force innovation on the business model end, instead of through the legal system. The idea that there are no solutions or "there would be no incentive" suffers from a complete lack of imagination on the part of the critic.
... and the guy who wrote the book smells like a smear campaign, lets not forget the rape fiasco and the U.S. wanting to extradite him from sweden, etc ,etc. Lets not forget what assange is on the end of where as this other guy and open leaks smells rotten.
If you cannot justify your perspective then when trying to argue civ 5 is equal or better the previous games then it's over for your 'perspective'.
Not all perspectives are created equal, same like not everyone is born equally intelligent or discerning, therefore their vision is greater then others. The idea that everything is relative is nonsense. There are hard explanations for things in the end even if they are inaccessible to you. This is how we know really bad games from really good ones.
The real issue is people do not have access to their understanding since most thought is unconscious. Your whole worldview is based on enlightenment thinking (which was seriously wrong in many respects) and science has shown so.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PYmi0DLzBdQ
This means you can emotionally like something like Civ 5 but are unable to justify your argument why Civ 5 is just as good as previous civs. So I could tell you the facts and you will not reason to the right conclusion, this is not how the mind works. Some minds are better then others at realizing this.
Man you are proof that gamers are blind. There were serious game breaking flaws all over the game at release, the game has serious performance issues as well. The fact that the game is LIKABLE by new people who've never played past games or by the inexperienced is quite irrelevant because they are incapable of making any kind of serious observations about the rules of the game. Therefore they are incapable of judgement about the quality of the game in relation to what has come before. Civ 5 has moved from outstandingly great to below average.
It is worse then all previous civ games and the reviews all over the net not by the "review industry" say so. Each civ has been at least as good as the previous one whenever a sequel happened, Civ 5 substantially dropped in game quality. I would rather play Civ 4 then Civ 5, and many other civ fans feel the same way.
First - this game isn't really "Sid Meier's Civilization". It's nothing like the other games in the series. It's really "Jon Shafer's Civilization", the 26-year old "lead designer" of Civ 5 at Firaxis. This was his first game as "lead designer".
Second - the game is utterly unbalanced. There are a million flaws in the game that were never playtested. For example, producing wealth is irrelevant because you get far more gold from producing a unit and then deleting it. Certain civilizations are far more powerful than others, or can exploit certain tech/policy combinations to easily defeat other civilizations. The worst elements are things that were fine in Civ 4 and made worse in Civ 5, like exploiting Great Scientists. The Wonders of the World are mostly useless now, or not worth the hammers.
Third - So much content has been actually removed or downgraded, like Civics -> Social Policies, or the number of leaders and civilizations.
Finally - This game is just such a total betrayal of Civ 4, abandoning everything interesting and good. I'm really sad that they trusted a totally new Lead Designer for such an important game.
In every regard Civ 5 is a step downward, with a few exceptions like hex tile. They took one step forward in one area but 3 steps back in another which leaves the game seriously mediocre. The problem is the game is below average and coming from previous games you have to force yourself to play it, the city states (like food) were so abusable on release and the AI was just brain dead.
"You and I didn't play the same Civ 5. That game has everything I liked about Civ 4 and more. In other words, a worthy sequel."
You obviously don't hang around the Civ community at all.
http://www.amazon.com/Sid-Meiers-Civilization-V-Pc/dp/B0038TT8QM/
"remove power from laws" is a good idea, then they truly don't understand what they are endorsing. "
Does the law work now with the ability to buy and sell it like a commodity and oh lets not forget the bail out? The law is mostly a fiction today... Money buys laws and politicians which makes the whole concept farcical, those with the most money get to ignore the law and avoid taxes, the law has limited reach against powerful people in a high tech age.
http://dailybail.com/home/there-are-no-words-to-describe-the-following-part-ii.html
(direct video link)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cJqM2tFOxLQ
http://www.dailybail.com/ (frontpage)
Note what I said retard: "Sandy bridge is not that much faster then a Core 2 machine, in fact the i7 was roughly on 40% faster at most, in the majority of applications."
None of what you posted DISPROVED this statement at ALL and the article I pointed to on ANAND proves it in spades.
TRANSLATION: YOU ARE RETARDED.
The opposite is true... you are just willfully ignorant aren't you? The so called numbers you posted, the charts are not comparable, you really sound like you do not understand tech at all.
Lets take a look at a RESPECTABLE website that builds a review of the GENERAL USER CASE.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/4083/the-sandy-bridge-review-intel-core-i7-2600k-i5-2500k-core-i3-2100-tested/20
Notice also in the crap you posted that you are comparing a 3.4Ghz cpu to a 3.0 ghz cpu, most intelligent people who understand their PC's overclock their CPU's. Most people who know what they are doing and game overclock, so say you have an E8400 you're running it @ 3.6-4ghz, so it makes those performance comparisons moot.
Clock for clock (running at same ghz) the i7 and sandybridge is barely faster then core 2 in a cubic shit load of applications. There are special use cases like 3D rendering or video encoding, but for the average user and average gamer (most people) there is not a desperate overwhelming need to upgrade. You never countered my value for $ argument at all you just came up with corner cases not the general use case just to argue for no reason.
You are missing the point ENTIRELY... you made no rational numbers backed points what-so-ever, just rhetoric. As for the GPU limitation bullshit comment, you are just lying out your ass. There are plenty of other games which aren't GPU limited which show the same or worse trends.
When people upgrade they look for significant performance increase over what they already own, so if you are a gamer and I7 is only 30% faster then there is no point in upgrading and this is true for all PC gamers. Most modern games show shit percentage increases in performance moving from core 2 to i7/sandybridge over what they already own. You only upgrade when there is significant value for $ unless you like wasting money or are rich.
This is why I qualified my first post by users who are interested in other work based apps.
Man somedays I wonder what is wrong with the internet....
The i7 is not even 30% faster then the core 2 E8400 in UT3, and Sandybridge is barely faster then the i7 at the same clockspeed. Everyone benching using nothing less then the latest apps is fudging the data purposely.
http://www.techspot.com/review/353-intel-sandy-bridge-corei5-2500k-corei7-2600k/page13.html
http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/hardware-canucks-reviews/11390-intel-core-i7-nehalem-920-940-965-xe-processor-review-17.html
Using the latest stuff with the higher to highest settings the performance gaps are unimpressive to say the least.
Sandy bridge is not that much faster then a Core 2 machine, in fact the i7 was roughly on 40% faster at most, in the majority of applications. The Sandybridge as of this time is just i7 redux with slightly higher clockspeeds.
No one should need to upgrade until you see at least double the performance of a core 2 machine unless one is doing specialized work where every gain is important to the task/business.
"If anything games are becoming more like computer games overall"
No. Clearly Civ 5, Supreme commander 2 and a host of other games suffer from neutered game design. As well as game designers reigning in their game mechanics for accessibility (i.e. dumbing down in the belief of attracting a wider audience)
Metacritic:
Supcom 2 - User score: 6.1
Civ 5 - User score: 7.0
... that is under served. The game company who can serve the under served with the right game that doesn't dumb down it's game will hit it big.
The real issue is that game developers are losing touch with gamers by trying to copy WoW and are caught up in multiplayer hysteria, when EA says it is the "end for the single player game" I laugh. These jokers are just creating markets for other more ambitious and far seeing people to move into.
"Another mature contribution from those grown-ups at Anonymous."
There is nothing mature about this world.