Twitter accounts. The fact that a terrorist organization has thousands of twitter accounts means that twitter gives 0 fucks. They are also doxxing all of the ISIS ppls that they can. Maybe it will help.
The fact that they were willing to cancel project Titan shows balls, though. The art assets seem repurposed into Overwatch, but it's still a lot of game they were willing to throw away after years of development.
You'll be able to play the offline content, which includes splitscreen multiplayer. That's a fraction of the total game- it is an online FPS, after all. The odds are good that a game of this magnitude will be supported for years, at the very least.
The problem here is, why do all these games only work in Origin? EA games are universally saddled with this requirement, and Origin is an adware / malware / spyware guy. Sandboxie prevents it from scanning your drive if you configure it for hours, and the current versions claims not to do this but... ugh, why would they have EVER done that in the first place?
I will say that EVERY console has demanded a massive update for me. Launch Wii-U needed a gig download, when then ended up, once decompressed, taking up a sizable portion of my tiny built in space (I got the white Wii-U, not the larger black one- it was easy enough to grab a cheap USB hard drive and has been no problem, but still). Many games require multigig updates for themselves, and usually require a system update. Everything always requires some dumb update for online play too.
It's totally believable to me that someone who started playing consoles seriously around the last generation might just believe it's totally normal to plan around 500 megabytes of updates, at absolute minimum, to play any new game, and the distinction between online play and offline play might well be totally blurred to them. It could be a totally on the square comment.
Consoles have a lot of the same annoyances as PCs these days- it is very frustrating. At least you don't need to update a driver or install Origin, lol.
There are tons of Indy games that don't track you- executables you download (or, in your case, maybe psplit across 50 floppies, eh? EH???) and play and that's that. A really good one is Rogue Legacy (side scroller adventure), and I'm pretty sure you can play it on Linux. It's also on Steam, but like many games, that's not the only way to get it.
Remember some people LIKE Steam, and PREFER it- they like the idea that they can log into their steam account anywhere, put the game library there, etc. To them, Steam is actually *more permanent* than a bunch of install files that you drag from one PC to the next, and less drama.
I'm assuming you would point out the other valid concerns- no network no games, no Steam no games, etc. I think those points have a lot of merit, but many just don't care.
Anyway, if you want to just talk CONSOLES, let me say this: The Xbone can be used offline. Please be sure that any games you buy are actually games played on your console, of course- Destiny is an MMO, and you can play it not at all if you aren't online at all times, but I think you can go through all the single player content in Halo without problem. I just don't recommend Microsoft here though- they had to be basically punched repeatedly to take away this "check in every day online" restriction, and clearly only caved because they had no other choice.
The PS4 and the Wii-U are similar- be sure you are actually buying a game with a single player campaign, and not just a client for an online only game. On the Wii-U, I have yet to run into a game that is anything but a local console game, with some optional network play, so I would recommend that for you. The PS4 is similar to the Xbone there- just select games that are offline. It is marked on the box if you need a whatever this or that.
> And this is why I will stick with my old XBox 360 with no network connection. > I have no interest in having to be online, or have a bloody account to play a video game.
Let me be blunt: this game is a multiplayer online shooter and almost nothing else. If you have "no interest in being online", then the dual-classed bloatware/spyware Origin is NOT why you aren't buying the game.
You aren't buying the game because you aren't the market, full stop.
It is absolutely impossible to play a 40+ man pvp game from your living room without a network connection. You are avoiding it because it's not your genre of game- the fact that Origin sucks doesn't even begin to enter the equation for you.
I'm at the point where I assume any of the games made with this model will cost around 100 bucks over the first year, and then be mostly over. The entire gamer community seems to sort of understand this, and some are angry, others just shrug and go to other games, and others are like "what's prob bro?" and buy them. They even talk about it like this "expected obsolescence"- every streamer I've seen compares the gameplay to some older games (a favorable comparison in the cases I've seen). But it is implicitly understood that you can't GET a game in those older games, and eventually that will be the fate of this one.
Basically, these games are a subscription model, with the subscription being "soft"- sure, you still have the game, but once the pvp community moves on to the next shiny jewel, you are left with a few expert #1 ninjas and are unlikely to have a materially different experience without being one of them.
Anyway, I bought it knowing that. I'm pleased with the two day old game so far, but who knows what I will think later. If, after a few weeks, it seems like the sort of thing that I'll be playing for a year, then I'll buy the season pass "deal". If not, then I won't. I totally get the fear that it won't deliver adequate experience for the dollar, though.
First- this is EA, and they will keep pushing Origin. If you play this on PC, you need to have Origin installed. If you play it on consoles, you need to have an Origin account (the game walks you through this, of course). This means they won't launch it on Steam unless their whole model falls apart.
Second- this game has almost no solo pve content- that is, the entire game is player versus player, with the exceptions of a few training missions. The training missions are actually pretty rad, but there's only a few of them. This means that if you try to play it in three years, your opponents will be both RARE and SUPER GOOD at the game- you'll be playing with and against the people who have, for whatever reason, decided that THIS game is the one that will stand the test of time for them, despite a bunch of new and shiny options, so they will love the mechanics, the guns, the powerups, the maps- and you'll be a babe amongst wolves.
For what it does, it's an excellent game- a pvp fps with extra options and strong Star Wars theme. If that doesn't motivate you to buy it within the first year of launch, you'll likely be much better served by other entertainment options for your dollar- and your time.
Cool, so I'll expect it with fusion power, flying cars, and hoverboards.
This means EITHER that they shit the bed so hard when they did this that they can't back it out without months of effort, or that it's all part of yet another corporate schedule, unaffected by technical timing. Each is lame for its own reasons.
Don't you still need it to comment on youtube, rate Android apps, and pretty much any garbage they could think of to try to tie your real name to stuff?
Given that proving something safe can only be done by big corporations, and will only be done if they stand to make a return on investment.... fuck that philosophy.
First, some Shaolin monks eat meat in small quantities. Second, vegetarianism (which exists historically) is wildly different from veganism. Veganism is 100% fatal in humans- treatment in modern times includes B12, made by poor enslaved bacteria or whatever. Third, 7th day Adventists are encouraged to be vegetarians- not all are. And again, that's not the same thing as veganism.
My problem with a lot of absolutist beliefs is that they are just too damned convenient. Why would veganism have both "health" and "moral" benefits? What are the odds that living in accordance with an arbitrary belief system about suffering would ALSO have health benefits? There's no vegan primates on earth (no, not even the Gorilla- he eats bugs, without them he would die). Why does the vegan belief system not apply to obligate carnivores such as lions (and don't start me on the animal abusing fucks who refuse to feed their cats meat)? Why would it just apply to humans? It's clearly a religion, and when a religion dresses up like science, we need to call it on that.
> Most people that buy a Mac could not care less about having full control and many wouldn't know what to do with it even if they did care.
I mean, I have no idea on the numbers. I will say that if they tried to get rid of this in some fashion, it would cause a riot in the applesphere. Apple has enough resources to keep an actual machine at their core, with serious capabilities and full user control. The fact that you can use it usefully without pulling up a bash prompt is, of course, their main appeal.
> I think the market opportunity for iOS is significantly larger so it makes economic sense.
No, the market opportunity for ios devices is larger. But OS X is still vastly too important for now- you'd need a version of ios that gives you a command prompt before you could really talk about all that.
I dunno, I don't see them going that direction. They could, but it would weaken what ios is in order to allow the minority of real users the power they need. Seems foolish.
Vegan options are strange and untested. Bugs are a known quantity, proven safe over a long term diet. Bugs are also tasty, but it's pretty hard to prepare them in a non-gross way. Hopefully that will change.
Do vegans really count meal worms as counting as things capable of suffering? Vegans go that route for moral reasons or health reasons, and bugs score very well on the second test, and pretty damned good on the first one. It's pretty silly to compare a mealworm to a cow. Cows care about their foals, insects spew millions of eggs in shit and then die or whatever. You'd need a religion to tell you to value the feelings of an larvae- you can't get there rationally.
Slashdot Mirror
Well said.
Masterwork Wordsmith +5, IMO :P
Twitter accounts. The fact that a terrorist organization has thousands of twitter accounts means that twitter gives 0 fucks. They are also doxxing all of the ISIS ppls that they can. Maybe it will help.
You can trust free or open source software produced anywhere, because they give you the code.
Proprietary code and almost any hardware... eh....
Mod parent up pls. This is a solid workaround based on realpolitik.
> As far as the other, a business has a right to refuse service to anybody for any reason or no reason.
Civil Right Act of 1964 says otherwise.
The fact that they were willing to cancel project Titan shows balls, though. The art assets seem repurposed into Overwatch, but it's still a lot of game they were willing to throw away after years of development.
You'll be able to play the offline content, which includes splitscreen multiplayer. That's a fraction of the total game- it is an online FPS, after all. The odds are good that a game of this magnitude will be supported for years, at the very least.
The problem here is, why do all these games only work in Origin? EA games are universally saddled with this requirement, and Origin is an adware / malware / spyware guy. Sandboxie prevents it from scanning your drive if you configure it for hours, and the current versions claims not to do this but... ugh, why would they have EVER done that in the first place?
You know I'm reading it, and I don't know either.
I will say that EVERY console has demanded a massive update for me. Launch Wii-U needed a gig download, when then ended up, once decompressed, taking up a sizable portion of my tiny built in space (I got the white Wii-U, not the larger black one- it was easy enough to grab a cheap USB hard drive and has been no problem, but still). Many games require multigig updates for themselves, and usually require a system update. Everything always requires some dumb update for online play too.
It's totally believable to me that someone who started playing consoles seriously around the last generation might just believe it's totally normal to plan around 500 megabytes of updates, at absolute minimum, to play any new game, and the distinction between online play and offline play might well be totally blurred to them. It could be a totally on the square comment.
Consoles have a lot of the same annoyances as PCs these days- it is very frustrating. At least you don't need to update a driver or install Origin, lol.
Every EA game is Origin now- it's fair to hate Origin, but it means you hate EA. Which is also fair.
There are tons of Indy games that don't track you- executables you download (or, in your case, maybe psplit across 50 floppies, eh? EH???) and play and that's that. A really good one is Rogue Legacy (side scroller adventure), and I'm pretty sure you can play it on Linux. It's also on Steam, but like many games, that's not the only way to get it.
Remember some people LIKE Steam, and PREFER it- they like the idea that they can log into their steam account anywhere, put the game library there, etc. To them, Steam is actually *more permanent* than a bunch of install files that you drag from one PC to the next, and less drama.
I'm assuming you would point out the other valid concerns- no network no games, no Steam no games, etc. I think those points have a lot of merit, but many just don't care.
Anyway, if you want to just talk CONSOLES, let me say this:
The Xbone can be used offline. Please be sure that any games you buy are actually games played on your console, of course- Destiny is an MMO, and you can play it not at all if you aren't online at all times, but I think you can go through all the single player content in Halo without problem. I just don't recommend Microsoft here though- they had to be basically punched repeatedly to take away this "check in every day online" restriction, and clearly only caved because they had no other choice.
The PS4 and the Wii-U are similar- be sure you are actually buying a game with a single player campaign, and not just a client for an online only game. On the Wii-U, I have yet to run into a game that is anything but a local console game, with some optional network play, so I would recommend that for you. The PS4 is similar to the Xbone there- just select games that are offline. It is marked on the box if you need a whatever this or that.
> And this is why I will stick with my old XBox 360 with no network connection.
> I have no interest in having to be online, or have a bloody account to play a video game.
Let me be blunt: this game is a multiplayer online shooter and almost nothing else. If you have "no interest in being online", then the dual-classed bloatware/spyware Origin is NOT why you aren't buying the game.
You aren't buying the game because you aren't the market, full stop.
It is absolutely impossible to play a 40+ man pvp game from your living room without a network connection. You are avoiding it because it's not your genre of game- the fact that Origin sucks doesn't even begin to enter the equation for you.
> Maybe they should first find a way to ship the product in such a way that it can't be tampered with.
I really and truly don't believe that is possible.
In fact, the whole thing seems unlikely to be taken seriously.
You need to be able to (at your site)- ensure the integrity of circuitry, ensure the integrity of code.
I mean, holy crap.
But when it comes to some random packing technique? No way.
I'm at the point where I assume any of the games made with this model will cost around 100 bucks over the first year, and then be mostly over. The entire gamer community seems to sort of understand this, and some are angry, others just shrug and go to other games, and others are like "what's prob bro?" and buy them. They even talk about it like this "expected obsolescence"- every streamer I've seen compares the gameplay to some older games (a favorable comparison in the cases I've seen). But it is implicitly understood that you can't GET a game in those older games, and eventually that will be the fate of this one.
Basically, these games are a subscription model, with the subscription being "soft"- sure, you still have the game, but once the pvp community moves on to the next shiny jewel, you are left with a few expert #1 ninjas and are unlikely to have a materially different experience without being one of them.
Anyway, I bought it knowing that. I'm pleased with the two day old game so far, but who knows what I will think later. If, after a few weeks, it seems like the sort of thing that I'll be playing for a year, then I'll buy the season pass "deal". If not, then I won't. I totally get the fear that it won't deliver adequate experience for the dollar, though.
No you won't.
First- this is EA, and they will keep pushing Origin. If you play this on PC, you need to have Origin installed. If you play it on consoles, you need to have an Origin account (the game walks you through this, of course). This means they won't launch it on Steam unless their whole model falls apart.
Second- this game has almost no solo pve content- that is, the entire game is player versus player, with the exceptions of a few training missions. The training missions are actually pretty rad, but there's only a few of them. This means that if you try to play it in three years, your opponents will be both RARE and SUPER GOOD at the game- you'll be playing with and against the people who have, for whatever reason, decided that THIS game is the one that will stand the test of time for them, despite a bunch of new and shiny options, so they will love the mechanics, the guns, the powerups, the maps- and you'll be a babe amongst wolves.
For what it does, it's an excellent game- a pvp fps with extra options and strong Star Wars theme. If that doesn't motivate you to buy it within the first year of launch, you'll likely be much better served by other entertainment options for your dollar- and your time.
> They have announced that, months ago.
Cool, so I'll expect it with fusion power, flying cars, and hoverboards.
This means EITHER that they shit the bed so hard when they did this that they can't back it out without months of effort, or that it's all part of yet another corporate schedule, unaffected by technical timing. Each is lame for its own reasons.
Don't you still need it to comment on youtube, rate Android apps, and pretty much any garbage they could think of to try to tie your real name to stuff?
Six years from now, we'll hear about how these wheel chairs keep bumping into the backsides of pretty blondes...
> In Australia, to sell supplements companies have to be able to show the ingredients are what the label says and must confirm structure and function.
So we can just order from Aussie companies to get stuff that has been vetted?
Given that proving something safe can only be done by big corporations, and will only be done if they stand to make a return on investment.... fuck that philosophy.
First, some Shaolin monks eat meat in small quantities. Second, vegetarianism (which exists historically) is wildly different from veganism. Veganism is 100% fatal in humans- treatment in modern times includes B12, made by poor enslaved bacteria or whatever. Third, 7th day Adventists are encouraged to be vegetarians- not all are. And again, that's not the same thing as veganism.
My problem with a lot of absolutist beliefs is that they are just too damned convenient. Why would veganism have both "health" and "moral" benefits? What are the odds that living in accordance with an arbitrary belief system about suffering would ALSO have health benefits? There's no vegan primates on earth (no, not even the Gorilla- he eats bugs, without them he would die). Why does the vegan belief system not apply to obligate carnivores such as lions (and don't start me on the animal abusing fucks who refuse to feed their cats meat)? Why would it just apply to humans? It's clearly a religion, and when a religion dresses up like science, we need to call it on that.
> Most people that buy a Mac could not care less about having full control and many wouldn't know what to do with it even if they did care.
I mean, I have no idea on the numbers. I will say that if they tried to get rid of this in some fashion, it would cause a riot in the applesphere. Apple has enough resources to keep an actual machine at their core, with serious capabilities and full user control. The fact that you can use it usefully without pulling up a bash prompt is, of course, their main appeal.
> I think the market opportunity for iOS is significantly larger so it makes economic sense.
No, the market opportunity for ios devices is larger. But OS X is still vastly too important for now- you'd need a version of ios that gives you a command prompt before you could really talk about all that.
I dunno, I don't see them going that direction. They could, but it would weaken what ios is in order to allow the minority of real users the power they need. Seems foolish.
Vegan options are strange and untested. Bugs are a known quantity, proven safe over a long term diet. Bugs are also tasty, but it's pretty hard to prepare them in a non-gross way. Hopefully that will change.
Do vegans really count meal worms as counting as things capable of suffering? Vegans go that route for moral reasons or health reasons, and bugs score very well on the second test, and pretty damned good on the first one. It's pretty silly to compare a mealworm to a cow. Cows care about their foals, insects spew millions of eggs in shit and then die or whatever. You'd need a religion to tell you to value the feelings of an larvae- you can't get there rationally.
Ran in the indicative is past tense.
Ran in the subjunctive is imperfect tense.
Since this referring to a possible future execution of the program being discussed, "ran" seems to fit perfectly as subjunctive imperfect.
"to be ran on encrypted data" seems like solid grammar to me. Imperfect tense, right?