The problem isn't that Microsoft needs to insure compatibility with third party software. It is the fact that they allowed someone to modify their core OS system in this way to begin with. The world has the development and technology to make the OS at that level "tamper proof" but why hasn't been done yet?
I'll tell you what: If Microsoft wants to enforce WGA and other validation schemes then they should at least make sure there isn't something else running around the kernel. At this point too many users can't tell the difference between WGA and some kit where if they aren't going to provide some validation of the running software then what is the real difference between their "service" and malware?
The cynic in me wonders iff this wasn't such a visible and highlighted Google highlighted would they bothered to push it sooner or even at all or even to let people know there is a problem. But yes it is good you can hold publicly traded company's feet to the fire by having a few countries denounce your product which is totally unlike OSS!
As a friend put it, it WoW is like Golf. How much privacy are you expecting when anyone can drive by and see them out on the course? If it turns out they really really really like Golf or WoW and are trying to hide how much playing they are doing then there is a different problem.
Beyond this there is a general issue of people expecting confidentiality from an online video game. Expecting the same level of privacy you'd get from a doctor, lawyer, priest or even in your home from a video game is pretty damn silly.
I've been wondering about this for years, ever since Debian and Red Hat created this technology to solve that problem, why do people think the way Debian does package management is better than RPM? I've never gotten a straight answer where it seems to be that most believe Red Hat distros are in some dark age handling packages piecewise which isn't true at all. I've looked at both and they match each other feature for feature. I've also done a bit of tinker with their respective "front end" apt-get and yum and find they match each other in features and functionality.
So why do people still say this Debian is so much better than RPM? Did I miss some brand new advancement or missed an old esoteric feature or what? Both pieces of technology do the same thing with minimal fuss as far as I can tell.
But then what about us? If I write a blog post in citation of something featured on Fox News, relevance is made from me not them. Google simply notes a blog with some keywords is relevant to a link. If Murdoch wants to change that, he is going to break the open, semi-neutral nature of the Internet we see today. The moment he gets away with saying "Google Can't Look Here" then why should you or me or anyone look there? Is this a case of trying to protect exclusive content or trying a dinosaur trying to fight the extinction comet?
BTW, I wouldn't be surprised if these "talks" aren't just about Google Search but about Youtube. I suspect this is what Murdoch really means about Google stealing content when someone can show video of their star talking head on Youtube instead of News Corp Servers. Microsoft's desire to replace it with their own where having Fox News "launch" with them would help.
It isn't quite true to suggest people don't "opt-in to patching" on any Windows product. It is more the case the process is arcane and confusing to some users. And worse still, the system trains the rest of the users to blindly accept things that look like "official updates" when they are really malware. I've lost track on the number of times someone asked me what was going on when the WGA thing pops up. The way it is worded and framed seems to freak users out and I see why: Going for months with a legit copy and suddenly getting challenged makes people wonder if they accidentally broke or misconfiguration their system. That means many hit cancel because Microsoft gave these worried users a choice of "Do you want to take the chance breaking your system? Yes or No?"
Although I agree no one sells common sense, I do think clicking on links in a web browser or email shouldn't put your machine at risk. If clicking a link in Firefox or Thunderbird in Linux or BSD created a compromise in the system, people would eagerly seek a solution by reworking the architecture of the system and software. The system we see today on Linux and BSD and the like grew out of those lessons. That isn't to say you can't click on a link in Firefox that causes trouble or have an bug that is exploitable in Thunderbird but the entire machine isn't ruined. On the other hand in Windows they decided it was "cheaper" to just throw scanning software in the way instead of fixing the design. Why does one feel the right way to approach the problem while the other feels like a work around?
Of course Linux and BSD and Windows aren't frozen and are still evolving but I really see an evolutionary dead end in the way Windows handles this. This is insanity to continue to believe that security in Windows can be maintained by AV software and user intervention and Microsoft staying ahead of the bad guys. Users have no way of knowing before viewing if a link they click is really dangerous and even the best behaved users accidentally miss-click. Users can't tell the difference between malware and anti-virus software. Who validates what is AV software and malware? The AV software industry or Microsoft? These guys haven't given us much reason to trust let alone the problem of having a conflict of interest.
Believing "user education" will lead to better security is like believing aggressive patching will create bug free software. Education and aggressive patching are useful and do improve the quality of the system but mistakes happen for people and software. You can have people read security documents forever and continually patch and machines will still get exploited because neither is perfected.
Beyond that, regular users don't have time to read security bulletins and twiddle with scanners. Instead of blaming the user, how about we blame the software systems that help create this mess? Why is it so difficult to configure and user and inspect the status of AV software? Why should any OS have AV software in the first place?? These seem like problems with the software design not the user. Or if anyone needs a hint on what the real problem is: It is very hard for a user to tell the difference between AV software and malware. That should tell you something is weird about the system where if the user could tell the difference we wouldn't need the software in the first place.
They have gone on record saying that they are going to take the fun out of games (out of context but amusing) and finding any and all ways to add commodity video games (definitely in context and not so amusing). To that end, this move fits right in: By removing private, stand alone servers they remove the mechanism of mods and player generated content. Now any and all content must come by Activision's blessing, often lining Activision's purse.
They see the loads of money console gamers shovel to Activision and want the same situation on PC. Good luck with that where they more likely sealed that platform's fate. There is little reason for the die hard PC gamer to bother with the game where if they don't skip it they'll just get it for a console they own instead.
I mean no one goes to the grocery store and goes "This is horrible problem...the oatmeal is way to cheap compared to Frosted Flakes. These prices are all over the place!"
I'm all for vendors being free to price their product in online venues at what ever level they want. This also means they can price they are free to price themselves into oblivion but the wonderful things about online stores it is much easier to fix than if they made the wrong price level for on the shelf product. This "problem" really doesn't seem like a problem at all.
Although these advanced systems can be done in single player, stand alone experiences, I predict we will see a lot of progress made in the MMO space where it is easier introduce dynamic content. One thing sorely missing from MMOs is custom built challenges. The game has access to all of that information on the character and how to play...why not start using it to change the things prsented to them?
- Using general terms for an example: If you enter an instance with a Warrior, a Thief, Wizard, and a Cleric but you kill the dragon and get some Ranger bow everyone goes "BOOO!". The game knows what classes came in so instead of just tossing out static loot from a static table, start considering who walked in and what improvements they need. Instead of forcing players to grind content for drops they know a monster has, they should come back for a chance on loot they know will be useful to someone.
- Since the game knows what classes came in, why not start seeding the instance with challenges configured for them? Each of the classes in the example are strong and weak to attacks and monsters, like for instance this group is a little weak on "ranged attacks" but stronger on defense. This group would avoid any static content they know would have a preponderance of stuff that flies or run around them. How about have them go into an instance that configures it to have less fliers, less stand back but features stuff that hits a little harder than normal?
- If the group is working well together and is stomping everything, why not up the difficulty a little till they aren't stomping everything? If the group isn't doing well, why not ease the difficulty so they aren't wiping every turn?
The basic idea is that the game should be smart enough to see at least the game/character data and evaluate what should be easy and hard for them to beat. This isn't so much "hand holding" but crafting a more interesting experience. If you swap the Thief for a Ranger and go into the same area you get a different mix of monsters and a guarantee that someone is going be rewarded. If you come in with a weak group you get a challenging experience. If you come in with a strong, expert group you get a very different but still challenging experience. The game designers should want you get through the quest handed to the players, to experience the story of the content, but still provide enough of challenge to feel accomplishment. Right now this is done with carefully crafted static content that involves a bit of statistical analysis that can be easily memorized or grow out of.
Yes 64-bit works smooth as silk for Windows 7 as long as you mean "just Windows 7". Very few user applications are compiled 64-bit. In fact a few old installers don't handle installing 32-bit applications in a 64-bit system correctly. How many utility applications like AV are really 64-bit instead of "64-bit compatible"? Very few. In fact I won't be surprised when it turns out a few more (nasty) surprises pop up with side by side and 32-bit and 64-bit versions.
So far, everything is going swimmingly because very few pieces of software are Win64. Now lets see what happens when things like Photoshop or Word or Firefox go 64-bit and their legacy plug-ins break.
Doing this brings blogs into alignment with a lot of media paid advertising. No one should worry (or be elated) about the end of these things because even with the "This program is a paid advertisement of XYZ Co..." there are just as many infomercials floating around than there always was.
Advertising isn't necessarily wrong (not necessarily right either but that is another thread). It is when advertising presents itself as something other than advertising that is a problem.
And again, the SxS signing approach doesn't actually add any real security. Someone wanting to modify an application will find a way to do it regardless of any special "don't modify me" bits the application might contain.
You think public key signatures of the executable and it's dependencies is not real security?... Then what is?
To be exact: Public key signatures only insure "the package" has not been tampered since the packager created and signed it. It doesn't say anything about the quality of the package contents. This is hardly a problem exclusive to Windows but the way Linux and BSD are designed promote software that avoids the need for "side by side". In fact, on Linux if a package barks at me that I need an legacy version of commonly used and actively updated libraries, I know should do more research where I may have the wrong version, version compatibility issues, or I may need to build it myself. The last thing I would do is force it by throwing more out of date and unmaintained software at it which seems to be a common strategy on Windows.
If "Educating Users" is the strategy you plan to embark upon, you should expect to have to "patch" your users every week. That's dumb.
The real question to ask is not "can we educate our users to be better at security?" it is "why do we need to educate our users at all?"
I've already posted we need to stop blaming the user and start blaming the authors of the system (Microsoft). The problem isn't some PEBKAC thing where a user is clicking on what they think is AV software and accidentally ruining their system. The problem is that the system allows them to do it in the first place. A run of the mill, standard user shouldn't be able to this in the first place. Why is it happening at all?? What important feature is being provided by the OS by allowing user to do this?? Some feature of installing AV software so it can prevent other fake AV software from installing? This is lunacy!
A meta-problem is that industry and environment has trained users to expect the OS to be broken in a way they need protection ("Oh look a new AV program that is 1000% better than my old stuff!") but that is another thread.
Isn't it about time to start asking Microsoft to fix the system instead of installing additional software that helps cover up the flaws? The reason why they went with this is that it is cheaper to offer "feature rich environment" but cover the holes with "additional safety software" than it is to make sure the "feature rich environment" is correct let alone sane or safe. The weakness has always been the "additional safety software" part. If legitimate software can be "additional safety software" then illegitimate software can be "additional safety software" as well.
Who validates what is legitimate "additional safety software"? The AV Industry? Microsoft? These guys aren't exactly impartial and at an abstract level represents a conflict of interest. Should it be left up to the user? If the user was qualified to do that they wouldn't need "additional safety software". This is a gigantic losing battle where we have long since pasted the point where we need more AV and UAC "protection" and start closing loopholes and flaws in the Windows OS and architecture.
What is killing console games is the inflexibility in pricing structures. Although AAA release game is okay at $60, a game like "Darkest of Days" is not. But since they are stuck in the same distribution channels they are forced into this pricing structure that doesn't make sense for the game.
This is why online stores like Steam have taken off. "Plants vs Zombies" is a hell of a lot of fun and would have died at the fixed $60 price. A developer may notice their game sales are slowing down so they do a price cut weekend which is impossible to do with the classic distribution chain. Even in the citation, half of the cost instead of being consumed in the distribution chain just putting disks on shelves can be put elsewhere. I don't have much illusions the big boys with the big games will pass the savings on to us but having the flexibility is at least a start.
I'm not sure about girls being afraid of snakes and spiders and such but is weird that I'm spooked if not afraid of the ad in the page about "Dora Saves The Crystal Kingdom. Try it free! Nick Jr Arcade"?
This has been something that has perpetually annoyed me. For instance, subscribers are sending $50 a year to Microsoft to play Infinity Ward's online content. It would be one thing if people were sending that $50 to Infinity Ward but this is going to Microsoft. It always seemed weird gamers where eager to pay Microsoft when they aren't responsible for content or fixing games like Modern Warfare 2 and yet are getting payment for it.
This is compounded by the PC vs console experience where a lot of the features XBox 360 fans fawn over are provided cheaper and easier than $50 a year. Console gamers wonder how dense PC gamers without XBox Live while PC gamers wonder how dense console gamers are when the same technology is all around them for free to use.
Why would I want to go to a "major LAN Party" where I wouldn't be surprised if a majority of/. users would rather spend their vacation elsewhere as well? Why would a majority of computer users out there would want to go a "major LAN Party"? None of my friends (all of who are over 30) ever want to or have a desire to go to a "major LAN Party". Was there even a "major LAN Party" at QuakeCon? There probably was but coverage I've read from it doesn't seem too interested in talking about it.
Lets face it: Only the super dedicated are willing to drag their computer to somewhere and hook it up to an unknown network. The rest of us mere mortals who simply want a fun game are simply happy to stay at home and hit "quick match" and chat over IM. I'm not surprised Blizzard is reticent about adding LAN support because "major LAN Parties" seem to be a small portion of the entire user base.
While cleaning up the PC, I saw that WC3 was still installed. I remember when I was playing this "hard core" I always went through Battle.net. After thinking about it a little more, the thought moving machines (my gaming PC is somewhat expensive) from my home to another location and use a LAN that maybe crawling with malware and god knows what else, even if I use super hardened settings and fully updated AV and firewall protection, is totally unappealing and I came to realize why I never cared about LAN. Once Internet became was ubiquitous it rendered LAN play moot. It is simply safer and easier to play from home.
As far as I can tell from my gaming habits: LAN support isn't even a factor for my choice of online games so I don't mind it going away. Or to put it another way, if it comes down to "features in Battle.net" or "LAN Support" there is no question I'm choosing Battle.net. The idea that a lot people are only going to play Starcraft 2 on LAN is pretty preposterous and only the dreams of super hard core players. The millions of casual players out there aren't going to care and would rather hit the "quick match" button off of Battle.net.
In this particular case, Druids probably do need to be opened up to more races but there are some strange combinations that are even worse "piss-poor retcon". This makes me wonder if this is "necessary" why bother having factions at all? Is it crazier to have Tauren Paladin and Human Hunters or just have Human Paladins grouping with Tauren Hunters?
The problem is these are all just "art assets". I'm not going to art and levels are cheap or easy or should always be handed out freely but these things aren't as advanced as new technology or new game play. So far everything they've been advertising could be done by dedicated modders out in the community today,
What Valve needs to do for "L4D2" is provide a demo to everyone. I'm sure the complaints wouldn't be so fierce if it was obvious what the improvements are. They need to show us what really is in the product that isn't just patch. Without this it just fuels the idea that "L4D2" only exists because the XBox 360 can't handle the aggressive patching necessary. There is a huge perception that a number of concessions were made in "L4D" that are undesirable for PC players. This behavior is doing nothing to dispel it.
If anything, every major Final Fantasy release is different than each other. Characters (good or bad), settings, events are rarely continued or reused. The combat system as well as other parts are often redone each release. Final Fantasy more or less "reboots" each major release.
I do know what you are getting at though but the problem isn't the characters, settings, events, and what not since designers are free to restart each installment and have taken advantage of that. The problem is those designers are still the same. Square-Enix should instead work on bringing up new talent so they can use the freedom allowed in FF.
Slashdot Mirror
The problem isn't that Microsoft needs to insure compatibility with third party software. It is the fact that they allowed someone to modify their core OS system in this way to begin with. The world has the development and technology to make the OS at that level "tamper proof" but why hasn't been done yet?
I'll tell you what: If Microsoft wants to enforce WGA and other validation schemes then they should at least make sure there isn't something else running around the kernel. At this point too many users can't tell the difference between WGA and some kit where if they aren't going to provide some validation of the running software then what is the real difference between their "service" and malware?
The cynic in me wonders iff this wasn't such a visible and highlighted Google highlighted would they bothered to push it sooner or even at all or even to let people know there is a problem. But yes it is good you can hold publicly traded company's feet to the fire by having a few countries denounce your product which is totally unlike OSS!
As a friend put it, it WoW is like Golf. How much privacy are you expecting when anyone can drive by and see them out on the course? If it turns out they really really really like Golf or WoW and are trying to hide how much playing they are doing then there is a different problem.
Beyond this there is a general issue of people expecting confidentiality from an online video game. Expecting the same level of privacy you'd get from a doctor, lawyer, priest or even in your home from a video game is pretty damn silly.
I'd rather see dishwasher safe keyboards than yet another cleaning thing for computers.
I've been wondering about this for years, ever since Debian and Red Hat created this technology to solve that problem, why do people think the way Debian does package management is better than RPM? I've never gotten a straight answer where it seems to be that most believe Red Hat distros are in some dark age handling packages piecewise which isn't true at all. I've looked at both and they match each other feature for feature. I've also done a bit of tinker with their respective "front end" apt-get and yum and find they match each other in features and functionality.
So why do people still say this Debian is so much better than RPM? Did I miss some brand new advancement or missed an old esoteric feature or what? Both pieces of technology do the same thing with minimal fuss as far as I can tell.
But then what about us? If I write a blog post in citation of something featured on Fox News, relevance is made from me not them. Google simply notes a blog with some keywords is relevant to a link. If Murdoch wants to change that, he is going to break the open, semi-neutral nature of the Internet we see today. The moment he gets away with saying "Google Can't Look Here" then why should you or me or anyone look there? Is this a case of trying to protect exclusive content or trying a dinosaur trying to fight the extinction comet?
BTW, I wouldn't be surprised if these "talks" aren't just about Google Search but about Youtube. I suspect this is what Murdoch really means about Google stealing content when someone can show video of their star talking head on Youtube instead of News Corp Servers. Microsoft's desire to replace it with their own where having Fox News "launch" with them would help.
It isn't quite true to suggest people don't "opt-in to patching" on any Windows product. It is more the case the process is arcane and confusing to some users. And worse still, the system trains the rest of the users to blindly accept things that look like "official updates" when they are really malware. I've lost track on the number of times someone asked me what was going on when the WGA thing pops up. The way it is worded and framed seems to freak users out and I see why: Going for months with a legit copy and suddenly getting challenged makes people wonder if they accidentally broke or misconfiguration their system. That means many hit cancel because Microsoft gave these worried users a choice of "Do you want to take the chance breaking your system? Yes or No?"
Although I agree no one sells common sense, I do think clicking on links in a web browser or email shouldn't put your machine at risk. If clicking a link in Firefox or Thunderbird in Linux or BSD created a compromise in the system, people would eagerly seek a solution by reworking the architecture of the system and software. The system we see today on Linux and BSD and the like grew out of those lessons. That isn't to say you can't click on a link in Firefox that causes trouble or have an bug that is exploitable in Thunderbird but the entire machine isn't ruined. On the other hand in Windows they decided it was "cheaper" to just throw scanning software in the way instead of fixing the design. Why does one feel the right way to approach the problem while the other feels like a work around?
Of course Linux and BSD and Windows aren't frozen and are still evolving but I really see an evolutionary dead end in the way Windows handles this. This is insanity to continue to believe that security in Windows can be maintained by AV software and user intervention and Microsoft staying ahead of the bad guys. Users have no way of knowing before viewing if a link they click is really dangerous and even the best behaved users accidentally miss-click. Users can't tell the difference between malware and anti-virus software. Who validates what is AV software and malware? The AV software industry or Microsoft? These guys haven't given us much reason to trust let alone the problem of having a conflict of interest.
Believing "user education" will lead to better security is like believing aggressive patching will create bug free software. Education and aggressive patching are useful and do improve the quality of the system but mistakes happen for people and software. You can have people read security documents forever and continually patch and machines will still get exploited because neither is perfected.
Beyond that, regular users don't have time to read security bulletins and twiddle with scanners. Instead of blaming the user, how about we blame the software systems that help create this mess? Why is it so difficult to configure and user and inspect the status of AV software? Why should any OS have AV software in the first place?? These seem like problems with the software design not the user. Or if anyone needs a hint on what the real problem is: It is very hard for a user to tell the difference between AV software and malware. That should tell you something is weird about the system where if the user could tell the difference we wouldn't need the software in the first place.
They have gone on record saying that they are going to take the fun out of games (out of context but amusing) and finding any and all ways to add commodity video games (definitely in context and not so amusing). To that end, this move fits right in: By removing private, stand alone servers they remove the mechanism of mods and player generated content. Now any and all content must come by Activision's blessing, often lining Activision's purse.
They see the loads of money console gamers shovel to Activision and want the same situation on PC. Good luck with that where they more likely sealed that platform's fate. There is little reason for the die hard PC gamer to bother with the game where if they don't skip it they'll just get it for a console they own instead.
I mean no one goes to the grocery store and goes "This is horrible problem...the oatmeal is way to cheap compared to Frosted Flakes. These prices are all over the place!"
I'm all for vendors being free to price their product in online venues at what ever level they want. This also means they can price they are free to price themselves into oblivion but the wonderful things about online stores it is much easier to fix than if they made the wrong price level for on the shelf product. This "problem" really doesn't seem like a problem at all.
Although these advanced systems can be done in single player, stand alone experiences, I predict we will see a lot of progress made in the MMO space where it is easier introduce dynamic content. One thing sorely missing from MMOs is custom built challenges. The game has access to all of that information on the character and how to play...why not start using it to change the things prsented to them?
- Using general terms for an example: If you enter an instance with a Warrior, a Thief, Wizard, and a Cleric but you kill the dragon and get some Ranger bow everyone goes "BOOO!". The game knows what classes came in so instead of just tossing out static loot from a static table, start considering who walked in and what improvements they need. Instead of forcing players to grind content for drops they know a monster has, they should come back for a chance on loot they know will be useful to someone.
- Since the game knows what classes came in, why not start seeding the instance with challenges configured for them? Each of the classes in the example are strong and weak to attacks and monsters, like for instance this group is a little weak on "ranged attacks" but stronger on defense. This group would avoid any static content they know would have a preponderance of stuff that flies or run around them. How about have them go into an instance that configures it to have less fliers, less stand back but features stuff that hits a little harder than normal?
- If the group is working well together and is stomping everything, why not up the difficulty a little till they aren't stomping everything? If the group isn't doing well, why not ease the difficulty so they aren't wiping every turn?
The basic idea is that the game should be smart enough to see at least the game/character data and evaluate what should be easy and hard for them to beat. This isn't so much "hand holding" but crafting a more interesting experience. If you swap the Thief for a Ranger and go into the same area you get a different mix of monsters and a guarantee that someone is going be rewarded. If you come in with a weak group you get a challenging experience. If you come in with a strong, expert group you get a very different but still challenging experience. The game designers should want you get through the quest handed to the players, to experience the story of the content, but still provide enough of challenge to feel accomplishment. Right now this is done with carefully crafted static content that involves a bit of statistical analysis that can be easily memorized or grow out of.
Yes 64-bit works smooth as silk for Windows 7 as long as you mean "just Windows 7". Very few user applications are compiled 64-bit. In fact a few old installers don't handle installing 32-bit applications in a 64-bit system correctly. How many utility applications like AV are really 64-bit instead of "64-bit compatible"? Very few. In fact I won't be surprised when it turns out a few more (nasty) surprises pop up with side by side and 32-bit and 64-bit versions.
So far, everything is going swimmingly because very few pieces of software are Win64. Now lets see what happens when things like Photoshop or Word or Firefox go 64-bit and their legacy plug-ins break.
Doing this brings blogs into alignment with a lot of media paid advertising. No one should worry (or be elated) about the end of these things because even with the "This program is a paid advertisement of XYZ Co..." there are just as many infomercials floating around than there always was.
Advertising isn't necessarily wrong (not necessarily right either but that is another thread). It is when advertising presents itself as something other than advertising that is a problem.
And again, the SxS signing approach doesn't actually add any real security. Someone wanting to modify an application will find a way to do it regardless of any special "don't modify me" bits the application might contain.
You think public key signatures of the executable and it's dependencies is not real security? ... Then what is?
To be exact: Public key signatures only insure "the package" has not been tampered since the packager created and signed it. It doesn't say anything about the quality of the package contents. This is hardly a problem exclusive to Windows but the way Linux and BSD are designed promote software that avoids the need for "side by side". In fact, on Linux if a package barks at me that I need an legacy version of commonly used and actively updated libraries, I know should do more research where I may have the wrong version, version compatibility issues, or I may need to build it myself. The last thing I would do is force it by throwing more out of date and unmaintained software at it which seems to be a common strategy on Windows.
The Six Dumbest Ideas in Security. In this particular case: "#5 Educating Users". A couple of choice quotes:
If "Educating Users" is the strategy you plan to embark upon, you should expect to have to "patch" your users every week. That's dumb.
The real question to ask is not "can we educate our users to be better at security?" it is "why do we need to educate our users at all?"
I've already posted we need to stop blaming the user and start blaming the authors of the system (Microsoft). The problem isn't some PEBKAC thing where a user is clicking on what they think is AV software and accidentally ruining their system. The problem is that the system allows them to do it in the first place. A run of the mill, standard user shouldn't be able to this in the first place. Why is it happening at all?? What important feature is being provided by the OS by allowing user to do this?? Some feature of installing AV software so it can prevent other fake AV software from installing? This is lunacy!
A meta-problem is that industry and environment has trained users to expect the OS to be broken in a way they need protection ("Oh look a new AV program that is 1000% better than my old stuff!") but that is another thread.
Isn't it about time to start asking Microsoft to fix the system instead of installing additional software that helps cover up the flaws? The reason why they went with this is that it is cheaper to offer "feature rich environment" but cover the holes with "additional safety software" than it is to make sure the "feature rich environment" is correct let alone sane or safe. The weakness has always been the "additional safety software" part. If legitimate software can be "additional safety software" then illegitimate software can be "additional safety software" as well.
Who validates what is legitimate "additional safety software"? The AV Industry? Microsoft? These guys aren't exactly impartial and at an abstract level represents a conflict of interest. Should it be left up to the user? If the user was qualified to do that they wouldn't need "additional safety software". This is a gigantic losing battle where we have long since pasted the point where we need more AV and UAC "protection" and start closing loopholes and flaws in the Windows OS and architecture.
What is killing console games is the inflexibility in pricing structures. Although AAA release game is okay at $60, a game like "Darkest of Days" is not. But since they are stuck in the same distribution channels they are forced into this pricing structure that doesn't make sense for the game.
This is why online stores like Steam have taken off. "Plants vs Zombies" is a hell of a lot of fun and would have died at the fixed $60 price. A developer may notice their game sales are slowing down so they do a price cut weekend which is impossible to do with the classic distribution chain. Even in the citation, half of the cost instead of being consumed in the distribution chain just putting disks on shelves can be put elsewhere. I don't have much illusions the big boys with the big games will pass the savings on to us but having the flexibility is at least a start.
I'm not sure about girls being afraid of snakes and spiders and such but is weird that I'm spooked if not afraid of the ad in the page about "Dora Saves The Crystal Kingdom. Try it free! Nick Jr Arcade"?
This has been something that has perpetually annoyed me. For instance, subscribers are sending $50 a year to Microsoft to play Infinity Ward's online content. It would be one thing if people were sending that $50 to Infinity Ward but this is going to Microsoft. It always seemed weird gamers where eager to pay Microsoft when they aren't responsible for content or fixing games like Modern Warfare 2 and yet are getting payment for it.
This is compounded by the PC vs console experience where a lot of the features XBox 360 fans fawn over are provided cheaper and easier than $50 a year. Console gamers wonder how dense PC gamers without XBox Live while PC gamers wonder how dense console gamers are when the same technology is all around them for free to use.
Why would I want to go to a "major LAN Party" where I wouldn't be surprised if a majority of /. users would rather spend their vacation elsewhere as well? Why would a majority of computer users out there would want to go a "major LAN Party"? None of my friends (all of who are over 30) ever want to or have a desire to go to a "major LAN Party". Was there even a "major LAN Party" at QuakeCon? There probably was but coverage I've read from it doesn't seem too interested in talking about it.
Lets face it: Only the super dedicated are willing to drag their computer to somewhere and hook it up to an unknown network. The rest of us mere mortals who simply want a fun game are simply happy to stay at home and hit "quick match" and chat over IM. I'm not surprised Blizzard is reticent about adding LAN support because "major LAN Parties" seem to be a small portion of the entire user base.
While cleaning up the PC, I saw that WC3 was still installed. I remember when I was playing this "hard core" I always went through Battle.net. After thinking about it a little more, the thought moving machines (my gaming PC is somewhat expensive) from my home to another location and use a LAN that maybe crawling with malware and god knows what else, even if I use super hardened settings and fully updated AV and firewall protection, is totally unappealing and I came to realize why I never cared about LAN. Once Internet became was ubiquitous it rendered LAN play moot. It is simply safer and easier to play from home.
As far as I can tell from my gaming habits: LAN support isn't even a factor for my choice of online games so I don't mind it going away. Or to put it another way, if it comes down to "features in Battle.net" or "LAN Support" there is no question I'm choosing Battle.net. The idea that a lot people are only going to play Starcraft 2 on LAN is pretty preposterous and only the dreams of super hard core players. The millions of casual players out there aren't going to care and would rather hit the "quick match" button off of Battle.net.
In this particular case, Druids probably do need to be opened up to more races but there are some strange combinations that are even worse "piss-poor retcon". This makes me wonder if this is "necessary" why bother having factions at all? Is it crazier to have Tauren Paladin and Human Hunters or just have Human Paladins grouping with Tauren Hunters?
The problem is these are all just "art assets". I'm not going to art and levels are cheap or easy or should always be handed out freely but these things aren't as advanced as new technology or new game play. So far everything they've been advertising could be done by dedicated modders out in the community today,
What Valve needs to do for "L4D2" is provide a demo to everyone. I'm sure the complaints wouldn't be so fierce if it was obvious what the improvements are. They need to show us what really is in the product that isn't just patch. Without this it just fuels the idea that "L4D2" only exists because the XBox 360 can't handle the aggressive patching necessary. There is a huge perception that a number of concessions were made in "L4D" that are undesirable for PC players. This behavior is doing nothing to dispel it.
If anything, every major Final Fantasy release is different than each other. Characters (good or bad), settings, events are rarely continued or reused. The combat system as well as other parts are often redone each release. Final Fantasy more or less "reboots" each major release.
I do know what you are getting at though but the problem isn't the characters, settings, events, and what not since designers are free to restart each installment and have taken advantage of that. The problem is those designers are still the same. Square-Enix should instead work on bringing up new talent so they can use the freedom allowed in FF.