do you guys complaining about the DRM (and I don't like it either) have an issue with buying the console versions?
If you buy the 360 or PS3 port, you are still buying into DRM just on another platform. Its a more subtle version of DRM that is harder to spot but it is still very much a system designed protecting their rights instead of yours.
The irony in the parent's story is that "the solution", just buy the XBox 360, is going to a platform that has even farther and harder DRM restrictions. As a DRM platform, the XBox 360 is far more stringent about enforcement than the PC can be at the moment.
So why are people angry about DRM on their PC but not in their XBox 360? It is because the DRM on the XBox 360 is hidden an unobtrusive while it sticks out like a rusty nail on the PC.
This is why ISVs (Independent Software Vendors) are flocking to the super DRM hardened platforms. Although they don't intend to make inferior products, weaker software titles can have an easier time returning invested money back to the producer on DRM platforms than open ones like PC/Mac. Another irony is that we'll see it played out again with Spore if given a chance. A game like Spore which will be rejected or subject to other modifications (*cough*) while on the PC. A game like Spore on the XBox 360 will not offer any option except for buy or not buy. Add to this Gamestop create a cycle where you can buy a questionable game, decide you didn't like it, sell it back to Gamestop for credit towards the next questionable big budget game.
The parent is correct that its the companies that make PC games that are killing the PC gaming platform. They are trying to bend the generic PC platform into something that is like consoles because they see easier money there and not being very successful or graceful about it.
Do "football super fans" get an endorphin rush when their favorite player on their team? I've seen people get livid if they miss their favorite games. Why aren't these same people concerned for them? Oh yeah...being obsessed about football is "healthy" but a computer game is not.
The trouble is that Psystar isn't exactly installing or copying. They are building a "Mac Clone" which can be argued is compatible but not exact spec of official Apple/Mac hardware. They then have to make "tweaks" to OSX to support the differences in hardware.
Apple may have a case/point with this. It isn't so much they are building clones or bundling OSX but they are tinkering with OSX to make it work the clone hardware. I see Apple has two strong stances:
1. You can't tinker with OSX. 2. Whatever they do they can't call it "OSX".
I don't see "angels" on either side. Apple wants to retain draconian control. Psystar is using a thinly veiled argument of competition to mooch. At this point I'm inclined to believe both are bad.
If one really believes "...the browser is arguably the most important thing to keep updated on your system..." then it should update automatically, quietly and unobtrusively. The user should never be asked if they want to go out of date.
By the way, I'm not sure why some software never takes this route. When I see scanners and other tools ask me if it is okay to update I wonder what power are they really trying to give me.
The key difference between UAC and "sudo" is the level of understanding necessary to formulate the action. You may think you are being lazy when you type in the "sudo mount/dev/ipod" for the thousandth time but in reality you are being effective and efficient. You researched the right command to mount and access your iPod. You more know what the command is doing to both the system and iPod to do what you need. After that, using it once or a million times isn't lazy.
UAC does improve security but through "nagging" instead of a systemic fix. You brute force the user away from questionable actions instead of just having the system never bothering to do it. Approach it like a novice user: where all they see on the screen are series of buttons and things to click on with labels they aren't familiar with. A few are good, most are harmless, a few are bad, one special one is catastrophic. When they click any of the buttons, UAC kicks in and says "Allow this happen?" If they user doesn't know what all of the labels on all of the buttons mean, what is the purpose of asking for confirmation? It doesn't add any safety except to warn the user one of the buttons could be dangerous. That is useful information in of itself but fails to reveal to the user which one is the dangerous one.
Or simply put, "sudo" is rarely used because the user is unsure of the command while UAC is invoked for too many commands where the user is unsure of the command being executed. If you clicked on an email that said "save the attachment 'script.pl', type 'sudo script.pl' to win!" most Linux/BSD/Unix users would be like "Huh?!?! No way I'm doing that!" On Windows, in a similar situation user is only going to see a couple prompts warning them something dubious may happen if you proceed where some will be scared off from clicking "Allow" but some can and still will click it. It isn't that the Linux user is "smarter" than the Windows user. It is the UI model is broken on Windows where Microsoft/Vista assumes the user knows what a good action and bad action are. If they knew that, then UAC wouldn't be necessary in the first place.
Blizzard is stance on that Glider contains copyrighted and protected property. One can't declare something open source if one doesn't own it to begin with.
Of course all of this maneuvering hinges on whether or not Glider did their work cleanly. I personally don't favor this approach where it seems to be easier just to continually combat the thing better technology.
At the moment, "installs" on consoles are at the tech level of 1990 PC: No better than "xcopy * c:\mygame". As time goes on, they'll get better at it but at the moment its pathetically inflexible.
A difficulty I see is the restrictions based upon "supported SKU". The XBox 360 has a supported model with no hard drive. This forces most games to conform to always running from disk even if the hardware is available. The PS3 has 20GB version. This means no game can ever have an "install" that is that large (hence the goofiness you saw in MGS4).
There are ways to do seamless and diskless games. I expect they'll learn the lessons PC developers learned decades ago, probably the hard way, before they approach what is offered on Mac and PC.
I remember this topic coming up in uni Logic/Philosophy where there are a number of reasons why this isn't valued in pre-college schools:
- Culture Mindset Our culture values having kids obey elders. Telling kids they can question elders or authority at 8 year old runs contrary to that. What parents want their kids to questions about their chores instead of doing them? In our culture, kids frankly aren't independent where although it isn't true that kids can't think for themselves, we never ask them too for serious topics till they are "mature enough". Can 8 year old kids really make independent, complex decision about a complex world when they haven't experienced much of it?
- Harder to teach, hard to test Although I have no expertise in teaching, I suspect its difficult to teach 8 year old kids "critical thinking" without resorting to the very techniques complained about (ie. drill text/example/facts into their head). I also suspect its harder to design test to see if they were paying attention. Its one thing to ask a hand full of 20 year olds to read dozens of philosophers across the ages and design essay tests to see if they understand logic and philosophy behind the writing. I can't imagine the setup necessary for 20+ 8 year old kids to begin teaching let alone testing.
- No Tangible "Payoff" Its kind of a side effect of the previous problem. Its easier to justify money gym equipment or a math book than it is to justify logic/philosophy books. You can give balls and clothes to the school and check back later to see if they are wearing or using the equipment. You buy books and software and can test kids to see if they can solve a math problem (they may not understand it, that it another thread for another day). Its harder to measure how much critical thinking 8 year kids do let alone if they have improved after buying them books.
If you really believe that "critical thinking" is important than it needs to be taught as "fundamental", like reading and numbers, which I'm not sure there is a school anywhere on the planet tries that. My view has always been that pre-college is too soon to teach many complex topics. Saying "kids should be taught to think critically" is like saying "kids should be taught multi-variable differential calculus". Yeah it would be nice if kids "knew" those wouldn't it...
Telling people to "Go download and install Ubuntu" is like telling someone to go dig a well: Its not hard where more or less the explanation is no more complex than "just do it" but it is still dirty and may be dangerous. Although easy for some to figure out how to download and burn the latest and greatest Ubuntu, it isn't so trivial for others. And for neophytes, some of the steps seem "dangerous" because they are fairly unfamiliar to someone who spends most of their time surfing the web.
Or to think about it another way: Trying to explain to someone the steps on how to download and burn and reboot and all of the pre-install stuff they need to know is a bit much when they can get all of that if I buy them a disk with a manual in a box instead. There is also the odd quirk that people will believe "dead tree print" more than a "web page" even if it is the exact same text.
Is this Linux/Ubuntu/Fedora/RH's fault? It sounds like this is something on the TODO for those software packages. Making sure software works out of the box is something the author needs to do.
On the flip side, I personally find the "installers" on Windows really terrible if not inadequate where they just a step above "xcopy" but so far below being real package validation. The best that happens on Windows is that it includes so many extra tools that all needs are covered. I'm not sure why anyone would want to copy what Windows does since it leads to a lot of problems if not abuse.
And that "fantastic PVP" was a major reason why UO was left in rot. When newer games came along with fancier presentations, the only thing UO had left was its rules which wasn't enough to keep many. Many games that have come afterwards and tried to push these sort of free formed anarchy systems tend to do rather poorly. I too played UO and abandoned it immediately when Everquest released because I recognized the lack of general rules of engagement on all "shards" was going to attract a certain gamer population I didn't care to hang around.
I personally don't care for PVP (if I wanted that sort of "frag fest", I'd play something else) but if WoW is "lame" then many players out there really wants "lame". In the end, it looks like that many don't want "real PVP" if it behaves like UO. Only the hardest of the hardcore PVP/PK-er likes these "options". Why would anyone market to them since they make up such a small segment of the market?
Personally I think EVE has it the "most correct". If you are going to engage in PVP, make sure you mean it because there are all sorts of secondary consequences to just engaging in PVP combat let alone if you win. Since EVE has a small population and the game itself is structured to create strong interpersonal relationships (not all of them friendly), you will not get far if you PVP just to be a jerk because "your reputation proceeds you".
Too bad gamerscore isn't a reflection of the games you beat but the extra silly tasks the developer makes you do. You may get points for finishing a game but more often than not you get points for doing things that have nothing to do with completion and often run contrary to actual play. All too often achieves are like "padding" where gaps in gameplay are made up be this other meta-game.
I'm all for "meta-play" in games. Whatever a gamer wants to do in a single player game by themselves that entertains them is fine by me. I just don't think it is worth advertising it as some sort of number. I definitely don't think it is any more or less valuable than any other system's "fun points".
The reason why features were stripped out of the Wii versions of both games is that the Wii itself doesn't support the features very well. How in the world is Activision going to support downloadable content on a system that only allows 512 MB of accessible space? 4 songs can add up to be 100 MB. Now they are saying they'll allow "Create A Song", downloadable content, dynamic customizable characters, "just like the other versions"? Where are they going to hold all of that on the Wii??
I don't think Activision or Harmonix had much choice of a choice but to strip these features out. So what has changed on the Wii where suddenly Harmonix is screwed and Activision can succeed? It still has the same storage restriction. It still has no common online framework. Nintendo's online store isn't geared to sell this type of DLC. I'm very dubious of Activision suddenly claiming they can do now do it for GH4.
ps. I don't know if anyone is blaming Nintendo/Wii for any of the problems but consider what happens to those faithful GH3 who bought 3 song packs at $6.25US. Compatibility goes beyond the stuff you plug into the console...
I always thought the classic reason why a company wouldn't patent a proven technology is to avoid documenting it. To file for the patent you would need to document critical detail and behavior which could be something the competition could read up on and build new products on the idea. Or in other words, if they never file for the patent they never have to claim it exists. Keeping it off the books keeps it obscure and keeps it theirs.
Red Hat hasn't been pushing a "desktop" since pre RHEL 9 which was 2003. This was before Ubuntu did their first release!!
I really don't see why people think this "news" is a retreat. This is a place Red Hat hasn't actively pushed their product as a "desktop" in 5 years. In fact it is probably wise of them to do so where they are not using resources to write software that isn't so necessary for their core business strength. The only news in this is that RH is confirming the strategy they had for years.
Sure Ghost in the Shell is quality hard edge cyberpunk style sci-fi but as far as I can tell there is nothing left in the story to tell. This probably means that anything Dreamworks makes will be a rehash of previous material which isn't automatically bad but not something some will automatically look forward too.
I predict some cyber-gang up to cyber-shenanigans vs Public Security Section 9 with a ethical/philosophical twist. It can work but they better not slack on the quality or they'll risk alienating the mainstream and the hard core fan base.
Unless you turn tricks for $15 to pay for your Warcraft "addiction", you're not addicted. I'm rather glad to hear you say so... You see, I have MET people who have skipped work to play WoW; I have KNOWN women who have left their husbands because they would rather play WoW than have a marriage...
YOU tell me there is no such thing as being ADDICTED to WoW...
WoW is might not be all it's crack(ed) up to be, but it's not excactly innocuous either. Especially for people with naturally addictive personalities... Interesting, so do you know someone who has skipped out of work a few days work for the NCAA tourney game? I do. Do you know women who are annoyed at their husband for paying so much attention to their bracket picks? I do. Here is a guy who surfs ESPN and other stat sites ever spare moment he can and has an Excel sheet open with columns, numbers, full of data to be the best "bracketologist" ever. Is this person addicted to college basketball?? I wouldn't say so and I don't think there are many professional or laymen who are willing to go out on a limb to suggest they are and need help. He just really likes the event.
The point is just defining addiction as some sort of selfish activity with undesirable side effects is too broad and sweeping. Many selfish acts and activities are in the grand scheme of things harmless and not addictive. On the flip side, there are people out there who have real issues here where World of Warcraft isn't so much the problem but the latest vehicle to enable their self destruction. If WoW didn't exist they would latch onto something else.
As a side note, I know a person who ignored their wife to play WoW and ended up getting divorced. Turned out the marriage was on the rocks for years before so when this game popped up they used it as an escape. It turned out that "playing a lot of WoW" and "divorce" were simply not cause and effect. And besides, I would rather have this person who was a little stressed and depressed getting some enjoyment in WoW instead of doing something really risky like drinking themselves into oblivion.
That is totally true but even because of the GPL you are not forced to accept any GPL code either. If there is a specific patch in the Linux kernel you don't want to have you can remove it for your own builds. This is one of the big benefits of GPL code. You are free to take it or free to leave it. Even if Novel is being nefarious, Linus and the other kernel hackers miss it, you are under no obligation to agree to use their GPL code.
Well you are right in the sense that the technology for consoles are easier users and developers to create content on but for a different reason. Consoles have a huge advantage because of seamless integration of DRM style technologies will assure that developers can create expensive content that the average user must pay for.
It isn't the graphics or drivers on the XBox 360 or the PS3 or the Wii. It is that every gamer out there must pay Microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo to pay to play games on their systems through royalties. Too boot these platforms also feature many lock ins that are more attractive to producers. When compared to a semi-open, royalty free platform like Windows PC with the specter of compatibility and support problems where many things are hacked if not pirated, I'm not surprised at all many companies are flocking away from PC. I'm also not surprised that one of the best systems on PC today, Steam from Valve, wholeheartedly embraces this DRM style technology.
I see PC gaming in a state of transition away from the middle ground/mass market game to the more eccentric and exotic style. Anything that isn't a traditional sit down and play end to end game will probably have an easier sell on PC where MMOGs are a classic example of this. Another example is any time you allow the user/gamer to author stuff in game it because a bigger challenge on the console than it is on a general platform like PC. The other type is the simple style web based game where again it isn't that consoles can't support these games but PC as a general platform lends itself to supporting this easier. In any event, these many not have much to do with DirectX, especially when looking at web games.
Some of these games, like the Ultima ones where multiple disks where if you had two drives it made things easier. One thing that stood out for these games is how underpowered the graphics and sound was for these games where the Commedore 64 versions of the same games often looked and sounded better. That is unless you had the "Phasor" sound card. I can't recall if any of these games used or was helped by the "80 Column Text Card". Especially for a game like Wings of Fury a two button analog controller is a must have.
I guess no one used this thing. Sony is just like other companies that hit and miss on experimental consumer technology. After all Microsoft has its own pile of hardware (and software) failures as well. In Sony's favor though, they usually go with the invention route more often because they see current technology as not satisfying some feature they think new products need for new and untapped markets. I applaud them for the sentiment of invention but cringe when it makes the price of their new products outrageous.
I took the article as meaning the Magic 8-Ball is about as good as industry pundit. Or at least the possible outcomes from the Magic 8-Ball are just as insightful if not the how both come to their conclusions. Basing future technology decisions on a pundit or Magic 8-Ball, instead of research, seem equally foolish.
One of the major problems with TV reporting is that the costs of doing real news worthy reporting for a 5 minute on air segment is astronomical compared to just calling up some "expert" to talk about what they think happened. And as it turns out, the pundit probably scores better for most demographics (ie. they look better, sound better).
We saw this happen (again) with the run up to the Iraq War where it would have taken months of reporters actually doing the research and tracking leads to develop a story that many people would find uncomfortable if not right hostile. The alternative is that they call up some retired military guy and ask him "What do you think is going on?" Almost every news source in the US opted for the cheaper pundits than the expensive reporting and we got exactly what we paid for.
Slashdot Mirror
The grand parent asked:
If you buy the 360 or PS3 port, you are still buying into DRM just on another platform. Its a more subtle version of DRM that is harder to spot but it is still very much a system designed protecting their rights instead of yours.
The irony in the parent's story is that "the solution", just buy the XBox 360, is going to a platform that has even farther and harder DRM restrictions. As a DRM platform, the XBox 360 is far more stringent about enforcement than the PC can be at the moment.
So why are people angry about DRM on their PC but not in their XBox 360? It is because the DRM on the XBox 360 is hidden an unobtrusive while it sticks out like a rusty nail on the PC.
This is why ISVs (Independent Software Vendors) are flocking to the super DRM hardened platforms. Although they don't intend to make inferior products, weaker software titles can have an easier time returning invested money back to the producer on DRM platforms than open ones like PC/Mac. Another irony is that we'll see it played out again with Spore if given a chance. A game like Spore which will be rejected or subject to other modifications (*cough*) while on the PC. A game like Spore on the XBox 360 will not offer any option except for buy or not buy. Add to this Gamestop create a cycle where you can buy a questionable game, decide you didn't like it, sell it back to Gamestop for credit towards the next questionable big budget game.
The parent is correct that its the companies that make PC games that are killing the PC gaming platform. They are trying to bend the generic PC platform into something that is like consoles because they see easier money there and not being very successful or graceful about it.
Do "football super fans" get an endorphin rush when their favorite player on their team? I've seen people get livid if they miss their favorite games. Why aren't these same people concerned for them? Oh yeah...being obsessed about football is "healthy" but a computer game is not.
The trouble is that Psystar isn't exactly installing or copying. They are building a "Mac Clone" which can be argued is compatible but not exact spec of official Apple/Mac hardware. They then have to make "tweaks" to OSX to support the differences in hardware.
Apple may have a case/point with this. It isn't so much they are building clones or bundling OSX but they are tinkering with OSX to make it work the clone hardware. I see Apple has two strong stances:
1. You can't tinker with OSX.
2. Whatever they do they can't call it "OSX".
I don't see "angels" on either side. Apple wants to retain draconian control. Psystar is using a thinly veiled argument of competition to mooch. At this point I'm inclined to believe both are bad.
If one really believes "...the browser is arguably the most important thing to keep updated on your system..." then it should update automatically, quietly and unobtrusively. The user should never be asked if they want to go out of date.
By the way, I'm not sure why some software never takes this route. When I see scanners and other tools ask me if it is okay to update I wonder what power are they really trying to give me.
The key difference between UAC and "sudo" is the level of understanding necessary to formulate the action. You may think you are being lazy when you type in the "sudo mount /dev/ipod" for the thousandth time but in reality you are being effective and efficient. You researched the right command to mount and access your iPod. You more know what the command is doing to both the system and iPod to do what you need. After that, using it once or a million times isn't lazy.
UAC does improve security but through "nagging" instead of a systemic fix. You brute force the user away from questionable actions instead of just having the system never bothering to do it. Approach it like a novice user: where all they see on the screen are series of buttons and things to click on with labels they aren't familiar with. A few are good, most are harmless, a few are bad, one special one is catastrophic. When they click any of the buttons, UAC kicks in and says "Allow this happen?" If they user doesn't know what all of the labels on all of the buttons mean, what is the purpose of asking for confirmation? It doesn't add any safety except to warn the user one of the buttons could be dangerous. That is useful information in of itself but fails to reveal to the user which one is the dangerous one.
Or simply put, "sudo" is rarely used because the user is unsure of the command while UAC is invoked for too many commands where the user is unsure of the command being executed. If you clicked on an email that said "save the attachment 'script.pl', type 'sudo script.pl' to win!" most Linux/BSD/Unix users would be like "Huh?!?! No way I'm doing that!" On Windows, in a similar situation user is only going to see a couple prompts warning them something dubious may happen if you proceed where some will be scared off from clicking "Allow" but some can and still will click it. It isn't that the Linux user is "smarter" than the Windows user. It is the UI model is broken on Windows where Microsoft/Vista assumes the user knows what a good action and bad action are. If they knew that, then UAC wouldn't be necessary in the first place.
Blizzard is stance on that Glider contains copyrighted and protected property. One can't declare something open source if one doesn't own it to begin with.
Of course all of this maneuvering hinges on whether or not Glider did their work cleanly. I personally don't favor this approach where it seems to be easier just to continually combat the thing better technology.
At the moment, "installs" on consoles are at the tech level of 1990 PC: No better than "xcopy * c:\mygame". As time goes on, they'll get better at it but at the moment its pathetically inflexible.
A difficulty I see is the restrictions based upon "supported SKU". The XBox 360 has a supported model with no hard drive. This forces most games to conform to always running from disk even if the hardware is available. The PS3 has 20GB version. This means no game can ever have an "install" that is that large (hence the goofiness you saw in MGS4).
There are ways to do seamless and diskless games. I expect they'll learn the lessons PC developers learned decades ago, probably the hard way, before they approach what is offered on Mac and PC.
I remember this topic coming up in uni Logic/Philosophy where there are a number of reasons why this isn't valued in pre-college schools:
- Culture Mindset
Our culture values having kids obey elders. Telling kids they can question elders or authority at 8 year old runs contrary to that. What parents want their kids to questions about their chores instead of doing them? In our culture, kids frankly aren't independent where although it isn't true that kids can't think for themselves, we never ask them too for serious topics till they are "mature enough". Can 8 year old kids really make independent, complex decision about a complex world when they haven't experienced much of it?
- Harder to teach, hard to test
Although I have no expertise in teaching, I suspect its difficult to teach 8 year old kids "critical thinking" without resorting to the very techniques complained about (ie. drill text/example/facts into their head). I also suspect its harder to design test to see if they were paying attention. Its one thing to ask a hand full of 20 year olds to read dozens of philosophers across the ages and design essay tests to see if they understand logic and philosophy behind the writing. I can't imagine the setup necessary for 20+ 8 year old kids to begin teaching let alone testing.
- No Tangible "Payoff"
Its kind of a side effect of the previous problem. Its easier to justify money gym equipment or a math book than it is to justify logic/philosophy books. You can give balls and clothes to the school and check back later to see if they are wearing or using the equipment. You buy books and software and can test kids to see if they can solve a math problem (they may not understand it, that it another thread for another day). Its harder to measure how much critical thinking 8 year kids do let alone if they have improved after buying them books.
If you really believe that "critical thinking" is important than it needs to be taught as "fundamental", like reading and numbers, which I'm not sure there is a school anywhere on the planet tries that. My view has always been that pre-college is too soon to teach many complex topics. Saying "kids should be taught to think critically" is like saying "kids should be taught multi-variable differential calculus". Yeah it would be nice if kids "knew" those wouldn't it...
Telling people to "Go download and install Ubuntu" is like telling someone to go dig a well: Its not hard where more or less the explanation is no more complex than "just do it" but it is still dirty and may be dangerous. Although easy for some to figure out how to download and burn the latest and greatest Ubuntu, it isn't so trivial for others. And for neophytes, some of the steps seem "dangerous" because they are fairly unfamiliar to someone who spends most of their time surfing the web.
Or to think about it another way: Trying to explain to someone the steps on how to download and burn and reboot and all of the pre-install stuff they need to know is a bit much when they can get all of that if I buy them a disk with a manual in a box instead. There is also the odd quirk that people will believe "dead tree print" more than a "web page" even if it is the exact same text.
Is this Linux/Ubuntu/Fedora/RH's fault? It sounds like this is something on the TODO for those software packages. Making sure software works out of the box is something the author needs to do.
On the flip side, I personally find the "installers" on Windows really terrible if not inadequate where they just a step above "xcopy" but so far below being real package validation. The best that happens on Windows is that it includes so many extra tools that all needs are covered. I'm not sure why anyone would want to copy what Windows does since it leads to a lot of problems if not abuse.
And that "fantastic PVP" was a major reason why UO was left in rot. When newer games came along with fancier presentations, the only thing UO had left was its rules which wasn't enough to keep many. Many games that have come afterwards and tried to push these sort of free formed anarchy systems tend to do rather poorly. I too played UO and abandoned it immediately when Everquest released because I recognized the lack of general rules of engagement on all "shards" was going to attract a certain gamer population I didn't care to hang around.
I personally don't care for PVP (if I wanted that sort of "frag fest", I'd play something else) but if WoW is "lame" then many players out there really wants "lame". In the end, it looks like that many don't want "real PVP" if it behaves like UO. Only the hardest of the hardcore PVP/PK-er likes these "options". Why would anyone market to them since they make up such a small segment of the market?
Personally I think EVE has it the "most correct". If you are going to engage in PVP, make sure you mean it because there are all sorts of secondary consequences to just engaging in PVP combat let alone if you win. Since EVE has a small population and the game itself is structured to create strong interpersonal relationships (not all of them friendly), you will not get far if you PVP just to be a jerk because "your reputation proceeds you".
Too bad gamerscore isn't a reflection of the games you beat but the extra silly tasks the developer makes you do. You may get points for finishing a game but more often than not you get points for doing things that have nothing to do with completion and often run contrary to actual play. All too often achieves are like "padding" where gaps in gameplay are made up be this other meta-game.
I'm all for "meta-play" in games. Whatever a gamer wants to do in a single player game by themselves that entertains them is fine by me. I just don't think it is worth advertising it as some sort of number. I definitely don't think it is any more or less valuable than any other system's "fun points".
The reason why features were stripped out of the Wii versions of both games is that the Wii itself doesn't support the features very well. How in the world is Activision going to support downloadable content on a system that only allows 512 MB of accessible space? 4 songs can add up to be 100 MB. Now they are saying they'll allow "Create A Song", downloadable content, dynamic customizable characters, "just like the other versions"? Where are they going to hold all of that on the Wii??
I don't think Activision or Harmonix had much choice of a choice but to strip these features out. So what has changed on the Wii where suddenly Harmonix is screwed and Activision can succeed? It still has the same storage restriction. It still has no common online framework. Nintendo's online store isn't geared to sell this type of DLC. I'm very dubious of Activision suddenly claiming they can do now do it for GH4.
ps. I don't know if anyone is blaming Nintendo/Wii for any of the problems but consider what happens to those faithful GH3 who bought 3 song packs at $6.25US. Compatibility goes beyond the stuff you plug into the console...
I always thought the classic reason why a company wouldn't patent a proven technology is to avoid documenting it. To file for the patent you would need to document critical detail and behavior which could be something the competition could read up on and build new products on the idea. Or in other words, if they never file for the patent they never have to claim it exists. Keeping it off the books keeps it obscure and keeps it theirs.
Red Hat hasn't been pushing a "desktop" since pre RHEL 9 which was 2003. This was before Ubuntu did their first release!!
I really don't see why people think this "news" is a retreat. This is a place Red Hat hasn't actively pushed their product as a "desktop" in 5 years. In fact it is probably wise of them to do so where they are not using resources to write software that isn't so necessary for their core business strength. The only news in this is that RH is confirming the strategy they had for years.
Sure Ghost in the Shell is quality hard edge cyberpunk style sci-fi but as far as I can tell there is nothing left in the story to tell. This probably means that anything Dreamworks makes will be a rehash of previous material which isn't automatically bad but not something some will automatically look forward too.
I predict some cyber-gang up to cyber-shenanigans vs Public Security Section 9 with a ethical/philosophical twist. It can work but they better not slack on the quality or they'll risk alienating the mainstream and the hard core fan base.
YOU tell me there is no such thing as being ADDICTED to WoW...
WoW is might not be all it's crack(ed) up to be, but it's not excactly innocuous either. Especially for people with naturally addictive personalities... Interesting, so do you know someone who has skipped out of work a few days work for the NCAA tourney game? I do. Do you know women who are annoyed at their husband for paying so much attention to their bracket picks? I do. Here is a guy who surfs ESPN and other stat sites ever spare moment he can and has an Excel sheet open with columns, numbers, full of data to be the best "bracketologist" ever. Is this person addicted to college basketball?? I wouldn't say so and I don't think there are many professional or laymen who are willing to go out on a limb to suggest they are and need help. He just really likes the event.
The point is just defining addiction as some sort of selfish activity with undesirable side effects is too broad and sweeping. Many selfish acts and activities are in the grand scheme of things harmless and not addictive. On the flip side, there are people out there who have real issues here where World of Warcraft isn't so much the problem but the latest vehicle to enable their self destruction. If WoW didn't exist they would latch onto something else.
As a side note, I know a person who ignored their wife to play WoW and ended up getting divorced. Turned out the marriage was on the rocks for years before so when this game popped up they used it as an escape. It turned out that "playing a lot of WoW" and "divorce" were simply not cause and effect. And besides, I would rather have this person who was a little stressed and depressed getting some enjoyment in WoW instead of doing something really risky like drinking themselves into oblivion.
That is totally true but even because of the GPL you are not forced to accept any GPL code either. If there is a specific patch in the Linux kernel you don't want to have you can remove it for your own builds. This is one of the big benefits of GPL code. You are free to take it or free to leave it. Even if Novel is being nefarious, Linus and the other kernel hackers miss it, you are under no obligation to agree to use their GPL code.
Well you are right in the sense that the technology for consoles are easier users and developers to create content on but for a different reason. Consoles have a huge advantage because of seamless integration of DRM style technologies will assure that developers can create expensive content that the average user must pay for.
It isn't the graphics or drivers on the XBox 360 or the PS3 or the Wii. It is that every gamer out there must pay Microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo to pay to play games on their systems through royalties. Too boot these platforms also feature many lock ins that are more attractive to producers. When compared to a semi-open, royalty free platform like Windows PC with the specter of compatibility and support problems where many things are hacked if not pirated, I'm not surprised at all many companies are flocking away from PC. I'm also not surprised that one of the best systems on PC today, Steam from Valve, wholeheartedly embraces this DRM style technology.
I see PC gaming in a state of transition away from the middle ground/mass market game to the more eccentric and exotic style. Anything that isn't a traditional sit down and play end to end game will probably have an easier sell on PC where MMOGs are a classic example of this. Another example is any time you allow the user/gamer to author stuff in game it because a bigger challenge on the console than it is on a general platform like PC. The other type is the simple style web based game where again it isn't that consoles can't support these games but PC as a general platform lends itself to supporting this easier. In any event, these many not have much to do with DirectX, especially when looking at web games.
In no particular order:
- Telengard but who knows how far I got or even if I made any progress period. This was one stood out in my memories because it was far more open ended than anything else I played at the time.
- Agent USA was austenisbly a way to learn US geography by battling "fuzbodies" across the country. For some reason I remember pitched battles in Denver, CO.
- Ultima IV was something I definitely remember beating...
- Ultima V was even better! Yay for throwing magic axes diagonally!
- Wings of Fury was unique in the huge amount of play. Trying to sink the last ships took a lot of hits.
Some of these games, like the Ultima ones where multiple disks where if you had two drives it made things easier. One thing that stood out for these games is how underpowered the graphics and sound was for these games where the Commedore 64 versions of the same games often looked and sounded better. That is unless you had the "Phasor" sound card. I can't recall if any of these games used or was helped by the "80 Column Text Card". Especially for a game like Wings of Fury a two button analog controller is a must have.
I guess no one used this thing. Sony is just like other companies that hit and miss on experimental consumer technology. After all Microsoft has its own pile of hardware (and software) failures as well. In Sony's favor though, they usually go with the invention route more often because they see current technology as not satisfying some feature they think new products need for new and untapped markets. I applaud them for the sentiment of invention but cringe when it makes the price of their new products outrageous.
I took the article as meaning the Magic 8-Ball is about as good as industry pundit. Or at least the possible outcomes from the Magic 8-Ball are just as insightful if not the how both come to their conclusions. Basing future technology decisions on a pundit or Magic 8-Ball, instead of research, seem equally foolish.
Clearly this is possible if you buy another machine and by 50 CALs.
One of the major problems with TV reporting is that the costs of doing real news worthy reporting for a 5 minute on air segment is astronomical compared to just calling up some "expert" to talk about what they think happened. And as it turns out, the pundit probably scores better for most demographics (ie. they look better, sound better).
We saw this happen (again) with the run up to the Iraq War where it would have taken months of reporters actually doing the research and tracking leads to develop a story that many people would find uncomfortable if not right hostile. The alternative is that they call up some retired military guy and ask him "What do you think is going on?" Almost every news source in the US opted for the cheaper pundits than the expensive reporting and we got exactly what we paid for.