Possibly - I played both KOTOR games and thoroughly enjoyed them, but having my friends all online for this one is a fun new twist. If the monthly fee is also able to sustain continuing content additions then that's a major plus.
Basically, this has the story of a KOTOR game combined with the comradery and social aspects of WOW. $15 per month is a pretty small price to pay for that IMHO.
Queues are to be expected in a popular game on launch day. Every time you hit a queue that means that there are that many paying customers in there taking up that much room. You'll never see any business "killed" for having too many customers.
As another poster said - voice acting. LOTS of it. That and CGI - and writers, etc. It took a lot of people a lot of man hours to develop this. That said - $100 million doesn't seem all that bad. Last I heard their pre-orders alone were approaching 3 million. Some of those are collectors editions and digital deluxe, but even at $60 a pop for the regular edition x 3 million is $180 million. There's other material costs involved there, but I'd wager that the initial sales alone will makeup for the development budget. They'll make their profit off of sustained subscriptions, which I'd wager they'll maintain a lot of.
Indeed. I've leveled just about every character class in WoW. I can barely remember any of the quests. The only one that comes to mind is the Lolita-like quest between Duskwood and Westfall. Other than that, it was just a bunch of "Collect 6 Bear Pelts" quests with completely uninteresting text thrown in just to say they gave the story telling a try. Leveling was a chore that was to be endured so that you could get a class to end-game.
SW TOR is different. I literally have no desire at all to do anything at end-game. Raids and such are the last thing on my mind. I just want to quest. Any game that makes questing actually the thing I log in for rather than a penance I must pay to get to the "real" game deserves a nod.
And fully voiced quest interactions with very good writing.
I personally burned out on WoW a good while back. Several months before Cataclysm came out I quit playing. When it came out I resubed and leveled one character from 80 to 85, but then quit again shortly thereafter. I've tried many of the free-to-play games, Rift, EVE Online, and many others in the meantime. Nothing grabbed my attention.
I got early access to SWTOR 5 days ago and have already played at least 15 hours and can't wait to knock off work so I can play again.
I can honestly say that I see myself leveling at least 1 character of every class to max just to see the quest chains. Its that good.
The telescope is "seeing" the planet as it was 946 years ago... maybe it's not even there any longer
946 years on a cosmic scale is no more than a blink of an eye. The likelihood that any visible planet has merely vanished in that short a time is incredibly remote. Worrying about it would be like freaking out every morning before you go to work because the building just might have burned down overnight.
Pardon my skepticism, but is the margin of error on this really so small that they can really claim to differentiate between a Venus and an Earth sized planet?
I assume they cleared this with her estate, Paramount, etc., right?
There's no legal need to here. Paramount nor her estate has any trademark on emotionless computer voices, and a first name of an actor isn't enough to be considered IP.
Personally, I can't really find much of an issue here. Yes, 99% of routers might only have DynDNS as an option, but I'd also wager than about 95% of the routers out there don't use a dynamic DNS server anyways, and of those that do, very few care to setup more than 1 domain name. I doubt this change will affect very many users.
His argument that men flat out do not wear cosmetics is indeed subject to a "No True Scotsman" fallacy. His mistake though was in claiming an absolute. It doesn't matter what your'e arguing against - if you say something never happens, you're usually wrong.
HOWEVER, I think its quite fair to say that the original statement he was rebutting - that it is COMMON - is false. While you have some men who wear makeup (either for professional/television reasons or just because they feel like it), the overwhelming majority do not.
Yes, they do use a good deal of products like cologne, hair dye, etc, but if you're talking about traditional make-up, its by far a rarity.
People already voted with their wallet - if they LEFT Netflix after a minor price bump, do you really think they care if Verizon takes the helm? If I've already taken my toys and gone home I don't care if a bigger bully starts wandering the playground.
Realistically, if Verizon cranks up the restrictions and fees, you can bet that they'll succeed in merely driving the service further into the ground than Netflix could do alone.
That they did, but it was still buggy as hell for me. I'm still running Linux Mint but I'm on MATE for now. Thankfully thought, I can at least see that Mint's extensions at least take Gnome3 in a direction that I can agree with, once a few more of the issues are ironed out.
At a minimum, Linux Mint seems to be at least TRYING to cater to their users, as opposed to Ubuntu and Gnome who just keep plowing ahead tell the entire userbase that they're wrong.
Plus, it doesn't run on Linux without hacks which are more hassle than its worth.
As someone who runs Linux as his sole home OS, I can honestly say that doesn't matter one bit. Companies succeed on sales, and not fairness. Realistically Linux users are such a trivially small portion of the market that any company coming out with any product can safely ignore that segment without any fear of that decision harming business. If it works on Windows and Mac (and even the Mac part isn't all THAT important), then its good enough from a business perspective.
I can attest to this. Google recently offered the small town I work in a deal that would have paid for the construction of an entire wireless infrastructure, and 3 years of support to get the whole town Wi-Fi coverage. They only had to take up support costs after 3 years.
The town declined because Google refused to filter the connection. They were so afraid of somebody might see a tit that they turned down FREE town-wide wifi coverage.
I can understand the trend. Realistically, most of whats online is simply more entertaining and a better way to spend my time. I don't see myself getting rid of my TV anytime soon as there are still a few shows that I watch, but usually there's only one running show at a time that I actually watch (right now only "The Walking Dead").
Because I don't like the interface. I don't want the icons on the side. I most EXPLICITLY do not want my menus all at the top of the screen.
It simply doesn't behave how I want. If I'm to have a dock I want it at the bottom of the screen. I want desktop icons for frequently used programs and filesystem locations, and I want my menus to be placed at the top of the window to which they are associated.
Other things like the insane disappearing scrollbars I won't hold too much of a grudge over because they can be turned off, but its still indicative of the basically stupid ideas about UI that Ubuntu seems to be embracing.
I don't need some "revolution" in my "workflow". Workflow was something I have not had any issues with for years. I just want the system maintained and polished. When security holes are discovered, patch them. If you can make a program a little faster or more efficiently, do that. If a new awesome video codec or web standard comes up, then build in support for it. When new hardware comes out write drivers for it. The base UI is what has evolved from 25-30 years of big monitor + keyboard + mouse usage. It works. The new stuff you're seeing on phones is a direct result of different input methods (touch + a tiny screen). The desktop doesn't need to go that route because it doesn't operate under the same restrictions.
What are you talking about? Gnome 3 and KDE 4.x were huge steps back. Windows 7 is a huge step forward from Vista.
As much as it pains me to admit it, you're right (at least on Gnome - I haven't really used KDE much since the 2.x days). On Gnome 2 my system was running absolutely beautifully ever since early 2009 (which was when I basically transitioned to full-time Linux usage - I'd been dual-booting and using it off and on since 1998). Everything worked exactly as it should - aside from maybe getting some native game ports and a native iTunes, there's literally nothing that my system needed to do differently. Then somebody felt the need to "innovate". Everythings borked now. In Ubuntu 11.10 Unity is a disaster. Gnome 3 isn't even usable for me. Even if you install the Gnome fallback "classic" mode its gotten glitchy compared to the last release (flickering icons, slowdowns, problems with compositing - it almost feels like they sabotaged the classic mode as it's not working like it used to). Right now I'm doing my best to cobble together a usable XFCE setup, which is the lesser of many evils. It's not working exactly how I want but at least it feels like XFCE is working with the users rather than intentionally trying to piss them off.
Right now I'm anxiously awaiting Linux Mint 12. With their efforts to fix Gnome3 and support of MATE (Gnome 2 fork), they seem to be taking user concerns seriously, rather than Ubuntu and Gnome who are in a screaming match with the entire user base claiming that the users just don't really know what they want. Interestingly enough, if you check Distrowatch, Mint has unsurprisingly surpassed Ubuntu as the leader in page hits for the last 6 months. If you narrow that down to shorter time frames (like last 30 days), Ubuntu has fallen from #2 down several spots, with Mint in the #1 spot by a wide margin.
It's like Canonical is shooting itself in the foot while screaming how great it feels.
I'm pretty much the same way. Heck my pantry is chock full of store-brand stuff because that's pretty much all I buy. For the most part it all tastes pretty darned close to each other. This is compounded even more when you're buying basic ingredients. In the target shooting community when people get to talking too much about tricking out their guns, there's a saying (and pardon me if this is perceived as racist): "It's the Indian, not the arrow that makes the difference.".
Heck when it comes to traditional southern cooking my grandmother was pretty much the best cook I ever knew, and her cabinet was filled with nothing but Piggly Wiggly brand stuff.
KFC ain't that bad. Well, their chicken (ironically enough) is terrible, but their cole slaw is the best I've ever had and their mashed potato gravy is great (note: just the gravy - the potatoes themselves are basically equivalent to powdered mashed potatoes from any grocery store).
The idea of having a pocket knife on you is not unheard of in the US, but apparently it's completely alien in the UK. It's easy to outlaw the things that nobody does.
In many parts of the US NOT having a pocket knife on your would draw some strange looks. It's just something everyone carries (and uses regularly - the need for a blade comes up constantly).
With guns it's much similar. Over 50% of our population owns a gun. Depending on which study you look at, between 3% and 6% of our population possess a concealed weapons permit. Its not even an issue here - hell I didn't even know that there was such a thing as being "anti-gun" until I got to college. In my hometown such an idea was just completely foreign. It's ingrained into our culture here (hell besides carrying for protection and hunting, just for target shooting and IPSC/USPSA competition I tend to shoot 300-400 rounds per week).
Really, most countries that claim to be "free" at this point are mostly advertising their own particular flavor of "freedom". If you point out the things you're not free to do there the response is an immediate quip that you SHOULDN'T be able to do those things. In reality, every place is free if you can do everything except what someone else tells you you shouldn't be able to do.
If I could find a nice country where it was truly free, then I'd be all up for moving there. I don't mind higher taxes or public healthcare, nor do I mind regulations on businesses to prevent monopolies. I do want absolute complete freedom of speech, freedom to bear arms, and freedom from any religious or morally based laws (ie, if people want to engage in prostitution or drug use, that's their business). Sadly, I just don't think such a nation exists anywhere on this planet.
Might be a workable idea, but here's the problem: the only people who can enact such reform are the politicians. It's a chicken and the egg problem. You can't fix the system to remove corruption when the existing corrupt people are the only ones who can fix it.
I think we're on the verge of something massive happening within the next 10-15 years. The Occupy people are out there doing their thing - the Tea Party people have opposite ideas but are out in numbers too. Basically, huge segments of the population are getting fed up with the status quo. That dissatisfaction will continue to grow. Not sure if it'll grow into an all out revolution, but I'd expect a lot of mass rioting to ramp up in the coming years.
I had uploaded my collection to Google Music a while back and had enjoyed using it, but the recent changes have really solidified my decision on the platform. Not sure when it came out, but the Music manager is available for Linux now (I had just been using the Windows version via Wine, so I appreciate a native app), and the ability to actually download your music has been added. That combined with the music store basically removes any latent desire I might have had to return to iTunes.
So as a complaint against throttling you're going to go to a *satellite* connection where the default speed is slower than throttled broadband and if you exceed a miniscule amount of data traffic (using on the order of 5gb per month) they'll throttle you to dial-up speeds?
Satellite simply isn't a real option. The model of marketplace competition is sorely broken in the broadband industry today. It's mostly just a bunch of localized monopolies.
If they advertised that, then they should absolutely be able to provide it.
I'm not wanting the max speed my equipment is capable of - hell everything in my home LAN past the cable modem is capable of Gigabit per second speeds. What I do want though, is that if the ISP offers me some advertised rate - say 6MBps, then they ought to be able to handle me using up to that amount of bandwidth at any given time.
And truthfully, I don't even think overselling their network would be such a problem if they were more reasonable about it. If providers were capable of delivering at network that could sustain people using more like 20-25% of their maximum capable bandwidth, then most people wouldn't be in as much of a bind. Instead, many are adding data caps that can be hit using 2 or 3% of your bandwidth.
Compare it to a buffet - not many people are going to care if you have some fine print that caps food consumption at 8 plates. If you advertise "All you can eat" and then have some fine print that cuts you off after 1 cup of soup, then people will rightfully complain.
As much as I want to get a mission to Mars going, I have to agree.
There's a HUGE difference in the stress involved in being locked in a room where you know if you freak out the experiment will end and you can get out and go home, and being locked in an actual spacecraft where if you freak out opening the door kills you and everyone else on board.
That said, this IS about as close as we're going to get to such a simulation without doing something mad-scientist insane (ie, rigging the experiment so that it can't end prematurely and if the doors open the participants actually die).
We're not actually going to get much better data until we actually give a mission an honest try.
Slashdot Mirror
Possibly - I played both KOTOR games and thoroughly enjoyed them, but having my friends all online for this one is a fun new twist. If the monthly fee is also able to sustain continuing content additions then that's a major plus.
Basically, this has the story of a KOTOR game combined with the comradery and social aspects of WOW. $15 per month is a pretty small price to pay for that IMHO.
"Nobody goes there anymore - its too crowded.".
Queues are to be expected in a popular game on launch day. Every time you hit a queue that means that there are that many paying customers in there taking up that much room. You'll never see any business "killed" for having too many customers.
As another poster said - voice acting. LOTS of it. That and CGI - and writers, etc. It took a lot of people a lot of man hours to develop this. That said - $100 million doesn't seem all that bad. Last I heard their pre-orders alone were approaching 3 million. Some of those are collectors editions and digital deluxe, but even at $60 a pop for the regular edition x 3 million is $180 million. There's other material costs involved there, but I'd wager that the initial sales alone will makeup for the development budget. They'll make their profit off of sustained subscriptions, which I'd wager they'll maintain a lot of.
Indeed. I've leveled just about every character class in WoW. I can barely remember any of the quests. The only one that comes to mind is the Lolita-like quest between Duskwood and Westfall. Other than that, it was just a bunch of "Collect 6 Bear Pelts" quests with completely uninteresting text thrown in just to say they gave the story telling a try. Leveling was a chore that was to be endured so that you could get a class to end-game.
SW TOR is different. I literally have no desire at all to do anything at end-game. Raids and such are the last thing on my mind. I just want to quest. Any game that makes questing actually the thing I log in for rather than a penance I must pay to get to the "real" game deserves a nod.
And fully voiced quest interactions with very good writing.
I personally burned out on WoW a good while back. Several months before Cataclysm came out I quit playing. When it came out I resubed and leveled one character from 80 to 85, but then quit again shortly thereafter. I've tried many of the free-to-play games, Rift, EVE Online, and many others in the meantime. Nothing grabbed my attention.
I got early access to SWTOR 5 days ago and have already played at least 15 hours and can't wait to knock off work so I can play again.
I can honestly say that I see myself leveling at least 1 character of every class to max just to see the quest chains. Its that good.
The telescope is "seeing" the planet as it was 946 years ago ... maybe it's not even there any longer
946 years on a cosmic scale is no more than a blink of an eye. The likelihood that any visible planet has merely vanished in that short a time is incredibly remote. Worrying about it would be like freaking out every morning before you go to work because the building just might have burned down overnight.
Pardon my skepticism, but is the margin of error on this really so small that they can really claim to differentiate between a Venus and an Earth sized planet?
I assume they cleared this with her estate, Paramount, etc., right?
There's no legal need to here. Paramount nor her estate has any trademark on emotionless computer voices, and a first name of an actor isn't enough to be considered IP.
Personally, I can't really find much of an issue here. Yes, 99% of routers might only have DynDNS as an option, but I'd also wager than about 95% of the routers out there don't use a dynamic DNS server anyways, and of those that do, very few care to setup more than 1 domain name. I doubt this change will affect very many users.
His argument that men flat out do not wear cosmetics is indeed subject to a "No True Scotsman" fallacy. His mistake though was in claiming an absolute. It doesn't matter what your'e arguing against - if you say something never happens, you're usually wrong.
HOWEVER, I think its quite fair to say that the original statement he was rebutting - that it is COMMON - is false. While you have some men who wear makeup (either for professional/television reasons or just because they feel like it), the overwhelming majority do not.
Yes, they do use a good deal of products like cologne, hair dye, etc, but if you're talking about traditional make-up, its by far a rarity.
People already voted with their wallet - if they LEFT Netflix after a minor price bump, do you really think they care if Verizon takes the helm? If I've already taken my toys and gone home I don't care if a bigger bully starts wandering the playground.
Realistically, if Verizon cranks up the restrictions and fees, you can bet that they'll succeed in merely driving the service further into the ground than Netflix could do alone.
Linux Mint 12 made GNOME3 usable.
That they did, but it was still buggy as hell for me. I'm still running Linux Mint but I'm on MATE for now. Thankfully thought, I can at least see that Mint's extensions at least take Gnome3 in a direction that I can agree with, once a few more of the issues are ironed out.
At a minimum, Linux Mint seems to be at least TRYING to cater to their users, as opposed to Ubuntu and Gnome who just keep plowing ahead tell the entire userbase that they're wrong.
Plus, it doesn't run on Linux without hacks which are more hassle than its worth.
As someone who runs Linux as his sole home OS, I can honestly say that doesn't matter one bit. Companies succeed on sales, and not fairness. Realistically Linux users are such a trivially small portion of the market that any company coming out with any product can safely ignore that segment without any fear of that decision harming business. If it works on Windows and Mac (and even the Mac part isn't all THAT important), then its good enough from a business perspective.
I can attest to this. Google recently offered the small town I work in a deal that would have paid for the construction of an entire wireless infrastructure, and 3 years of support to get the whole town Wi-Fi coverage. They only had to take up support costs after 3 years.
The town declined because Google refused to filter the connection. They were so afraid of somebody might see a tit that they turned down FREE town-wide wifi coverage.
I hate living in the Bible-belt . . . .
I can understand the trend. Realistically, most of whats online is simply more entertaining and a better way to spend my time. I don't see myself getting rid of my TV anytime soon as there are still a few shows that I watch, but usually there's only one running show at a time that I actually watch (right now only "The Walking Dead").
Because I don't like the interface. I don't want the icons on the side. I most EXPLICITLY do not want my menus all at the top of the screen.
It simply doesn't behave how I want. If I'm to have a dock I want it at the bottom of the screen. I want desktop icons for frequently used programs and filesystem locations, and I want my menus to be placed at the top of the window to which they are associated.
Other things like the insane disappearing scrollbars I won't hold too much of a grudge over because they can be turned off, but its still indicative of the basically stupid ideas about UI that Ubuntu seems to be embracing.
I don't need some "revolution" in my "workflow". Workflow was something I have not had any issues with for years. I just want the system maintained and polished. When security holes are discovered, patch them. If you can make a program a little faster or more efficiently, do that. If a new awesome video codec or web standard comes up, then build in support for it. When new hardware comes out write drivers for it. The base UI is what has evolved from 25-30 years of big monitor + keyboard + mouse usage. It works. The new stuff you're seeing on phones is a direct result of different input methods (touch + a tiny screen). The desktop doesn't need to go that route because it doesn't operate under the same restrictions.
What are you talking about? Gnome 3 and KDE 4.x were huge steps back. Windows 7 is a huge step forward from Vista.
As much as it pains me to admit it, you're right (at least on Gnome - I haven't really used KDE much since the 2.x days). On Gnome 2 my system was running absolutely beautifully ever since early 2009 (which was when I basically transitioned to full-time Linux usage - I'd been dual-booting and using it off and on since 1998). Everything worked exactly as it should - aside from maybe getting some native game ports and a native iTunes, there's literally nothing that my system needed to do differently. Then somebody felt the need to "innovate". Everythings borked now. In Ubuntu 11.10 Unity is a disaster. Gnome 3 isn't even usable for me. Even if you install the Gnome fallback "classic" mode its gotten glitchy compared to the last release (flickering icons, slowdowns, problems with compositing - it almost feels like they sabotaged the classic mode as it's not working like it used to). Right now I'm doing my best to cobble together a usable XFCE setup, which is the lesser of many evils. It's not working exactly how I want but at least it feels like XFCE is working with the users rather than intentionally trying to piss them off.
Right now I'm anxiously awaiting Linux Mint 12. With their efforts to fix Gnome3 and support of MATE (Gnome 2 fork), they seem to be taking user concerns seriously, rather than Ubuntu and Gnome who are in a screaming match with the entire user base claiming that the users just don't really know what they want. Interestingly enough, if you check Distrowatch, Mint has unsurprisingly surpassed Ubuntu as the leader in page hits for the last 6 months. If you narrow that down to shorter time frames (like last 30 days), Ubuntu has fallen from #2 down several spots, with Mint in the #1 spot by a wide margin.
It's like Canonical is shooting itself in the foot while screaming how great it feels.
I'm pretty much the same way. Heck my pantry is chock full of store-brand stuff because that's pretty much all I buy. For the most part it all tastes pretty darned close to each other. This is compounded even more when you're buying basic ingredients. In the target shooting community when people get to talking too much about tricking out their guns, there's a saying (and pardon me if this is perceived as racist): "It's the Indian, not the arrow that makes the difference.".
Heck when it comes to traditional southern cooking my grandmother was pretty much the best cook I ever knew, and her cabinet was filled with nothing but Piggly Wiggly brand stuff.
KFC ain't that bad. Well, their chicken (ironically enough) is terrible, but their cole slaw is the best I've ever had and their mashed potato gravy is great (note: just the gravy - the potatoes themselves are basically equivalent to powdered mashed potatoes from any grocery store).
The idea of having a pocket knife on you is not unheard of in the US, but apparently it's completely alien in the UK. It's easy to outlaw the things that nobody does.
In many parts of the US NOT having a pocket knife on your would draw some strange looks. It's just something everyone carries (and uses regularly - the need for a blade comes up constantly).
With guns it's much similar. Over 50% of our population owns a gun. Depending on which study you look at, between 3% and 6% of our population possess a concealed weapons permit. Its not even an issue here - hell I didn't even know that there was such a thing as being "anti-gun" until I got to college. In my hometown such an idea was just completely foreign. It's ingrained into our culture here (hell besides carrying for protection and hunting, just for target shooting and IPSC/USPSA competition I tend to shoot 300-400 rounds per week).
Really, most countries that claim to be "free" at this point are mostly advertising their own particular flavor of "freedom". If you point out the things you're not free to do there the response is an immediate quip that you SHOULDN'T be able to do those things. In reality, every place is free if you can do everything except what someone else tells you you shouldn't be able to do.
If I could find a nice country where it was truly free, then I'd be all up for moving there. I don't mind higher taxes or public healthcare, nor do I mind regulations on businesses to prevent monopolies. I do want absolute complete freedom of speech, freedom to bear arms, and freedom from any religious or morally based laws (ie, if people want to engage in prostitution or drug use, that's their business). Sadly, I just don't think such a nation exists anywhere on this planet.
Might be a workable idea, but here's the problem: the only people who can enact such reform are the politicians. It's a chicken and the egg problem. You can't fix the system to remove corruption when the existing corrupt people are the only ones who can fix it.
I think we're on the verge of something massive happening within the next 10-15 years. The Occupy people are out there doing their thing - the Tea Party people have opposite ideas but are out in numbers too. Basically, huge segments of the population are getting fed up with the status quo. That dissatisfaction will continue to grow. Not sure if it'll grow into an all out revolution, but I'd expect a lot of mass rioting to ramp up in the coming years.
I had uploaded my collection to Google Music a while back and had enjoyed using it, but the recent changes have really solidified my decision on the platform. Not sure when it came out, but the Music manager is available for Linux now (I had just been using the Windows version via Wine, so I appreciate a native app), and the ability to actually download your music has been added. That combined with the music store basically removes any latent desire I might have had to return to iTunes.
So as a complaint against throttling you're going to go to a *satellite* connection where the default speed is slower than throttled broadband and if you exceed a miniscule amount of data traffic (using on the order of 5gb per month) they'll throttle you to dial-up speeds?
Satellite simply isn't a real option. The model of marketplace competition is sorely broken in the broadband industry today. It's mostly just a bunch of localized monopolies.
If they advertised that, then they should absolutely be able to provide it.
I'm not wanting the max speed my equipment is capable of - hell everything in my home LAN past the cable modem is capable of Gigabit per second speeds. What I do want though, is that if the ISP offers me some advertised rate - say 6MBps, then they ought to be able to handle me using up to that amount of bandwidth at any given time.
And truthfully, I don't even think overselling their network would be such a problem if they were more reasonable about it. If providers were capable of delivering at network that could sustain people using more like 20-25% of their maximum capable bandwidth, then most people wouldn't be in as much of a bind. Instead, many are adding data caps that can be hit using 2 or 3% of your bandwidth.
Compare it to a buffet - not many people are going to care if you have some fine print that caps food consumption at 8 plates. If you advertise "All you can eat" and then have some fine print that cuts you off after 1 cup of soup, then people will rightfully complain.
As much as I want to get a mission to Mars going, I have to agree.
There's a HUGE difference in the stress involved in being locked in a room where you know if you freak out the experiment will end and you can get out and go home, and being locked in an actual spacecraft where if you freak out opening the door kills you and everyone else on board.
That said, this IS about as close as we're going to get to such a simulation without doing something mad-scientist insane (ie, rigging the experiment so that it can't end prematurely and if the doors open the participants actually die).
We're not actually going to get much better data until we actually give a mission an honest try.