It's not that good companies charge more. It's that bad companies charge less, because they have no obligation not to use that information to turn an additional profit.
And my point was, any ISP that does that will eventually, as consumers get wise, be forced out of the market. Government oversight can speed up the process, but it also represents a considerable risk.
In any case, net neutrality legislation has not (to my knowledge) ever been about granting common carrier status to ISPs, so I don't know why you've brought it up. That would be another solution to consider, of course.
Do we want game AI that prevents NPC's from running straight into a head shot or AI that causes us to pause out of guilt before making that head shot? Well, that depends largely on what kind of game we're playing, doesn't it?
And then what happens when Joe User tries to use Yahoo and finds it's slowed down? Or Mom N' Pop's Startup Search? People will want access to more sites than just those that can pay the bribe, so the only ISP that can give everyone what they want will be the one that doesn't throttle anything.
It might take a year or it might take twenty, but as users become more sophisticated in what they want to use the Internet for, they will become dissatisfied with providers who won't give them the access they demand to the sites they want to use. There's no need for Uncle Sam to saddle us with more rules and regulations. If there's something keeping newcomers out of the market, existing antitrust laws should be applied.
Because the beta was distributed online, it's a safe bet that, in order to save on bandwidth, they used many assets directly from Halo 2, which can be loaded from the hard drive if the user has it, and are much smaller than the Halo 3 graphics if the user doesn't. In any case, it's also entirely possible that not all the Halo 3 assets are finished yet.
In the controversies I've seen over EVE, just as a bystander I've felt considerable pressure to pick a side in the argument, despite not knowing anything about it. One thing keeping me from signing up is the thought that I'll have to deal with this kind of bullshit in-game as well - I don't mean "CCP allegedly doing something unfair" bullshit, I mean "intergalactic flame war" bullshit. I don't care if the developers are giving any faction an unfair advantage. I don't want to care whether the developers are giving any faction an unfair advantage. In fact, if I find myself starting to care about that, that's how I'll know it's time for me to quit the game. The fact that such controversies spring up every time CCP sneezes suggests to me that I won't enjoy the game's atmosphere.
Yes in that there's only so many ways that you can kill Ganon and save the princess. And, as it so happens, Eiji Aonuma has said quite specifically that any further games in the series will be a substantial departure. (Personally, I'm hoping for a successor to Majora's Mask).
No in that the fundamental mechanic - enter dungeon, get new item, solve puzzles with item, defeat boss, find stuff on overworld, get to next dungeon - is unlikely to ever get old. As long as the surrounding narrative and premise aren't stale, then that particular progression of play is solid and timeless.
Shifting gears is NOT a mindless mechanical decision. It can be made into one. But that's not optimal - for performance, efficiency, and safety reasons. You want drivers to know how fast their engine is running, what their acceleration options are, and the ability to judge speed roughly. This is why things like triptronic shifting is popular on higher-end "drivers" cars. Not just for machismo.
Is there any particular reason that this information can't be conveyed to the driver without requiring him to divert his attention away from the task of navigating traffic, or forcing him to make a decision not directly related to this? If technology exists that can decide when to shift gears just as well as a human, if not better - and make no mistake, it does exist, though the automatic transmission you usually see is not that technology - then is there any reason to put that task on the shoulders of a human, with finite attention and sluggish reaction time?
Driving, in essence, is deciding how fast and in what direction to move a car. Anything not related to those decisions should be made as automatic as possible, unless there's a very compelling reason (such as fuel efficiency) to make the driver deal with it personally.
I say good riddance to the stick shift. There's no reason that a human should be making the kind of mechanical, mindless decision that a machine could make faster, more accurately, and more consistently.
I think the idea is that the monopolizing and utter disregard for standards is what makes Microsoft evil, not the embrace & extend tactics. Then again, I don't actually think Microsoft is evil, so what do I know.
We have a test case for physical piracy in a heavily rural country. Now we're going to get one for digital piracy (in which nobody pays anything) in a postindustrial country (where the people are more affluent and discriminating). That's enough of a difference, I think, to call it a different scenario. You know the **AA think the same way.
The average game today is an unintuitive, unoriginal, mindless piece of crap. The average game fifteen or twenty years ago was a cryptic, derivative, frustrating, and unplayable product of madness that only a child could figure out how to play.
The difference is that the best games of yesteryear were simpler and newer than the best games of today. Back then, as a game developer, you were exploring a concept with very few examples to follow. You had to invent the conventions yourself. A great game developer was able to make absolutely certain that all parts of the game fit together perfectly. Today, I have no doubt that the games are technically better and the design much more refined, but because there's a growing legacy of conventional design decisions, certain parts seem a bit out of place. This makes it easier to be able to pick up any game and figure out what to do with it, but it also encourages the inclusion of elements that may not serve the game as well as a less conventional solution.
We only remember that the old games are better because back then, we didn't have much choice. There were only a few we cared about and we probably had time for all of them. These days, there are so many that we become indecisive and obsessed with a game's flaws, regretting that the time we end up spending on one is time that another one won't get.
Slashdot Mirror
It's not that good companies charge more. It's that bad companies charge less, because they have no obligation not to use that information to turn an additional profit.
...emulating-emacs-emulating-vi-emulating-emacs-em ulating-vi-emulating...
Why choose?
None from my state!
Good thing they're not only using AAA titles, then. Seriously. Final Fight? J.J. And Jeff? Legend of Kage? What is this shit?
Kids enjoy fun things more than boring ones? Get outta here.
For that matter, what, exactly, is an offline web app? Isn't that kind of self-contradictory?
And my point was, any ISP that does that will eventually, as consumers get wise, be forced out of the market. Government oversight can speed up the process, but it also represents a considerable risk.
In any case, net neutrality legislation has not (to my knowledge) ever been about granting common carrier status to ISPs, so I don't know why you've brought it up. That would be another solution to consider, of course.
And then what happens when Joe User tries to use Yahoo and finds it's slowed down? Or Mom N' Pop's Startup Search? People will want access to more sites than just those that can pay the bribe, so the only ISP that can give everyone what they want will be the one that doesn't throttle anything.
It might take a year or it might take twenty, but as users become more sophisticated in what they want to use the Internet for, they will become dissatisfied with providers who won't give them the access they demand to the sites they want to use. There's no need for Uncle Sam to saddle us with more rules and regulations. If there's something keeping newcomers out of the market, existing antitrust laws should be applied.
Because the beta was distributed online, it's a safe bet that, in order to save on bandwidth, they used many assets directly from Halo 2, which can be loaded from the hard drive if the user has it, and are much smaller than the Halo 3 graphics if the user doesn't. In any case, it's also entirely possible that not all the Halo 3 assets are finished yet.
Really, who expects production quality in a beta?
In the controversies I've seen over EVE, just as a bystander I've felt considerable pressure to pick a side in the argument, despite not knowing anything about it. One thing keeping me from signing up is the thought that I'll have to deal with this kind of bullshit in-game as well - I don't mean "CCP allegedly doing something unfair" bullshit, I mean "intergalactic flame war" bullshit. I don't care if the developers are giving any faction an unfair advantage. I don't want to care whether the developers are giving any faction an unfair advantage. In fact, if I find myself starting to care about that, that's how I'll know it's time for me to quit the game. The fact that such controversies spring up every time CCP sneezes suggests to me that I won't enjoy the game's atmosphere.
We're reading them now, aren't we?
Yes in that there's only so many ways that you can kill Ganon and save the princess. And, as it so happens, Eiji Aonuma has said quite specifically that any further games in the series will be a substantial departure. (Personally, I'm hoping for a successor to Majora's Mask).
No in that the fundamental mechanic - enter dungeon, get new item, solve puzzles with item, defeat boss, find stuff on overworld, get to next dungeon - is unlikely to ever get old. As long as the surrounding narrative and premise aren't stale, then that particular progression of play is solid and timeless.
Is there any particular reason that this information can't be conveyed to the driver without requiring him to divert his attention away from the task of navigating traffic, or forcing him to make a decision not directly related to this? If technology exists that can decide when to shift gears just as well as a human, if not better - and make no mistake, it does exist, though the automatic transmission you usually see is not that technology - then is there any reason to put that task on the shoulders of a human, with finite attention and sluggish reaction time?
Driving, in essence, is deciding how fast and in what direction to move a car. Anything not related to those decisions should be made as automatic as possible, unless there's a very compelling reason (such as fuel efficiency) to make the driver deal with it personally.
I say good riddance to the stick shift. There's no reason that a human should be making the kind of mechanical, mindless decision that a machine could make faster, more accurately, and more consistently.
I stand corrected.
I think the idea is that the monopolizing and utter disregard for standards is what makes Microsoft evil, not the embrace & extend tactics. Then again, I don't actually think Microsoft is evil, so what do I know.
The reason Microsoft is so rich is because that strategy works. It should be no surprise that Google behaves similarly.
We have a test case for physical piracy in a heavily rural country. Now we're going to get one for digital piracy (in which nobody pays anything) in a postindustrial country (where the people are more affluent and discriminating). That's enough of a difference, I think, to call it a different scenario. You know the **AA think the same way.
The average game today is an unintuitive, unoriginal, mindless piece of crap. The average game fifteen or twenty years ago was a cryptic, derivative, frustrating, and unplayable product of madness that only a child could figure out how to play.
The difference is that the best games of yesteryear were simpler and newer than the best games of today. Back then, as a game developer, you were exploring a concept with very few examples to follow. You had to invent the conventions yourself. A great game developer was able to make absolutely certain that all parts of the game fit together perfectly. Today, I have no doubt that the games are technically better and the design much more refined, but because there's a growing legacy of conventional design decisions, certain parts seem a bit out of place. This makes it easier to be able to pick up any game and figure out what to do with it, but it also encourages the inclusion of elements that may not serve the game as well as a less conventional solution.
We only remember that the old games are better because back then, we didn't have much choice. There were only a few we cared about and we probably had time for all of them. These days, there are so many that we become indecisive and obsessed with a game's flaws, regretting that the time we end up spending on one is time that another one won't get.
This will prove an interesting test case, and demonstrate once and for all the results of unrestricted file sharing.
I want a monitor that will project the text I'm typing onto my face.
If you're having trouble getting through the articles, you could always