Not being able to skip a logo is a far cry from not being allowed, despite technological capability, to play home-burned DVDs. And you can bet people will start returning the players when they can't watch their home movies. Forcing playback of a part of a movie that most people don't fast-forward through anyway does indeed fall below the average consumer's consciousness (and, again, this is where it would be to everyone's advantage for them to know more about why this might be), but heaven save the poor man who gets between a family and footage of their children.
So, because I wouldn't mind paying a few bucks less for, say, an ebook, in exchange for which I agree not to copy it to any other computers, I'm a danger to peaceful and free society.
The "myth" that corporations treat customers well? It takes a monopoly or, at best, an oligopoly for dishonesty to become profitable. People like honesty, and as long as there is competition, there will be companies who can turn a profit by being friendlier. You can't tell me that basic economics is "rash and dogmatic." The importance of informed consumers cannot be understated, however, since informed consumers can identify precisely in which ways companies might try to rip them off, and recognize what alternatives are available. The problem is not DRM - the problem is that people don't know about DRM. And trying to abolish it, or to paint a dystopian picture of a world where "corporations" (acting of course as a single entity) cackle from the throne of skulls atop their mountaintop lair and prevent users from compiling their own software, will not make consumers more informed about DRM.
DRM can be misused. The fact that it has been only demonstrates that this is true. I never said that it could not or would not. What I am saying is that just because technology can be misused is no reason to forbid that technology from being used. Imagine if nobody had bothered working with iron just because you could make swords out of it and kill people.
There are those who'd call this FUD. If the market desires to run their own, unsigned code, then the market will create products to do that. This will, of course, require an informed consumer base. This is why it is important that people know what DRM is and what it could mean. But fearmongering of that sort does not produce an informed consumer base.
Is it so much more objectionable to worship The Almighty Dollar, rather than the concept of freedom in all things? Don't answer, if you're posting on Slashdot you probably throw in with the latter camp. (As, it should be noted, do I, so don't go around thinking I'm trying to say freedom ain't so hot.)
I wasn't just referring to software in my original post.
Don't get me wrong. Keeping consumers informed about DRM is a good thing. Advocating the abolition of a way of doing business just because it could be misused, however, is precisely what TFA claims - rash and dogmatic.
Yes, and that's a worthwhile message. However, there are those among the FSF that are telling people that they won't be given the choice to give up certain of their freedoms voluntarily, even if (for some reason, such as substantial discounts, or insanity) they want to. And that can be the beginning of a dangerous mentality.
While TFA is certainly excessive in the manner in which it presents this issue, it does indicate a deeper concern. Why shouldn't DRM'd software be written and sold, as long as the transaction is voluntary? It's no more restrictive than any other type of contract - and contracts are the foundation of the economics surrounding any creative work.
are no more credible than any other type of zealot. It's the extension of a basically sound idea to an unrealistic, harmful, and (in the worst cases) counterintuitive extreme.
First: are you teaching broad concepts or specific skills? And, if you are teaching broad concepts, are they concepts that are related to writing the program, or to compiling it? I say, use an IDE to teach them general programming techniques, so that they can get results fast and learn decisions and loops, and then take it away so that they can learn what they were actually doing.
Fairly good, actually. Consider the shareware games that circulated about a decade ago. Those games' prices were reduced considerably due to the advertisement: you didn't even have to pay for them at all! And, of course, there are unobtrusive ads in many sports games. And let's not forget the handful of ad-supported MMOs out there. Don't feel like paying for them? Okay, here's a stripped-down client with some ads, and a free account.
I should point out at this point that by "unobtrusive" I mean merely that they don't force you to respond to them or draw your attention to them in a way that itself is distracting. If it's just a prominently displayed texture with a similar color scheme to the surrounding events, then it doesn't bother me.
And the technology used to build them has been getting cheaper as well, even in adjusted value. It costs less than $100 to manufacture a Gamecube today, and as we've seen, the Wii isn't that much more powerful. $200 is reasonable. Moore's Law and stuff.
People seem to be assuming that if a video game is made about the incident, then it is necessarily glamorizing it. Why is it that video games have this distinction, and not (for example) books or movies? It's certainly not too soon to write a book or movie about Columbine. What makes it too soon to make a video game about it? Are video games really so much different? And, if they are so different, why should they be protected?
You misunderstand my intention. I'm not trying to disparage people who aren't seriously into gaming. I'm just saying the data is not comprehensive enough. There is a marked difference in the buying habits of a person who plays Solitaire in his lunch break and a person who doesn't leave his house without a DS, a PSP, and a gaming laptop in his backpack. The industry needs to understand these differences if games are to grow as a medium. If the data is limited to "Do you play games?" then you won't be able to get enough. Hell, even "How many hours per week, on average, do you play games?" would be better than this.
How many of these games are Solitaire and Minesweeper, or on Flash portals like PopCap? These are very clearly games, but to what extent can they be compared to what the average Slashdot user thinks of as games (Halo, Metroid, Final Fantasy, GTA, &c.)?
Knowledge is power. Power can be used to earn more money.
The more you know about your customers, the easier it is to give them what they want. The better you are at giving your customers what they want, the more they pay you.
Google's job is organizing and retrieving information. It's against everything to stand for to not keep local archives that they can analyze for further insight into the Internet's patterns.
There's too many good N64 games to reasonably expect a list of nine to please everbody, and I was very pleased to see Space Station Silicon Valley, but they should have included Ogre Battle 64. Easily one of the ten best N64 games, well-known or not.
Traditionally, Mario platformers have relied on heavily restructured gameplay functions, offering something new that breaks new ground and makes it a distinct experience. It's not revolutionary per se, but neither is it a rehash.
Nintendo's strategy relies on a low price point, and the hardware needed for HD video output increases the cost of manufacturing... not to mention the cost of development for high-definition textures and models. I can imagine a future model of Revolution including some sort of HD support for some titles, as the necessary hardware becomes cheaper, however.
And let's not forget that their target market generally doesn't know or doesn't care about screen resolutione, as long as it looks good enough.
Slashdot Mirror
Not being able to skip a logo is a far cry from not being allowed, despite technological capability, to play home-burned DVDs. And you can bet people will start returning the players when they can't watch their home movies. Forcing playback of a part of a movie that most people don't fast-forward through anyway does indeed fall below the average consumer's consciousness (and, again, this is where it would be to everyone's advantage for them to know more about why this might be), but heaven save the poor man who gets between a family and footage of their children.
So, because I wouldn't mind paying a few bucks less for, say, an ebook, in exchange for which I agree not to copy it to any other computers, I'm a danger to peaceful and free society.
Could we tone down the rhetoric a little, please?
If you enter into a contract, it wouldn't be involuntary servitude, now, would it? Slavery is, by definition, not a voluntary transaction.
DRM can be misused. The fact that it has been only demonstrates that this is true. I never said that it could not or would not. What I am saying is that just because technology can be misused is no reason to forbid that technology from being used. Imagine if nobody had bothered working with iron just because you could make swords out of it and kill people.
There are those who'd call this FUD. If the market desires to run their own, unsigned code, then the market will create products to do that. This will, of course, require an informed consumer base. This is why it is important that people know what DRM is and what it could mean. But fearmongering of that sort does not produce an informed consumer base.
Is it so much more objectionable to worship The Almighty Dollar, rather than the concept of freedom in all things? Don't answer, if you're posting on Slashdot you probably throw in with the latter camp. (As, it should be noted, do I, so don't go around thinking I'm trying to say freedom ain't so hot.)
I wasn't just referring to software in my original post.
Don't get me wrong. Keeping consumers informed about DRM is a good thing. Advocating the abolition of a way of doing business just because it could be misused, however, is precisely what TFA claims - rash and dogmatic.
Yes, and that's a worthwhile message. However, there are those among the FSF that are telling people that they won't be given the choice to give up certain of their freedoms voluntarily, even if (for some reason, such as substantial discounts, or insanity) they want to. And that can be the beginning of a dangerous mentality.
You just can't smell it over the weeks' worth of sweat and grime.
While TFA is certainly excessive in the manner in which it presents this issue, it does indicate a deeper concern. Why shouldn't DRM'd software be written and sold, as long as the transaction is voluntary? It's no more restrictive than any other type of contract - and contracts are the foundation of the economics surrounding any creative work.
are no more credible than any other type of zealot. It's the extension of a basically sound idea to an unrealistic, harmful, and (in the worst cases) counterintuitive extreme.
First: are you teaching broad concepts or specific skills? And, if you are teaching broad concepts, are they concepts that are related to writing the program, or to compiling it? I say, use an IDE to teach them general programming techniques, so that they can get results fast and learn decisions and loops, and then take it away so that they can learn what they were actually doing.
Fairly good, actually. Consider the shareware games that circulated about a decade ago. Those games' prices were reduced considerably due to the advertisement: you didn't even have to pay for them at all! And, of course, there are unobtrusive ads in many sports games. And let's not forget the handful of ad-supported MMOs out there. Don't feel like paying for them? Okay, here's a stripped-down client with some ads, and a free account.
I should point out at this point that by "unobtrusive" I mean merely that they don't force you to respond to them or draw your attention to them in a way that itself is distracting. If it's just a prominently displayed texture with a similar color scheme to the surrounding events, then it doesn't bother me.
Unless there is truth to the rumors that there will be a DVD add-on.
I have no problem with ads under the following circumstances:
-If the game is noticeably cheaper as a result, or
-If the ads are unobtrusive.
And the technology used to build them has been getting cheaper as well, even in adjusted value. It costs less than $100 to manufacture a Gamecube today, and as we've seen, the Wii isn't that much more powerful. $200 is reasonable. Moore's Law and stuff.
People seem to be assuming that if a video game is made about the incident, then it is necessarily glamorizing it. Why is it that video games have this distinction, and not (for example) books or movies? It's certainly not too soon to write a book or movie about Columbine. What makes it too soon to make a video game about it? Are video games really so much different? And, if they are so different, why should they be protected?
You misunderstand my intention. I'm not trying to disparage people who aren't seriously into gaming. I'm just saying the data is not comprehensive enough. There is a marked difference in the buying habits of a person who plays Solitaire in his lunch break and a person who doesn't leave his house without a DS, a PSP, and a gaming laptop in his backpack. The industry needs to understand these differences if games are to grow as a medium. If the data is limited to "Do you play games?" then you won't be able to get enough. Hell, even "How many hours per week, on average, do you play games?" would be better than this.
How many of these games are Solitaire and Minesweeper, or on Flash portals like PopCap? These are very clearly games, but to what extent can they be compared to what the average Slashdot user thinks of as games (Halo, Metroid, Final Fantasy, GTA, &c.)?
Knowledge is power. Power can be used to earn more money.
The more you know about your customers, the easier it is to give them what they want. The better you are at giving your customers what they want, the more they pay you.
Google's job is organizing and retrieving information. It's against everything to stand for to not keep local archives that they can analyze for further insight into the Internet's patterns.
Not that Shadow of the Colossus isn't great, but TFA and the grandparent were talking about PC gaming, primarily.
The catch is the ads.
There's too many good N64 games to reasonably expect a list of nine to please everbody, and I was very pleased to see Space Station Silicon Valley, but they should have included Ogre Battle 64. Easily one of the ten best N64 games, well-known or not.
Traditionally, Mario platformers have relied on heavily restructured gameplay functions, offering something new that breaks new ground and makes it a distinct experience. It's not revolutionary per se, but neither is it a rehash.
Now, Mario Party on the other hand....
Nintendo's strategy relies on a low price point, and the hardware needed for HD video output increases the cost of manufacturing... not to mention the cost of development for high-definition textures and models. I can imagine a future model of Revolution including some sort of HD support for some titles, as the necessary hardware becomes cheaper, however.
And let's not forget that their target market generally doesn't know or doesn't care about screen resolutione, as long as it looks good enough.