When you purchase Spore, you are licensing software. Using the EA account online is a service they provide so long as you abide by the terms of service. If they yank your EA account, online functions of Spore will cease, but you can still play the game.
While I prefer native ports, I will accept a Wine/Cedega wrapped package if it works and is officially supported. It beats not having a Mac/Linux version at all.
I think it would be great if we were Doctor House and the THE Doctor at the same time.
If you haven't read his book, you should. The man is pretty clever. And check out some of his out British shows such as "A Bit of Fry and Laurie". He can certainly do a bit of comedy if needed.
openSUSE 11's package management has seen a major face-lift. It solves dependencies better, packages are smaller, and it is faster. I've been installing openSUSE 11 left and right for people, and use it myself on multiple boxes. I haven't come across and dependency hell once with it.
It is at the very least on par with Ubuntu's package management, if not better.
I have had a major issue with Ubuntu and kernels, both at home, and at work. At work we couldn't get Ubuntu to recognize the nics in some blades, despite most other distros recognizing them. At home is a rant for another day.
Sure guys like Novell offer SLED, but I haven't seen a company aggressively pursue the enterprise desktop market. With the flop that is Vista, now is the time.
Perhaps you missed the recent Slashdot article on how the average new video game player was something like 33. And plenty of people who grew up with video games are in their 40's and 50's.
I thought the Beatles struck a deal with iTunes last year. Maybe I'm wrong as I don't use iTunes. However I understand why Apple records would be upset that Apple computers clearly violated their earlier deal and got away with it.
I worked briefly on a Fallout mod project. One of the team members insisted on an option to rape every NPC in the game, because in his mind Fallout meant depravity. That kind of content could push the game to an AO rating, removing the game from shelves and prompting law-suits.
I would really like to see a console-maker basically cut a deal with the homebrew community. Fully open up the console to homebrew development, and in turn, ask said homebrew community to police piracy.
Sony's PS3 is the most open console from a hardware standpoint. They even let you replace the HDD without voiding the warranty, and offer Linux installs. But Microsoft has been the closest to supporting homebrew development with the XNA.
Why can't Microsoft and Sony release a virtual machine to test development in for people who can't afford a dev kit?
They won't guarantee if the CS will ever ship either. I really hope it does, but the Fallout fans are different from TES fans and Oblivion got re-rated by the ESRB after the fact, based upon a mod released by fans (which in and of itself is stupid). Bethesda is the developer and publisher. They could lose big bucks if the game is yanked from shelves, re-rated, and even causes a law suit based upon some mod a fan releases. And mind you, the Fallout-mods will no doubt be much more mature.
I would suggest Bethesda makes ALMOST-great games with flaws. They make huge worlds. They make very polished, quality products. Their games have immense playing time. Yet they always seem to be missing something.
The modding community fills that void, but there are plenty of people who truly love the vanilla titles as they are.
However, I'd never buy a console version where I couldn't install mods.
If I were to wear and eye-patch and download something from a P2P network, I am not committing infringement by downloading. The person who distributed the copy has committed the violation for making a copy to distribute to me.
The distributor is not accountable for my action, but rather for their action of distribution.
That is how the law works, not my interpretation of right and wrong.
There are some interesting precedents occuring while the MPAA/RIAA are losing "making available" cases which almost go completely against my previous statement. Those rulings suggesting sharing the file isn't a violating unless you prove someone downloaded it from you. Yet, in theory, I'd say attempting to share/distribute would be infringement, even if you can't prove that people took you up on it.
That being said, I think penalties should all be minimal unless you can prove that specific damages occurred. When the Ang Lee's Hulk came out in 2003, the box office was far below industry expectations. Part of that might have been a disappointing movie, but word of mouth can only affect opening weekend so much. Usually word of mouth affects the second week of release. However, the movie leaked on P2P networks a full week before release. They count contend piracy caused tens of millions of dollars in lost revenue. They can't just make up numbers like the MPAA/RIAA like to, but industry experts not working for the MPAA and RIAA did speculate on box office numbers. You could attempt to use those in a case.
Slashdot Mirror
The ban means your entire EA account is banned. That would cover future titles as well.
When you purchase Spore, you are licensing software. Using the EA account online is a service they provide so long as you abide by the terms of service. If they yank your EA account, online functions of Spore will cease, but you can still play the game.
While I prefer native ports, I will accept a Wine/Cedega wrapped package if it works and is officially supported. It beats not having a Mac/Linux version at all.
EA bought Bioware, so a ban on their forums would also ban you from playing the upcoming Star Wars MMO as well.
I started buying EA titles used a while back because I didn't want to directly support EA anymore. I certainly won't purchase Spore with their DRM.
I think it would be great if we were Doctor House and the THE Doctor at the same time.
If you haven't read his book, you should. The man is pretty clever. And check out some of his out British shows such as "A Bit of Fry and Laurie". He can certainly do a bit of comedy if needed.
It probably won't happen, but I'd love Hugh Laurie to play the new doctor.
O2 I do believe, unless they are unlocked.
openSUSE 11's package management has seen a major face-lift. It solves dependencies better, packages are smaller, and it is faster. I've been installing openSUSE 11 left and right for people, and use it myself on multiple boxes. I haven't come across and dependency hell once with it.
It is at the very least on par with Ubuntu's package management, if not better.
I have had a major issue with Ubuntu and kernels, both at home, and at work. At work we couldn't get Ubuntu to recognize the nics in some blades, despite most other distros recognizing them. At home is a rant for another day.
Sure guys like Novell offer SLED, but I haven't seen a company aggressively pursue the enterprise desktop market. With the flop that is Vista, now is the time.
Hands down?
I'm curious to find one single major advantage Ubuntu has over Red Hat, CentOS, SLES, or openSUSE in an enterprise environment.
In all fairness I think that comparison is unfair to the cow. Ono is more of a harpy.
Perhaps you missed the recent Slashdot article on how the average new video game player was something like 33. And plenty of people who grew up with video games are in their 40's and 50's.
I thought the Beatles struck a deal with iTunes last year. Maybe I'm wrong as I don't use iTunes. However I understand why Apple records would be upset that Apple computers clearly violated their earlier deal and got away with it.
If you name your character Pete Best, you aren't allowed to play.
I really hope they would.
I truly love the Beatles, but I wouldn't say most of their catalog lends to the Rock Band crowd.
I worked briefly on a Fallout mod project. One of the team members insisted on an option to rape every NPC in the game, because in his mind Fallout meant depravity. That kind of content could push the game to an AO rating, removing the game from shelves and prompting law-suits.
Can it recreate the fear that making the wrong post on a blog will get you arrested?
I've seen some great games come from single developers.
I stand corrected. I have Linux on my XBox, so I never felt the need to install it on my PS2.
I would really like to see a console-maker basically cut a deal with the homebrew community. Fully open up the console to homebrew development, and in turn, ask said homebrew community to police piracy.
Sony's PS3 is the most open console from a hardware standpoint. They even let you replace the HDD without voiding the warranty, and offer Linux installs. But Microsoft has been the closest to supporting homebrew development with the XNA.
Why can't Microsoft and Sony release a virtual machine to test development in for people who can't afford a dev kit?
There is an officially sanctioned Linux install kit from Sony for the PS2.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux_for_PlayStation_2
They won't guarantee if the CS will ever ship either. I really hope it does, but the Fallout fans are different from TES fans and Oblivion got re-rated by the ESRB after the fact, based upon a mod released by fans (which in and of itself is stupid). Bethesda is the developer and publisher. They could lose big bucks if the game is yanked from shelves, re-rated, and even causes a law suit based upon some mod a fan releases. And mind you, the Fallout-mods will no doubt be much more mature.
I would suggest Bethesda makes ALMOST-great games with flaws. They make huge worlds. They make very polished, quality products. Their games have immense playing time. Yet they always seem to be missing something.
The modding community fills that void, but there are plenty of people who truly love the vanilla titles as they are.
However, I'd never buy a console version where I couldn't install mods.
If I were to wear and eye-patch and download something from a P2P network, I am not committing infringement by downloading. The person who distributed the copy has committed the violation for making a copy to distribute to me.
The distributor is not accountable for my action, but rather for their action of distribution.
That is how the law works, not my interpretation of right and wrong.
There are some interesting precedents occuring while the MPAA/RIAA are losing "making available" cases which almost go completely against my previous statement. Those rulings suggesting sharing the file isn't a violating unless you prove someone downloaded it from you. Yet, in theory, I'd say attempting to share/distribute would be infringement, even if you can't prove that people took you up on it.
That being said, I think penalties should all be minimal unless you can prove that specific damages occurred. When the Ang Lee's Hulk came out in 2003, the box office was far below industry expectations. Part of that might have been a disappointing movie, but word of mouth can only affect opening weekend so much. Usually word of mouth affects the second week of release. However, the movie leaked on P2P networks a full week before release. They count contend piracy caused tens of millions of dollars in lost revenue. They can't just make up numbers like the MPAA/RIAA like to, but industry experts not working for the MPAA and RIAA did speculate on box office numbers. You could attempt to use those in a case.