Only its not, because according to the rules of the whole thing, it doesn't actually get him into the game.
$50 is the standard price for just about any game out there that's relatively new. Blizzard even includes a free month, so it's really only $35 for the package, which is a bargain.
This whole thing just seems silly to me. I still support blizzard's hardline stance. Maybe it inconveniences someone who is desparate to save $10 so they can afford two cups of coffee - but it also keeps the game from being exploited by those who would.
Unfortunately for him, as is stated just about everywhere, an authorization key can only be used once. You are free to sell the key or the software, per the EULA. But if they key has been used, it's a used key. It doesn't become new again. Thats in the agreements too. He's ignoring that bit.
The "Account Key" is a ticket. It gets you an account in the game. If you want to sell the ticket before you use it, you can. But like any ticket, once it's used, it's gone. Even if you sell the little ticket sleeve and the cd-rom tour guide that came with it.
No, see.. he wants to make a SECOND account on the same key. That key already has one account. It's just not his, and accounts can't be transferred.
Or maybe he wants a new key. Unfortunately, that's not a product he can purchase. Blizzard posted that publically on their site weeks ago. He should've researched it, since it was clear the included key had already been used to create the one non-transferrable account it's entitled to.
They aren't trying to screw him here. He screwed himself. He read the agreement for the software, sure. But he didn't read the agreement for the account. They made it clear you can sell the box, and it's contents. The software. Not the account or "game" - though "game" may be implied.
Bottom line: He wasn't paying attention. What he bought isn't what he thought he was buying. Tough shit. Return it to the seller if unsatisfied. Pay more attention next time. Blizzard has not been vague or obtuse about how it works.
I/did/ read the whole article. I can't figure out why he would buy a used MMO unless he was trying to buy a character - as I explained in my first post. The cost/benefit just isn't there unless you are taking the characters with you.
I think he's trying to buy a character, but is leaving that bit out in order to win sympathy.
Selling of characters is a really annoying thing in MMO games because you end up with a reasonably large group of people at lvl 60 who have/no/ idea how to play, and get everyone dead until they are identified and ostracized.
There are three scenarios here:
1) This guy is trying to buy a character/account off someone, and guarantee that person can't take it back. Blizzard won't participate. He's trying to raise a stink to challenge Blizzard on it, in the hopes of pressuring them.
2) This guy bought the game used for a discount, because the full $50 was too steep. This means he's paying his first month, instead of getting the free one. That puts him at $15 out of pocket, meaning his maximum savings is $35 (if the game were free.) If it's free, he has nothing to bitch about. If it cost him $35, he's a moron for not just buying new. So, really there is a sliding scale between "not much money" and "you're a moron" that centers around $17.50. Frankly, there isn't much incentive to buy this game used. If that 17.50 is really worth it to you, you probably can't afford the lawsuit you propose (which you would lose anyway) - if it is the principle of the thing, you need to seriously reevaluate how you pick your fights, and get over it.
3) He bought the game at full price from a friend who decided he didn't like it. If this is the case, his friend screwed him and they need to sort it out.
It has always been stated that accounts can't be transferred, and you can only make one account per key. Blizzard even posted on their site that they will not be selling extra key's (probably because their publisher would have a fit.) It's this guys fault for not paying attention.
In any case, so far Blizzard has taken a hard line against people exploiting the game - both challenging them in the real world, and fixing the exploit in the game. This is just another sign of that, and I'm glad they are doing it.
I'm aware of the difficulty in getting straight answers from some interviewees, which requires the interviewer clarify sidestepping. If you get a stupid answer, rephrase it to reveal it's stupidity, and clarify that that is what they said. Make 'em dance. That's what good interviewers do.
I don't think it is possible for an editor of/. to conceal their agenda. More importantly, I dont think they should. As such, I had no problem with Roblimo stating he uses linux, or pointing out that not everyone uses Red Hat (a point which Martin replied to quite well, btw)
My issues are not with the steering of the questions. My issues are with some of the snide comments that were slipped in, for no good reason. When Martin states his point, it's perfectly legitimate to offer facts that counter this. Parts of the interview that tried to go that direction include the bit about hiring costs for Linux admins vs Windows techs. Unfortunately, Roblimo wasn't prepared enough, and Martin was. Martin had an answer for him, and Roblimo graciously accepted it.
I'm not asking for bland. I'm not asking for Roblimo to ignore Microsoft distortions or lies. I'm always interested in a good conversation. I'm just asking that an interviewer be professional, respectful, and informed. Roblimo came off as being none of those things, and it was disappointing.
I agree in theory. Live interviews are usually more fun than mail interviews. The reason I wished this was an email interview is because that would've gone a long way in preventing Roblimo's more unprofessional moments.
I do think the live format of the interview contributed to the quality of the answers. Should/. find someone capable of conducting a proper, professional live/phone interview, I hope they continue with the format.
The interviewee is making a/. account because he recognizes the value in communicating with some of the people on Slashdot, regardless of the professionalism of the interviewer. He wants to spread Microsoft's current message, and creating an account will allow him to do that.
Yes, his question about the cost of an account highlights philosophical differences pretty well. Roblimo's lack of social grace and professionalism in responding reinforces some sterotypes just as well.
I'm not eager to pick this interview apart. When I saw the call for questions, I was intrigued. When I read the first answer, I was excited. We were getting straight answers, to an extent. It was interesting. I expected that as I read, I would dislike the answers, and end thinking the same thing about Microsoft I thought going in. Instead, it devolved into Microsoft trying to have a coherent discussion while Roblimo tried to pick him apart for basically being Microsoft.
This isn't some comic book guy thing. I didn't start posting links to my comment all over the net. I haven't spammed usenet. I somply posted a comment on the article I had feedback about, in the comment area for that article.
My comment is negative, because I had a negative reaction to the article. I tried to point out a few examples. Maybe it will make people think, and they will behave more professionally in the future. Maybe it won't. Either way, I have stated my point; take it or leave it.
Why is criticism such a big deal? Why is it frowned upon so much? If we don't recieve criticism, how can we learn?
In your rush to discount my criticism as invalid due to some trivial fact, you misread my post.
I never claimed IE had popup blocking first. I said that the "little bar" that pops up along the top - the UI design - was in IE first, and copied by Firefox. Prior to IE showing that UI, Firefox's popup blocker displayed an icon in the status bar. That wasn't even my point, it was just an aside. My point was that "Firefox has that too" is a ridiculous response, and was totally unwarranted.
It isn't just venom. It's legitimate criticism. I am disappointed in the way Roblimo represented/. and, to some extent, the open source community as an interviewer. I believe that Roblimo's interview technique lessened the overall value of the interview, and came off as childish and immature. Microsofts representative clearly tried to take it all in stride, but he shouldn't have had that sort of reception in the first place.
I wish this hadn't been a phone interview. It seems Roblimo wasn't mature enough to conduct it in person, and as such email would've been a better medium. As an interviewer, your goal should be to get answers. The second you start mocking your subject, you lose objectivity, and fail at your goal.
A few examples:
When Martin is asked about how he avoids seeing popups on windows (a valid question), He responds by pointing out that SP2 includes a version of IE with a popup blocker, and mentions that it gives him a little bar he can use to show the popup if its for a trusted site or web app. Fair answer. Microsoft has fixed the problem, and he was explaining how. Roblimo immediately responds "Firefox has this too." as if it were some kind of debate about which is better. It's not. He was answering the question. Besides, Firefox stole the "little bar" idea straight out of IE in SP2. It used to be a status bar icon.
Martin is answering a question, and mentions TCO as part of an example comment that may be made. Roblimo cuts him off with "Let's move on to a TCO question. It's where you gonna go anyway.." - Presumptuous and Rude. Martin denies that he was going there, and is cut off AGAIN. He has to blatantly ask Roblimo to let him finish his answer. Pathetic.
When Martin jokes about the compassionate proprietary line, Roblimo says it's worth zero. Maybe Roblimo just means that he thinks it's a bad line, or that taglines shouldn't be paid for. But at this point he's lost my sympathies, so I read it as his belief that its impossible to be compassionate AND proprietary. I know this one is a stretch, but at this point he's lost me.
In the discussion on EULAs, Martin says they dont guarantee thier softwares fitness for a purpose. just like every other software company. He goes on to explain what they mean when they say it's got a company backing it up, mentioning that they do indemnify against patent issues, and liabilities from running the code. Regardless of your beliefs on those topics, Martin did answer the question. Roblimo totally missed that, and had to keep going at him for the same thing, until Martin finally called him out saying "c'mon Rob" and getting him to admit its an industry wide thing. Weak.
Martin says he doesn't have a/. login, but will get one so he can come here and answer questions. He asks about cost (a reasonable question, since many sites do charge these days) and gets a smartass reply from Roblimo "It will cost you just as much as Debian Linux and all the software on my desktop." which of course triggers a stupid little exchange, in which Martin laughs saying "you just can't leave it alone" - which is exactly my complaint. Roblimo can't leave it alone. Instead of doing his job and conducting a proper interview, he took a side and got into the fray. Lame
I'm no Microsoft fan, but if they have the good grace to agree to an interview, at least treat them with courtesy and respect when conducting it. You screwed up a pretty good opportunity with your childishness. Way to go.
Actually, I would love it if WoW implemented world passes. You could just pick server type and timezone, and it would drop you onto one, or you could enter a world pass to allow you to go to a single server.
Better yet, reverse the process. Instead of typing in some code, have the person in game type your wow account name into the npc to unlock the world in your list.
Then all they would have to do is offer world migration to get the existing loads balanced. Then the problem is solved, and they can closely monitor the world passes to make sure it stays solved.
I tried EQ2 at the same time I tried WoW. Many of my FFXI friends were ex EQers, and they switched back to EQ2, thus leaving me sorta looking. I thought about playing it, but god it sucks. Speech bubbles everywhere, rubbery looking shiny people, instances for/every/ zone, so you have to pick from a drop down menu. Hmm.. do I want to go into TheRuins, or TheRuins1, or TheRuins2. Dumb.
The EQ2 game design is like someone bought a "mmorpg kit" for the graphics and then constructed a bizarre half finished game around it.
WoW has server issues and bugs, but the game design is superb. In EQ2 the game design IS the bug.
I switched from FFXI. This game is better. I have never seen a queue. The downtime has all been scheduled, and thankfully at times that dont effect me. I have seen a few flaky things like rollbacks on player locations (disconnected, and reconnect where you were 3 minutes before you disconnected) etc..but I get that. Some movement is tracked on the client side, and if the server goes down you can still move a bit. It's annoying, but rare these days.
The ONLY issue I see is that it gets very very laggy in areas where there are a TON of people all at once - like the Auction House in Ironforge. It's in a huge area, across from the bank, next to the inn, and right by the entrance - all this traffic mixes to form a great town square... at 3fps
If they could solve that issue (and it must be a hard one to solve) then the game would be just about perfect.
Course, it sounds like some of the other servers are having a rough go of it.
Oh well... I intend to keep playing for a long time to come - maybe if all the people who are having a bad time leave the load will become managable, and all the servers will work just fine.
roguelikes such as nethack create the dungeon randomly each time, and are single player. This ensures that death is essentially your own fault, and that the initial grind doesnt get old (as you are always exploring a new layout)
MMORPGs can't randomly generate because multiple people are there, and their entire world cant rearrange when you spawn a new character. Thus the initial bits would get very old very fast.
Plus, in multiplayer, your death may not be your fault. Which frankly, would make perma-death suck.
I'll take you up on that offer. I'd love a free plane ticket to canada. But I'll need a round trip I can use to apartment hunt. After that, I'll fly back and drive my stuff up.
Just let me know who you are so I can send you the details.
Sorry.. I forgot to include the obligatory apple blowjob required to avoid the knee jerk defend-at-all-costs responses from the apple zealots.
I own an iPod. in fact, it's my fifth, as I keep upgrading to the new models, both space and interface wise. I also own a mac. That doesn't mean that I think apple can do no wrong. I think that the artificial copying restrictions on the iPod are stupid.
My main point is that this "bundled songs" thing wont work unless they change something, and I'm curious as to what they will change to make it work. Hopefully it will lead to a better overall user experience.
I'm pretty sure the only way to get U2 to an official inclusion of their songs would be with some kind of DRM, which would rule out an easily importable disk image.
Then again, maybe U2 suddenly got enlightened and went all cool on us, tech wise. Hmmm.
Um.. every time you plug an ipod into a machine it hasnt connected with, it asks if you want to associate it with that machine. It does this by asking if you want to erase the contents of the iPod and copy songs down from the machine. If you say yes, your iPod's contents are erased, and updated with whatever is in iTunes. If you say no, you keep whats on the iPod, but can't add anything new. Not to mention you can't copy music back from the iPod to the machine.
(Note: all of the above assumes you are using iTunes and not one of the many third party tools available, as this is an official apple thing, and they assume the same)
So how exactly will preloading music work? The first time you plug it into your machine you get to pick between your new U2 songs or the rest of your music? Maybe there will be a new iTunes in which marketing has dictated that U2 preload songs be hardcoded to avoid being erased? I mean, the iPod ALSO limits people from copying songs back to their machine.. so it's not like you can back the tunes up before associating the thing.
Maybe all of this is outlined in TFA and I should have read it. Or maybe apple has decided to remove the stupid association/copying limitations on the iPod now that they have their whole DRM stuff going on. But that seems doubtful.
Um.. maybe it's just me, but perhaps both Humans and Monkeys slacking is because there is some evolutionary benefit for us to do so?
I dunno what it would be, but it seems that it is a theme. Maybe it's conservation of energy... only take actions you HAVE to take, instead of stressing your body unnecisarilly (sic (i know it's WAY off, but I'm too lazy to look it up. Which fits my point nicely.))...
We spend all this time making technology to make ourselves more efficient, but we dont use that efficiency to work less... we use it to work more. Which is stupid. I don't believe my reason for being on this earth is to buckle down and do more work. I think its to learn and play and do interesting things. Which I suppose is why all the truly happy people have jobs that are exactly what they do for fun too. They play all the time.
Renewable Resources + Proper Planning + Automation = Semi-Permanent vacation. (in a utopic idealist vision anyway)
Oh well.. I hope there was a coherent point in there somewhere. But it's doubtful.
Very few games are about music. Most are about something else. All of them are visual artworks. In any visual artwork, the music is secondary. It may be as important as the visuals, or even more important... but it is not the focus of the work. It is supplemental to it. It is enhancing to it. This is the same in Movies, Games, TV, etc. The music is meant to enhance the emotion in a certain way... be it sadness, or a pounding beat to get your heart pumping when you are blasting aliens.
I guess my point is that games are just about the LAST place you should expect to see new forms of music, because they aren't made to create new forms of music. They are made to create fun games.
As far as immitation - it's easier to get the reaction you want from sounds that are already associated with an emotion than from something completely new.
If you want new forms of music in games, create new forms of music that have emotional resonance. Eventually they will be used in games. But don't expect the game designers to do it. That's not their goal.
Slashdot Mirror
Only its not, because according to the rules of the whole thing, it doesn't actually get him into the game.
$50 is the standard price for just about any game out there that's relatively new. Blizzard even includes a free month, so it's really only $35 for the package, which is a bargain.
This whole thing just seems silly to me. I still support blizzard's hardline stance. Maybe it inconveniences someone who is desparate to save $10 so they can afford two cups of coffee - but it also keeps the game from being exploited by those who would.
Unfortunately for him, as is stated just about everywhere, an authorization key can only be used once. You are free to sell the key or the software, per the EULA. But if they key has been used, it's a used key. It doesn't become new again. Thats in the agreements too. He's ignoring that bit.
The "Account Key" is a ticket. It gets you an account in the game. If you want to sell the ticket before you use it, you can. But like any ticket, once it's used, it's gone. Even if you sell the little ticket sleeve and the cd-rom tour guide that came with it.
and he only wants one account per key.
No, see.. he wants to make a SECOND account on the same key. That key already has one account. It's just not his, and accounts can't be transferred.
Or maybe he wants a new key. Unfortunately, that's not a product he can purchase. Blizzard posted that publically on their site weeks ago. He should've researched it, since it was clear the included key had already been used to create the one non-transferrable account it's entitled to.
They aren't trying to screw him here. He screwed himself. He read the agreement for the software, sure. But he didn't read the agreement for the account. They made it clear you can sell the box, and it's contents. The software. Not the account or "game" - though "game" may be implied.
Bottom line: He wasn't paying attention. What he bought isn't what he thought he was buying. Tough shit. Return it to the seller if unsatisfied. Pay more attention next time. Blizzard has not been vague or obtuse about how it works.
I /did/ read the whole article. I can't figure out why he would buy a used MMO unless he was trying to buy a character - as I explained in my first post. The cost/benefit just isn't there unless you are taking the characters with you.
I think he's trying to buy a character, but is leaving that bit out in order to win sympathy.
I applaud Blizzard for this.
/no/ idea how to play, and get everyone dead until they are identified and ostracized.
Selling of characters is a really annoying thing in MMO games because you end up with a reasonably large group of people at lvl 60 who have
There are three scenarios here:
1) This guy is trying to buy a character/account off someone, and guarantee that person can't take it back. Blizzard won't participate. He's trying to raise a stink to challenge Blizzard on it, in the hopes of pressuring them.
2) This guy bought the game used for a discount, because the full $50 was too steep. This means he's paying his first month, instead of getting the free one. That puts him at $15 out of pocket, meaning his maximum savings is $35 (if the game were free.) If it's free, he has nothing to bitch about. If it cost him $35, he's a moron for not just buying new. So, really there is a sliding scale between "not much money" and "you're a moron" that centers around $17.50. Frankly, there isn't much incentive to buy this game used. If that 17.50 is really worth it to you, you probably can't afford the lawsuit you propose (which you would lose anyway) - if it is the principle of the thing, you need to seriously reevaluate how you pick your fights, and get over it.
3) He bought the game at full price from a friend who decided he didn't like it. If this is the case, his friend screwed him and they need to sort it out.
It has always been stated that accounts can't be transferred, and you can only make one account per key. Blizzard even posted on their site that they will not be selling extra key's (probably because their publisher would have a fit.) It's this guys fault for not paying attention.
In any case, so far Blizzard has taken a hard line against people exploiting the game - both challenging them in the real world, and fixing the exploit in the game. This is just another sign of that, and I'm glad they are doing it.
Hyfe,
/. to conceal their agenda. More importantly, I dont think they should. As such, I had no problem with Roblimo stating he uses linux, or pointing out that not everyone uses Red Hat (a point which Martin replied to quite well, btw)
I'm aware of the difficulty in getting straight answers from some interviewees, which requires the interviewer clarify sidestepping. If you get a stupid answer, rephrase it to reveal it's stupidity, and clarify that that is what they said. Make 'em dance. That's what good interviewers do.
I don't think it is possible for an editor of
My issues are not with the steering of the questions. My issues are with some of the snide comments that were slipped in, for no good reason. When Martin states his point, it's perfectly legitimate to offer facts that counter this. Parts of the interview that tried to go that direction include the bit about hiring costs for Linux admins vs Windows techs. Unfortunately, Roblimo wasn't prepared enough, and Martin was. Martin had an answer for him, and Roblimo graciously accepted it.
I'm not asking for bland. I'm not asking for Roblimo to ignore Microsoft distortions or lies. I'm always interested in a good conversation. I'm just asking that an interviewer be professional, respectful, and informed. Roblimo came off as being none of those things, and it was disappointing.
swimmar132,
/. find someone capable of conducting a proper, professional live/phone interview, I hope they continue with the format.
I agree in theory. Live interviews are usually more fun than mail interviews. The reason I wished this was an email interview is because that would've gone a long way in preventing Roblimo's more unprofessional moments.
I do think the live format of the interview contributed to the quality of the answers. Should
The interviewee is making a /. account because he recognizes the value in communicating with some of the people on Slashdot, regardless of the professionalism of the interviewer. He wants to spread Microsoft's current message, and creating an account will allow him to do that.
Yes, his question about the cost of an account highlights philosophical differences pretty well. Roblimo's lack of social grace and professionalism in responding reinforces some sterotypes just as well.
I'm not eager to pick this interview apart. When I saw the call for questions, I was intrigued. When I read the first answer, I was excited. We were getting straight answers, to an extent. It was interesting. I expected that as I read, I would dislike the answers, and end thinking the same thing about Microsoft I thought going in. Instead, it devolved into Microsoft trying to have a coherent discussion while Roblimo tried to pick him apart for basically being Microsoft.
This isn't some comic book guy thing. I didn't start posting links to my comment all over the net. I haven't spammed usenet. I somply posted a comment on the article I had feedback about, in the comment area for that article.
My comment is negative, because I had a negative reaction to the article. I tried to point out a few examples. Maybe it will make people think, and they will behave more professionally in the future. Maybe it won't. Either way, I have stated my point; take it or leave it.
Why is criticism such a big deal? Why is it frowned upon so much? If we don't recieve criticism, how can we learn?
In your rush to discount my criticism as invalid due to some trivial fact, you misread my post.
/. and, to some extent, the open source community as an interviewer. I believe that Roblimo's interview technique lessened the overall value of the interview, and came off as childish and immature. Microsofts representative clearly tried to take it all in stride, but he shouldn't have had that sort of reception in the first place.
I never claimed IE had popup blocking first. I said that the "little bar" that pops up along the top - the UI design - was in IE first, and copied by Firefox. Prior to IE showing that UI, Firefox's popup blocker displayed an icon in the status bar. That wasn't even my point, it was just an aside. My point was that "Firefox has that too" is a ridiculous response, and was totally unwarranted.
It isn't just venom. It's legitimate criticism. I am disappointed in the way Roblimo represented
I wish this hadn't been a phone interview. It seems Roblimo wasn't mature enough to conduct it in person, and as such email would've been a better medium. As an interviewer, your goal should be to get answers. The second you start mocking your subject, you lose objectivity, and fail at your goal.
A few examples:I'm no Microsoft fan, but if they have the good grace to agree to an interview, at least treat them with courtesy and respect when conducting it. You screwed up a pretty good opportunity with your childishness. Way to go.
Hey! You stole my sig!
Actually, I would love it if WoW implemented world passes. You could just pick server type and timezone, and it would drop you onto one, or you could enter a world pass to allow you to go to a single server.
Better yet, reverse the process. Instead of typing in some code, have the person in game type your wow account name into the npc to unlock the world in your list.
Then all they would have to do is offer world migration to get the existing loads balanced. Then the problem is solved, and they can closely monitor the world passes to make sure it stays solved.
I tried EQ2 at the same time I tried WoW. Many of my FFXI friends were ex EQers, and they switched back to EQ2, thus leaving me sorta looking. I thought about playing it, but god it sucks. Speech bubbles everywhere, rubbery looking shiny people, instances for /every/ zone, so you have to pick from a drop down menu. Hmm.. do I want to go into TheRuins, or TheRuins1, or TheRuins2. Dumb.
The EQ2 game design is like someone bought a "mmorpg kit" for the graphics and then constructed a bizarre half finished game around it.
WoW has server issues and bugs, but the game design is superb. In EQ2 the game design IS the bug.
I switched from FFXI. This game is better. I have never seen a queue. The downtime has all been scheduled, and thankfully at times that dont effect me. I have seen a few flaky things like rollbacks on player locations (disconnected, and reconnect where you were 3 minutes before you disconnected) etc..but I get that. Some movement is tracked on the client side, and if the server goes down you can still move a bit. It's annoying, but rare these days.
The ONLY issue I see is that it gets very very laggy in areas where there are a TON of people all at once - like the Auction House in Ironforge. It's in a huge area, across from the bank, next to the inn, and right by the entrance - all this traffic mixes to form a great town square... at 3fps
If they could solve that issue (and it must be a hard one to solve) then the game would be just about perfect.
Course, it sounds like some of the other servers are having a rough go of it.
Oh well... I intend to keep playing for a long time to come - maybe if all the people who are having a bad time leave the load will become managable, and all the servers will work just fine.
This coming from someone named MrBigInThePants :P
roguelikes such as nethack create the dungeon randomly each time, and are single player. This ensures that death is essentially your own fault, and that the initial grind doesnt get old (as you are always exploring a new layout)
MMORPGs can't randomly generate because multiple people are there, and their entire world cant rearrange when you spawn a new character. Thus the initial bits would get very old very fast.
Plus, in multiplayer, your death may not be your fault. Which frankly, would make perma-death suck.
Having lived in England for 5 years, I'm well aware of how higher taxes and socialized medicine work.
It's quite nice actually, though to your point, I would probably supplement my health coverage in case of a medical emergency.
I'll take you up on that offer. I'd love a free plane ticket to canada. But I'll need a round trip I can use to apartment hunt. After that, I'll fly back and drive my stuff up.
Just let me know who you are so I can send you the details.
Why don't they just use the evil bit?
Sorry.. I forgot to include the obligatory apple blowjob required to avoid the knee jerk defend-at-all-costs responses from the apple zealots.
I own an iPod. in fact, it's my fifth, as I keep upgrading to the new models, both space and interface wise. I also own a mac. That doesn't mean that I think apple can do no wrong. I think that the artificial copying restrictions on the iPod are stupid.
My main point is that this "bundled songs" thing wont work unless they change something, and I'm curious as to what they will change to make it work. Hopefully it will lead to a better overall user experience.
Oh, and kiss my ass you self-righteous dick.
I'm pretty sure the only way to get U2 to an official inclusion of their songs would be with some kind of DRM, which would rule out an easily importable disk image.
Then again, maybe U2 suddenly got enlightened and went all cool on us, tech wise. Hmmm.
Stuart,
Good point. But think like the kind of person who would buy a special iPod because there is a U2 album on it, even though the CD is right there.
If apple doesn't change the behavior of the iTunes/iPod setup in some way, things are gonna get messy..
That said... hmm.. a black ipod could be neat.
Um.. every time you plug an ipod into a machine it hasnt connected with, it asks if you want to associate it with that machine. It does this by asking if you want to erase the contents of the iPod and copy songs down from the machine. If you say yes, your iPod's contents are erased, and updated with whatever is in iTunes. If you say no, you keep whats on the iPod, but can't add anything new. Not to mention you can't copy music back from the iPod to the machine.
(Note: all of the above assumes you are using iTunes and not one of the many third party tools available, as this is an official apple thing, and they assume the same)
So how exactly will preloading music work? The first time you plug it into your machine you get to pick between your new U2 songs or the rest of your music? Maybe there will be a new iTunes in which marketing has dictated that U2 preload songs be hardcoded to avoid being erased? I mean, the iPod ALSO limits people from copying songs back to their machine.. so it's not like you can back the tunes up before associating the thing.
Maybe all of this is outlined in TFA and I should have read it. Or maybe apple has decided to remove the stupid association/copying limitations on the iPod now that they have their whole DRM stuff going on. But that seems doubtful.
Um.. maybe it's just me, but perhaps both Humans and Monkeys slacking is because there is some evolutionary benefit for us to do so?
I dunno what it would be, but it seems that it is a theme. Maybe it's conservation of energy... only take actions you HAVE to take, instead of stressing your body unnecisarilly (sic (i know it's WAY off, but I'm too lazy to look it up. Which fits my point nicely.))...
We spend all this time making technology to make ourselves more efficient, but we dont use that efficiency to work less... we use it to work more. Which is stupid. I don't believe my reason for being on this earth is to buckle down and do more work. I think its to learn and play and do interesting things. Which I suppose is why all the truly happy people have jobs that are exactly what they do for fun too. They play all the time.
Renewable Resources + Proper Planning + Automation = Semi-Permanent vacation. (in a utopic idealist vision anyway)
Oh well.. I hope there was a coherent point in there somewhere. But it's doubtful.
Very few games are about music. Most are about something else. All of them are visual artworks. In any visual artwork, the music is secondary. It may be as important as the visuals, or even more important... but it is not the focus of the work. It is supplemental to it. It is enhancing to it. This is the same in Movies, Games, TV, etc. The music is meant to enhance the emotion in a certain way... be it sadness, or a pounding beat to get your heart pumping when you are blasting aliens.
I guess my point is that games are just about the LAST place you should expect to see new forms of music, because they aren't made to create new forms of music. They are made to create fun games.
As far as immitation - it's easier to get the reaction you want from sounds that are already associated with an emotion than from something completely new.
If you want new forms of music in games, create new forms of music that have emotional resonance. Eventually they will be used in games. But don't expect the game designers to do it. That's not their goal.