I have played a number of new games that required me to go into the settings and change graphics options because for some reason they didn't default to my system resolution, or because they defaulted to low, etc. Those are additional steps that consoles don't have. Keep in mind, I own and play on a gaming PC far more than I do my consoles. As to your specific point, the Steambox isn't even out yet. A console player doesn't need to do research to "standardize hardware"--they just buy the console they want.
You're also completely missing my point. "Freer" had nothing to do with price, but with your ability to sell your used game or share it with a friend. Yes, Skyrim PC is bettor than Skyrim console. By a large margin. But can you trade in Skyrim PC? No. Can you trade in Skyrim 360 or PS3? Yes. I made the comment in response to the AC claim that console DRM makes consoles worse than PCs, when PCs have far more draconian DRM schemes than any console to date. (GOG notwithstanding.)
Of course. I have one. That addresses controls, not interface. It's also annoying having to buy an extra peripheral to play a game, when a keyboard should work just fine.
I disagree. I have a very nice gaming PC, but I feel that consoles fill an important niche. They're typically inexpensive compared to a comparable gaming PC; easier to use, thanks to less troubleshooting, no drivers to worry about, and generally simpler games; and are much more likely to be connected to a nice (or at least large) screen than the typical computer.
Beyond that, most games are designed with consoles as the primary target. You see this all over the place with crappy, console-esque menus on PC games. Just look at Darksiders 2 or Dark Souls--both games are arguably better on a console due to the interface and controls (Dark Souls is essentially unplayable without a game pad, and Darksiders 2 isn't much better).
A gaming PC is an almost objectively better investment, but in cases like the Wii or Wii U, you just aren't going to see the kind of gameplay offered by those systems' respective controllers on the PC. Whether this is good or bad is up to the individual.
Also the increasingly draconian DRM preventing games being resold or lent to friends (they will be locked to a particular console) means the idiots who buy these things are getting double butt-fucked.
The PC is the pioneer of DRM and lock-in. Even today, console games are much "freer" in that you can still trade in your old games. I only know of one PC game distributor that allows you to resell your games (Green Man Gaming), but even there, you can't sell back most of the new stuff. GOG may be a bastion of DRM-free titles, and gaining momentum, but we're still a long way from that being the norm.
It occurred to me after writing this that a community college also has extra incentive to take a hard stance against cheating. If the college is known for allowing students get away with cheating, it might hurt prospective transfers to 4-year colleges.
The funny thing (sad thing?) is how lenient the punishments were. Suspension? At my school, a lowly community college, cheating usually results in expulsion, with a 0 in the course being the minimum consequence.
I believe the Resident Evil series uses more generic names (or at least it used to). Goldeneye 007 (N64) is a good example of a game that uses similar-sounding names, such as PP7 instead of PPK. It doesn't really make that much of a difference in 99.9% of the situation.
However, there are people who like their games to be as authentic as possible. Would the Madden series be so popular if the teams were made-up? Would Gran Turismo be popular if it had fake cars? (Okay, it does have some fake cars, but the vast majority are real.) For a game that strives for realism, little details like names and model numbers make a big difference.
Furthermore, I have to object with the assertion that the licensing deals are "shady". It is the same kind of deal as is made with car manufacturers, sports teams, etc. To call it shady is to reveal your political bias.
Hahaha this is nothing new VOTF Xirtam did this a Few times and even a Red Alliance Leader did this. Although we did not have 3000 players on back in those days.
So you're saying that they didn't do this? The point of this story is that there were 3000 people fighting in the same area.
I read that as "stories about EVE" (things that happen because of player actions), not "stories in EVE" (things that happen within the scope of the game's narrative). Whether you like the game or not (I couldn't get into it), there certainly have been a lot of interesting/cool stories about things that have gone on inside the game. This event is one of them.
It's completely possible to type quickly on an iPad--or any similar touchscreen. I can hit 70 wpm on a tablet if it's on a stable surface at a proper height and angle. This is considerably slower than I can type on a good keyboard, but it's still not horrible. The biggest irritation (and large source of slowdown) I have is that punctuation and numbers are often hidden behind a "subkeyboard".
I have no idea why anyone would buy any game, from any publisher, that required an internet connection for online play. Mind-boggling.
Assuming you mean "offline play". I've bought two games that require an Internet connection for single player--Starcraft II and Diablo 3. In both those cases, I was willing to "put up with it" (put in quotes because I never had any actual problems) because those games do sport an extensive online component, and at least in the case of D3, I spent most of my time playing with others.
That said, I wouldn't knowingly buy a single-player game that required a constant Internet connection. Why? Because I don't trust most companies to keep the authentication servers running for even a "reasonable" amount of time--neither do I trust them enough to release an official patch that removed the DRM. The only publisher I might trust would be CD Projekt Red, given the fact that they removed DRM from the retail version of The Witcher 2 two weeks after release, and because they had a DRM-free version available from day one.
Anyways, EA are clearly in the wrong here. This goes beyond ignorance of customer frustration and rushes into willful ignorance of the same. This is akin to burying your head in the sand and pretending everything is okay. Hopefully someone at EA will reverse the ban and that someone in authority will actually take this poster's message into consideration. I'm not holding my breath, though.
I've been using the Office 365 trial version for a while now. I'm not really sure it's "best yet", but it doesn't feel like a step in the wrong direction, either. Really, the only thing I've noticed about it is that it has more eye candy, with more animations and and such. I'm not a fan of the "save as" page, though--it keeps changing the default save location on me.
Interestingly, I just tried Android Firefox today and saw the rubber-banding. I was pleased at first, but it's not as fluid as it is on iOS. I couldn't tell if this was because of the phone (an Incredible 2) or just a shoddy implementation.
Your argument, as presented, gives no reason to prefer Android (there obviously are reasons, though). For myself, I prefer iOS over Android because the UX is much snappier and more fluid, leading to a sense that the phone/tablet itself is faster. Certain UI elements provide much better feedback on iOS than Android, such as the rubber-band effect vs. Google's "light-up" effect (not sure if this has a name). Also, other elements are more clear as to their purpose--IIRC, there are a few buttons in the Android settings app that look like toggles, but in fact are buttons that navigate to another menu.
All of this is just a long way of saying "iOS is more polished than Android". I don't have a need for any of Android's advanced configurability, and I have yet to see another tech company beat Apple's hardware build quality.
(Before anybody asks: The most recent Android device I used was a Nexus 7 running 4.2. I bought it for myself, but wound up returning it after a few days.)
Trackpad? I have never been able to use them. It seems like they are an endless frustration of move finger, hit corner of trackpad, lift finger, reposition, try again.
To be fair, that's basically how a mouse works. Move mouse, hit corner of mousepad, lift mouse, reposition, try again. Yeah, you can keep going off the mousepad in most cases these days, but I don't think I've ever done that. Besides not liking the tactile difference, it's not particularly comfortable to have your arm fully extended across the desk.
Yes. However, if you break contract, you have to pay an early termination fee (and I think in some cases you have to give back your phone if it's early enough in the contract).
Why is it illegal to unlock a smartphone? Because unlocking a phone requires making changes to its firmware – software that is copyrighted and owned by your carrier – which would be a violation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA).
IANAL, but I'm confused. I thought the "point" of the DMCA was to crack down on copyright violations. Code modification would be a DMCA violation if it allowed you to violate copyright, such as bypassing DRM.
"Changing" the copyrighted carrier code doesn't seem to violate copyright, as I understand it, as you are not under legal obligation to use a particular carrier (there's even a clause that allows you to break contract, for a price). Also, what "changes" does the unlocking process commit? If it's simply code removal, then, simply uninstalling a game from your computer is a DMCA violation by extension.
Of course, I'm trying to make sense of something that is inherently illogical. Why is this a DMCA violation, and modding Skyrim isn't? Or is modding Skyrim a violation, and Bethesda simply allows it?
My brother has an old dumbphone because he doesn't want to pay for a data contract. I thought that I could just give him my old iPhone, but no--AT&T requires you to purchase a data plan regardless of whether you intend to use it.
From what I've seen, you can either pay the same monthly rate for an unsubsidized phone, or pay less and get spotty service (T-Mobile). The only benefit that purchasing an unsubsidized phone seems to get you is the ability to cancel your plan at any time. Of course, you can cancel a contract early for $350 or so, which is less than the price difference between a subsidized iPhone/S3 and an unsubsidized one.
Since extra taxes never seem to go toward the national debt, but rather to new pet projects (aka money sinks), I can't blame people for wanting lower taxes. I'm conservative, but I would vote for a tax increase if it were guaranteed to go exclusively toward curbing the national debt. Note also that I think we need to reduce our spending.
Here in Portland, OR our rail system carries over a thousand an hour in rush hour.
Thus, it is worth the cost for Portland, as it has a ripple effect on traffic congestion, emissions, etc. If the commuter rail in Austin really only transports 1000 people a day, then it's not worth the cost. That money could have been used to expand roads or other city improvements that would actually be used.
I think it would be a nice feature to have on my iPad, if only so I could have an IM window open on one side of the screen, and a web browser/whatever else on the other. (Or maybe a movie on one side, or ___ or ___.) There are certainly uses, though I doubt I'd ever use it on a phone.
Here's what the Surface Pro has over an iPad: Run desktop apps; ability to modify the OS as you see fit Here's what the Surface Pro has over a Macbook Air: Touchscreen
Different tools for different people and different uses. I don't personally want a Surface (Pro or RT), and it certainly has some (pretty big) disadvantages, but that doesn't mean I can't understand what Microsoft is trying to accomplish. I think there's merit to their "Windows anywhere" goal, though it still needs some polishing.
Slashdot Mirror
I have played a number of new games that required me to go into the settings and change graphics options because for some reason they didn't default to my system resolution, or because they defaulted to low, etc. Those are additional steps that consoles don't have. Keep in mind, I own and play on a gaming PC far more than I do my consoles. As to your specific point, the Steambox isn't even out yet. A console player doesn't need to do research to "standardize hardware"--they just buy the console they want.
You're also completely missing my point. "Freer" had nothing to do with price, but with your ability to sell your used game or share it with a friend. Yes, Skyrim PC is bettor than Skyrim console. By a large margin. But can you trade in Skyrim PC? No. Can you trade in Skyrim 360 or PS3? Yes. I made the comment in response to the AC claim that console DRM makes consoles worse than PCs, when PCs have far more draconian DRM schemes than any console to date. (GOG notwithstanding.)
Of course. I have one. That addresses controls, not interface. It's also annoying having to buy an extra peripheral to play a game, when a keyboard should work just fine.
Once again, consoles are a tax on the stupid.
I disagree. I have a very nice gaming PC, but I feel that consoles fill an important niche. They're typically inexpensive compared to a comparable gaming PC; easier to use, thanks to less troubleshooting, no drivers to worry about, and generally simpler games; and are much more likely to be connected to a nice (or at least large) screen than the typical computer.
Beyond that, most games are designed with consoles as the primary target. You see this all over the place with crappy, console-esque menus on PC games. Just look at Darksiders 2 or Dark Souls--both games are arguably better on a console due to the interface and controls (Dark Souls is essentially unplayable without a game pad, and Darksiders 2 isn't much better).
A gaming PC is an almost objectively better investment, but in cases like the Wii or Wii U, you just aren't going to see the kind of gameplay offered by those systems' respective controllers on the PC. Whether this is good or bad is up to the individual.
Also the increasingly draconian DRM preventing games being resold or lent to friends (they will be locked to a particular console) means the idiots who buy these things are getting double butt-fucked.
The PC is the pioneer of DRM and lock-in. Even today, console games are much "freer" in that you can still trade in your old games. I only know of one PC game distributor that allows you to resell your games (Green Man Gaming), but even there, you can't sell back most of the new stuff. GOG may be a bastion of DRM-free titles, and gaining momentum, but we're still a long way from that being the norm.
It occurred to me after writing this that a community college also has extra incentive to take a hard stance against cheating. If the college is known for allowing students get away with cheating, it might hurt prospective transfers to 4-year colleges.
The funny thing (sad thing?) is how lenient the punishments were. Suspension? At my school, a lowly community college, cheating usually results in expulsion, with a 0 in the course being the minimum consequence.
I believe the Resident Evil series uses more generic names (or at least it used to). Goldeneye 007 (N64) is a good example of a game that uses similar-sounding names, such as PP7 instead of PPK. It doesn't really make that much of a difference in 99.9% of the situation.
However, there are people who like their games to be as authentic as possible. Would the Madden series be so popular if the teams were made-up? Would Gran Turismo be popular if it had fake cars? (Okay, it does have some fake cars, but the vast majority are real.) For a game that strives for realism, little details like names and model numbers make a big difference.
Furthermore, I have to object with the assertion that the licensing deals are "shady". It is the same kind of deal as is made with car manufacturers, sports teams, etc. To call it shady is to reveal your political bias.
Hahaha this is nothing new VOTF Xirtam did this a Few times and even a Red Alliance Leader did this.
Although we did not have 3000 players on back in those days.
So you're saying that they didn't do this? The point of this story is that there were 3000 people fighting in the same area.
I read that as "stories about EVE" (things that happen because of player actions), not "stories in EVE" (things that happen within the scope of the game's narrative). Whether you like the game or not (I couldn't get into it), there certainly have been a lot of interesting/cool stories about things that have gone on inside the game. This event is one of them.
It's completely possible to type quickly on an iPad--or any similar touchscreen. I can hit 70 wpm on a tablet if it's on a stable surface at a proper height and angle. This is considerably slower than I can type on a good keyboard, but it's still not horrible. The biggest irritation (and large source of slowdown) I have is that punctuation and numbers are often hidden behind a "subkeyboard".
I have no idea why anyone would buy any game, from any publisher, that required an internet connection for online play. Mind-boggling.
Assuming you mean "offline play". I've bought two games that require an Internet connection for single player--Starcraft II and Diablo 3. In both those cases, I was willing to "put up with it" (put in quotes because I never had any actual problems) because those games do sport an extensive online component, and at least in the case of D3, I spent most of my time playing with others.
That said, I wouldn't knowingly buy a single-player game that required a constant Internet connection. Why? Because I don't trust most companies to keep the authentication servers running for even a "reasonable" amount of time--neither do I trust them enough to release an official patch that removed the DRM. The only publisher I might trust would be CD Projekt Red, given the fact that they removed DRM from the retail version of The Witcher 2 two weeks after release, and because they had a DRM-free version available from day one.
Anyways, EA are clearly in the wrong here. This goes beyond ignorance of customer frustration and rushes into willful ignorance of the same. This is akin to burying your head in the sand and pretending everything is okay. Hopefully someone at EA will reverse the ban and that someone in authority will actually take this poster's message into consideration. I'm not holding my breath, though.
I've been using the Office 365 trial version for a while now. I'm not really sure it's "best yet", but it doesn't feel like a step in the wrong direction, either. Really, the only thing I've noticed about it is that it has more eye candy, with more animations and and such. I'm not a fan of the "save as" page, though--it keeps changing the default save location on me.
Chrome works fine on Windows 8 for me. Of course, I've gone back to Firefox, but for different reasons.
Interestingly, I just tried Android Firefox today and saw the rubber-banding. I was pleased at first, but it's not as fluid as it is on iOS. I couldn't tell if this was because of the phone (an Incredible 2) or just a shoddy implementation.
That one's similar to people thinking the floppy drive was meant for credit cards.
Your argument, as presented, gives no reason to prefer Android (there obviously are reasons, though). For myself, I prefer iOS over Android because the UX is much snappier and more fluid, leading to a sense that the phone/tablet itself is faster. Certain UI elements provide much better feedback on iOS than Android, such as the rubber-band effect vs. Google's "light-up" effect (not sure if this has a name). Also, other elements are more clear as to their purpose--IIRC, there are a few buttons in the Android settings app that look like toggles, but in fact are buttons that navigate to another menu.
All of this is just a long way of saying "iOS is more polished than Android". I don't have a need for any of Android's advanced configurability, and I have yet to see another tech company beat Apple's hardware build quality.
(Before anybody asks: The most recent Android device I used was a Nexus 7 running 4.2. I bought it for myself, but wound up returning it after a few days.)
Trackpad? I have never been able to use them. It seems like they are an endless frustration of move finger, hit corner of trackpad, lift finger, reposition, try again.
To be fair, that's basically how a mouse works. Move mouse, hit corner of mousepad, lift mouse, reposition, try again. Yeah, you can keep going off the mousepad in most cases these days, but I don't think I've ever done that. Besides not liking the tactile difference, it's not particularly comfortable to have your arm fully extended across the desk.
Yes. However, if you break contract, you have to pay an early termination fee (and I think in some cases you have to give back your phone if it's early enough in the contract).
Why is it illegal to unlock a smartphone?
Because unlocking a phone requires making changes to its firmware – software that is copyrighted and owned by your carrier – which would be a violation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA).
IANAL, but I'm confused. I thought the "point" of the DMCA was to crack down on copyright violations. Code modification would be a DMCA violation if it allowed you to violate copyright, such as bypassing DRM.
"Changing" the copyrighted carrier code doesn't seem to violate copyright, as I understand it, as you are not under legal obligation to use a particular carrier (there's even a clause that allows you to break contract, for a price). Also, what "changes" does the unlocking process commit? If it's simply code removal, then, simply uninstalling a game from your computer is a DMCA violation by extension.
Of course, I'm trying to make sense of something that is inherently illogical. Why is this a DMCA violation, and modding Skyrim isn't? Or is modding Skyrim a violation, and Bethesda simply allows it?
My brother has an old dumbphone because he doesn't want to pay for a data contract. I thought that I could just give him my old iPhone, but no--AT&T requires you to purchase a data plan regardless of whether you intend to use it.
From what I've seen, you can either pay the same monthly rate for an unsubsidized phone, or pay less and get spotty service (T-Mobile). The only benefit that purchasing an unsubsidized phone seems to get you is the ability to cancel your plan at any time. Of course, you can cancel a contract early for $350 or so, which is less than the price difference between a subsidized iPhone/S3 and an unsubsidized one.
What I wonder is whether Belkin will ditch the Cloud Connect crap.
Since extra taxes never seem to go toward the national debt, but rather to new pet projects (aka money sinks), I can't blame people for wanting lower taxes. I'm conservative, but I would vote for a tax increase if it were guaranteed to go exclusively toward curbing the national debt. Note also that I think we need to reduce our spending.
Here in Portland, OR our rail system carries over a thousand an hour in rush hour.
Thus, it is worth the cost for Portland, as it has a ripple effect on traffic congestion, emissions, etc. If the commuter rail in Austin really only transports 1000 people a day, then it's not worth the cost. That money could have been used to expand roads or other city improvements that would actually be used.
I think it would be a nice feature to have on my iPad, if only so I could have an IM window open on one side of the screen, and a web browser/whatever else on the other. (Or maybe a movie on one side, or ___ or ___.) There are certainly uses, though I doubt I'd ever use it on a phone.
Apple user here.
Here's what the Surface Pro has over an iPad: Run desktop apps; ability to modify the OS as you see fit
Here's what the Surface Pro has over a Macbook Air: Touchscreen
Different tools for different people and different uses. I don't personally want a Surface (Pro or RT), and it certainly has some (pretty big) disadvantages, but that doesn't mean I can't understand what Microsoft is trying to accomplish. I think there's merit to their "Windows anywhere" goal, though it still needs some polishing.
A guy in a CS class I took had one. Everyone made fun of him, though he tried to defend it.