They came first for the iPhones but I didn't speak up for I was too hip for an iPhone
And then they came for the iPads, And I didn’t speak up because they are completely different markets.
And then . . . they came for Mac OS. . . And by that time there was no one left to speak up.
And get a cut off the broadband line rental, the monthly fee is far too high. I see far more future on Dave Perry's Gaikai service, it uses far less bandwidth, runs on Flash and is aimed at casual gamers. Onlive look far too greedy and are setting people's expectations far too high.
We're in 2010 and it's taken a day for a suposedly uncrackable copy protection mechanism to be picked apart. Now people who pay for the game are screwed if their net goes down, whereas people who pirate it can play without restrictions.
Does this seem fair to you?, screwing 99% of your user base to delay pirates for a day?
Punishing paying customers yet again doesn't look like hitting the sweet spot to me. There is no such thing as 100% uptime and there's going to be times when people will want to play the game and will not able to despite having paid for it.
Personally, I'm not buying it til it gets cracked.
Free DLC should be considered an added perk for buying the game, not something that should be taken for granted. Steam is doing far more damage to the second hand market than EA can do at the moment.
Any multiplayer game that requires a login to play (going as far back as Diablo II or Neverwinter Nights) would have also had this restriction, meaning the seller would need to give up his Battle.net, Bioware ID, etc... for the new buyer to be able to play online.
I am all against restricted copy protection and DRM. EA have always been fairly rubbish at supporting their own games anyway. Free DLC should be considered a step in the right direction.
Yes I lived a poor childhood and was convicted, but I am now reformed. During my time in prison I met one man named John Holmes who has hid a stash of $25,000,000 (twenty five million dollars) but is unable to retrieve it, I offer you the opportunity to assist us by posting this on Slashdot and providing an advance on $1000 (one thousand dollars) for administrative purposes. Once I have received the moneys I will transfer $2,500,000 to a bank account of your choice.
Thank you and God bless
-John
Because they're now in direct competition, MS should never be an alternative when they already hold a virtual monopoly in Desktop OS software and also have significant marketshare in pretty much everything else.
Handing MS a monopoly in search is asking for trouble.
That while they were so busy spending billions to scrape a few points in market share back, Google were busy making sure they were the default search engine in the most popular mobile devices for the next 10 years: Android and the iPhone, Microsoft's mobile platform is all but dead in the water, and even then, devices like HTC's Windows Mobile smartphones also default to Google.
They're so busy catching up they have no idea what beyond the next corner.
That image should be a non story, the only reason people feign outrage over it is as a preemptive measure to avoid the stigma of being called "racist".
First, no one said Windows Mobile isn't an OS, I said I did not rent my phone from Microsoft, and therefore did not want them sniffing around it, if they thought and app I purchased was dangerous, they should let me know, not sneak in and uninstall it.
Second, we're not talking about public safety, so let's put the FUD aside. We're talking about giving someone else control over what is installed in something you own, and if it becomes acceptable now, how long before it becomes standard in any type of OS?
If I was renting my phone from Microsoft, I wouldn't object to them having a certain degree of control over the software it runs, but if I own a house, and buy a sofa that is a fire hazard, I would certainly object to Ikea showing up and grabbing it without permission, no matter how noble their intentions.
A line has to be drawn, if a device is capable of having software removed remotely, then it is capable of receiving a recall notice. If the software is dangerous, warn the user and give them the choice to remove it or use it at their own risk.
Giving this degree of control away is just asking for trouble.
Google may be 'good' (as we can tell) right now... but money corrupts absolutely at some point.
A-fucking-men.
When Google goes evil, not if, they are going to make Emperor Palpatine look like Barak Obama by comparision. It's going to be apocalyptic. Companies, industries and even nations are going to feel the weight of all their own secrets and knowledge crushing down upon them as it Google squashes all around it into an easily indexed pulp. We are going to see Google Private Eye franchises, Google protection rackets, Google industrial espionage, citizen profiling, financial translation analysis. You name it. Our data will be the end of us all, and Google will be company controlling the databases.
You see when Google turns, not if, It's the not just going to bring the data and apps it currently has to the dark side. It's going to bring a sizeable proportion of its engineers and PhDs with it. And army of Geeks ready willing and able to remould the internet and our very society with the algorithms under their control. There will be no historical precedent for the transition or its ramifications. Microsoft will seem benevolent by comparision.
It's coming. Humans don't stay angels forever.
When they go evil then I'll switch search engines, in the meantime I'll continue to adblock analytics, and praise their efforts to support Open Source software.
By the way if you think information is power, then just turn your head slightly and stare at Facebook's hog for a while.
Blizzard have always said they would never compromise the quality of their games, I can't think of a single one of their titles that has not been delayed, going back as far as WoW, Warcraft III, Diablo II, Starcraft, etc..
That's pushing me towards never, ever purchasing anything in a way that allows the RIAA and the companies they represent to make a dime off it.
No one expects computers or other electronics devices to work properly in perpetuity, and there is no reason that any particular mode of distributing copyrighted works should be required to do so
Of course the difference here is you own the "computer or electronic device" and are solely responsible for it, this means you have the legal right and means to keep it working whereas when you're licensing a piece of media subject to DRM protection you depend on the distributor and/or copyright holder for the ability to reproduce it.
They know DRM cripples music and they know people will have to pay multiple times for it and they couldn't be happier about it.
You're trying to spread FUD about a company whose entire business plan rests on the fact that its customers trust it.
As far as I'm concerned, you are Steve Ballmer.
If you're so concerned about privacy then go after Twitter or Facebook, who know everything millions of people do daily, or Valve or Blizzard, who track all kinds of user trends on their services. Not to mention Microsoft, who want to run your life, and make you pay for it.
The mod tools should have been released when the game came out, and all 4 campaigns should have been available in VS mode. The game was fun, but nowhere near as replayable as CS of TF2.
AS far as L4D2 goes, I would rather they left the yearly sequel thing to EA.
Slashdot Mirror
They came first for the iPhones but I didn't speak up for I was too hip for an iPhone And then they came for the iPads, And I didn’t speak up because they are completely different markets. And then . . . they came for Mac OS. . . And by that time there was no one left to speak up.
Only Apple could get away with promoting that as a feature: Pay for an app, fire it up and watch an ad for Nike, can't wait!
And get a cut off the broadband line rental, the monthly fee is far too high. I see far more future on Dave Perry's Gaikai service, it uses far less bandwidth, runs on Flash and is aimed at casual gamers. Onlive look far too greedy and are setting people's expectations far too high.
They've turned into obstacles.
We're in 2010 and it's taken a day for a suposedly uncrackable copy protection mechanism to be picked apart. Now people who pay for the game are screwed if their net goes down, whereas people who pirate it can play without restrictions.
Does this seem fair to you?, screwing 99% of your user base to delay pirates for a day?
Punishing paying customers yet again doesn't look like hitting the sweet spot to me. There is no such thing as 100% uptime and there's going to be times when people will want to play the game and will not able to despite having paid for it.
Personally, I'm not buying it til it gets cracked.
I don't pirate because it's against the law, viruses are pretty useless when they run sandboxed.
Free DLC should be considered an added perk for buying the game, not something that should be taken for granted. Steam is doing far more damage to the second hand market than EA can do at the moment.
Any multiplayer game that requires a login to play (going as far back as Diablo II or Neverwinter Nights) would have also had this restriction, meaning the seller would need to give up his Battle.net, Bioware ID, etc... for the new buyer to be able to play online.
I am all against restricted copy protection and DRM. EA have always been fairly rubbish at supporting their own games anyway. Free DLC should be considered a step in the right direction.
Yes I lived a poor childhood and was convicted, but I am now reformed. During my time in prison I met one man named John Holmes who has hid a stash of $25,000,000 (twenty five million dollars) but is unable to retrieve it, I offer you the opportunity to assist us by posting this on Slashdot and providing an advance on $1000 (one thousand dollars) for administrative purposes. Once I have received the moneys I will transfer $2,500,000 to a bank account of your choice. Thank you and God bless -John
Because they're now in direct competition, MS should never be an alternative when they already hold a virtual monopoly in Desktop OS software and also have significant marketshare in pretty much everything else.
Handing MS a monopoly in search is asking for trouble.
That while they were so busy spending billions to scrape a few points in market share back, Google were busy making sure they were the default search engine in the most popular mobile devices for the next 10 years: Android and the iPhone, Microsoft's mobile platform is all but dead in the water, and even then, devices like HTC's Windows Mobile smartphones also default to Google.
They're so busy catching up they have no idea what beyond the next corner.
Microsoft have been "evil" for years and noone is bothered by it anymore, yet you're having nightmares because Google may turn evil some day?
Somehow people are outraged at Google tracking browsing habits and yet have no problems handing over their private lives to companies like Facebook.
That image should be a non story, the only reason people feign outrage over it is as a preemptive measure to avoid the stigma of being called "racist".
First, no one said Windows Mobile isn't an OS, I said I did not rent my phone from Microsoft, and therefore did not want them sniffing around it, if they thought and app I purchased was dangerous, they should let me know, not sneak in and uninstall it.
Second, we're not talking about public safety, so let's put the FUD aside. We're talking about giving someone else control over what is installed in something you own, and if it becomes acceptable now, how long before it becomes standard in any type of OS?
I think the landlord analogy is misleading.
If I was renting my phone from Microsoft, I wouldn't object to them having a certain degree of control over the software it runs, but if I own a house, and buy a sofa that is a fire hazard, I would certainly object to Ikea showing up and grabbing it without permission, no matter how noble their intentions.
A line has to be drawn, if a device is capable of having software removed remotely, then it is capable of receiving a recall notice. If the software is dangerous, warn the user and give them the choice to remove it or use it at their own risk.
Giving this degree of control away is just asking for trouble.
A-fucking-men.
When Google goes evil, not if, they are going to make Emperor Palpatine look like Barak Obama by comparision. It's going to be apocalyptic. Companies, industries and even nations are going to feel the weight of all their own secrets and knowledge crushing down upon them as it Google squashes all around it into an easily indexed pulp. We are going to see Google Private Eye franchises, Google protection rackets, Google industrial espionage, citizen profiling, financial translation analysis. You name it. Our data will be the end of us all, and Google will be company controlling the databases.
You see when Google turns, not if, It's the not just going to bring the data and apps it currently has to the dark side. It's going to bring a sizeable proportion of its engineers and PhDs with it. And army of Geeks ready willing and able to remould the internet and our very society with the algorithms under their control. There will be no historical precedent for the transition or its ramifications. Microsoft will seem benevolent by comparision.
It's coming. Humans don't stay angels forever.
When they go evil then I'll switch search engines, in the meantime I'll continue to adblock analytics, and praise their efforts to support Open Source software.
By the way if you think information is power, then just turn your head slightly and stare at Facebook's hog for a while.
Blizzard have always said they would never compromise the quality of their games, I can't think of a single one of their titles that has not been delayed, going back as far as WoW, Warcraft III, Diablo II, Starcraft, etc..
No one expects computers or other electronics devices to work properly in perpetuity, and there is no reason that any particular mode of distributing copyrighted works should be required to do so
Of course the difference here is you own the "computer or electronic device" and are solely responsible for it, this means you have the legal right and means to keep it working whereas when you're licensing a piece of media subject to DRM protection you depend on the distributor and/or copyright holder for the ability to reproduce it.
They know DRM cripples music and they know people will have to pay multiple times for it and they couldn't be happier about it.
I will dance over their graves.
You're trying to spread FUD about a company whose entire business plan rests on the fact that its customers trust it.
As far as I'm concerned, you are Steve Ballmer.
If you're so concerned about privacy then go after Twitter or Facebook, who know everything millions of people do daily, or Valve or Blizzard, who track all kinds of user trends on their services. Not to mention Microsoft, who want to run your life, and make you pay for it.
Actually I'd be more worried about privacy. Can I assume everthing I do (or browse) will be reported back to Google?
Of course Mr Ballmer, sure, I can't think of a greater danger to privacy than a lightweight, open source OS.
Of course if your concern is aimed at Google in general then (as always) competition is just a click away.
The mod tools should have been released when the game came out, and all 4 campaigns should have been available in VS mode. The game was fun, but nowhere near as replayable as CS of TF2.
AS far as L4D2 goes, I would rather they left the yearly sequel thing to EA.
Is driven by hardware manufacturers, not consumers: The most popular game in the world today look dated on its release almost 5 years ago.
The way it's trying so hard to ape Google. In a way, it's a bit like those netbook distros that try to disguise Linux as Windows.... sweet irony.
Google tracks you online.
Oh yes, long live Microsoft sponsored FUD.
Noone forces you to use Google, if they know what porn you surf for, it's your own damn fault.
"System and Method for Enabling Users to Interact in a Virtual Space"
I'm pretty sure Richard Garriott had been there done that before the year 2000.