'Not being able to hit the target' is not the same as 'not even being able to try.'
Besides which, if I were moving as slow as the characters in that game, I think I -could- hit the target with both me and them moving. Especially from 3 ft away.
It might be heresy, but I'm seriously considering using this instead of my Linux box at home... IF it can run rtorrent and hellanzb and handle the load of streaming to my Windows PC in the living room.
Software and CPU power are the only problems I foresee. (And CPU power is probably enough.)
Someone else noted that he probably ended up connected to the 'cell tower' on the ship. Last time I was on a cruise, I read the pamphlet before getting my phone out. It just wasn't worth the $4/minute to call home when I was only away for a short time.
Now, with a card instead of a phone, it's a lot harder to see if you're connected to a regular or roaming tower. But still, he should have been a little more careful.
I don't blame the carrier anyhow. I blame the cruise ship for screwing their customers like that. As much as I hate AT&T, this just isn't their fault this time.
Google App Domains were affected by this. We were unable to access our mail via web at our office. We actually wouldn't have noticed, but we were having a little (unrelated) emergency of our own and had to check mail from home for a change.
In other words, everyone really hated the control scheme, but we don't really care what the customers think. We know better than them. It's not like they've played FPSs or Zombie games before and know what they like.
I played the demo. The controls were horrid. It -acts- like FPS controls, except that you can only turn very slowly, you can't move and shoot, and basically just can't deal with everything that's going on without a lot of grief.
I am by no means King of FPSs, but I know a good control scheme when I use it.
On the other hand, they're following the same tradition that has prevented me from playing every other RE game: Horrid controls.
As for the decision becoming clear once the game's out... It's already clear! Hubris, ignorance and laziness. Period.
A major problem with this and all 'anonymous' file sharing things is the traffic! If you go through 3 nodes, that means 4x as much traffic as if you just went straight peer to peer. That means -you- need to use your machine for that much traffic, too, to help the rest of the network.
I don't know about you, but I don't feel like waiting 4x as long for my transfers.
Wait wait wait... So you're saying that in order to keep my files transfers secret, I have to sign up for a network, add only my closest, most-trusted friends, route the secret files through the computers of complete strangers... And trust that the whole system is really secret and nobody along the way has a way to hack it?
Seriously? This is insane.
P2P has never been about trading with close friends. You can do that -much- more secretly with a USB drive. It's about sharing with complete strangers.
"Internet advertising is practically worthless. We learned this from the dotcom bust."
No, "advertising" is practically worthless. Nobody can actually tell you what it's worth no matter the form, except that you do better with it than without it.
What we learned from the dotcom bust was that you can't just make a website and party and survive. You have to actually have something that's marketable to pull in money.
There are 2 kinds of jobs out there: Those that want you linked in, and those that don't.
Those that don't want you linked in are the ones that research a candidate by the myspace profile and decide not to hire based on that.
Those that want you linked in are progressive companies that understand the web, people, and what is going on.
Right now, there are more non-linked companies. So if you want the most options right now, don't link in. If you link in now, you can never un-link due to things like Facebook's TOS and Google.
Hah, you're right. I wasn't even thinking about that. You don't even have to hack the logs, you can just spoof your wireless MAC. -sigh- It's so stupidly easy.
There are ways. You just aren't thinking outside the box. Stop thinking like a programmer and start thinking like a script kiddie or a system engineer and you'll probably think of some.
I left that one out thinking that it would mean the programmers quit and go elsewhere, but I suppose it's possible they just get lazy and do a horrible job instead. So yeah, either way it still boils down to the same 'The game won't be as good' conclusion.
Give money to people for Open Source and you'll have a ton of shitty projects designed solely to get money from the Government.
Most of the rest of the projects will be companies claiming free money for projects they would have paid for in-house, but they could get the government to pay for a portion of it instead. The projects won't be useful to anyone else, and especially won't be useful without the in-house project that goes with it.
And no, GPL'ing all the government-funded software isn't the answer, either. At the very least, the companies will just find a way around that license.
I've often wondered if they had a clue about economics. But they probably do. It's not like the developers are doing the pricing, it's the MBA at the top that's doing that. And if he doesn't get economics... Well, the company has pretty major problems.
So then the answer comes down to: They already know how to set pricing, and they've already done it. They need to cut costs if they want to make the product any cheaper, and cutting costs would make the product less 'cool' in the eyes of the consumer.
Cutting costs in software means 1 or more of the following:
Fewer flashy effects. Shorter game. Less polished gameplay. Less testing. (And therefore more bugs.) Less media hype.
There are probably more ways yet, but they all (except the last) boil down to 1 thing: The game won't be as good. The last one means they'll sell less copies and has probably already been balanced anyhow.
So at the same time gamers are yelling 'too many bugs', 'not long enough', etc, they are also yelling 'too expensive'.
The company has to balance all that out.
And BTW, casual games are a response to this as well. Some companies noticed that games want to buy cheap (sub-$20) games and have fun and they were willing to have less in the game to do it.
They've probably done all they can get away with by blogging and saying that it's not their decision, but is the content owners' instead. If that's not enough for people to get active, then actually giving email addresses isn't going to help much.
Slashdot Mirror
They did that. GC and DS both have media that can't be read in a normal PC.
It didn't stop piracy.
'Not being able to hit the target' is not the same as 'not even being able to try.'
Besides which, if I were moving as slow as the characters in that game, I think I -could- hit the target with both me and them moving. Especially from 3 ft away.
As they noted, it has a USB port. I was planning on plugging my 1TB hard drive into it. :)
It might be heresy, but I'm seriously considering using this instead of my Linux box at home... IF it can run rtorrent and hellanzb and handle the load of streaming to my Windows PC in the living room.
Software and CPU power are the only problems I foresee. (And CPU power is probably enough.)
Yeah, I was wondering what in the hell it was. -sigh- End of a long day.
Besides the Xen thing, maybe they're trying to say you can virtualize multiple servers onto 1 and save money that way.
I think it's BS unless you have almost zero load, but hey! That's marketing for you.
Or maybe you've never played a game with good controls.
Last I checked, it was net/phone-slang for 'cry moar.'[sic] As in QQ noob.[siq]
I suspect that isn't what you mean, though.
Someone else noted that he probably ended up connected to the 'cell tower' on the ship. Last time I was on a cruise, I read the pamphlet before getting my phone out. It just wasn't worth the $4/minute to call home when I was only away for a short time.
Now, with a card instead of a phone, it's a lot harder to see if you're connected to a regular or roaming tower. But still, he should have been a little more careful.
I don't blame the carrier anyhow. I blame the cruise ship for screwing their customers like that. As much as I hate AT&T, this just isn't their fault this time.
Google App Domains were affected by this. We were unable to access our mail via web at our office. We actually wouldn't have noticed, but we were having a little (unrelated) emergency of our own and had to check mail from home for a change.
In other words, everyone really hated the control scheme, but we don't really care what the customers think. We know better than them. It's not like they've played FPSs or Zombie games before and know what they like.
I played the demo. The controls were horrid. It -acts- like FPS controls, except that you can only turn very slowly, you can't move and shoot, and basically just can't deal with everything that's going on without a lot of grief.
I am by no means King of FPSs, but I know a good control scheme when I use it.
On the other hand, they're following the same tradition that has prevented me from playing every other RE game: Horrid controls.
As for the decision becoming clear once the game's out... It's already clear! Hubris, ignorance and laziness. Period.
A major problem with this and all 'anonymous' file sharing things is the traffic! If you go through 3 nodes, that means 4x as much traffic as if you just went straight peer to peer. That means -you- need to use your machine for that much traffic, too, to help the rest of the network.
I don't know about you, but I don't feel like waiting 4x as long for my transfers.
Wait wait wait... So you're saying that in order to keep my files transfers secret, I have to sign up for a network, add only my closest, most-trusted friends, route the secret files through the computers of complete strangers... And trust that the whole system is really secret and nobody along the way has a way to hack it?
Seriously? This is insane.
P2P has never been about trading with close friends. You can do that -much- more secretly with a USB drive. It's about sharing with complete strangers.
"Internet advertising is practically worthless. We learned this from the dotcom bust."
No, "advertising" is practically worthless. Nobody can actually tell you what it's worth no matter the form, except that you do better with it than without it.
What we learned from the dotcom bust was that you can't just make a website and party and survive. You have to actually have something that's marketable to pull in money.
First off, you apparently don't know what 'price-fixing' is, since it's illegal and you are recommending it.
Second, the the '3000% increase' was only for a very short period. You have to deal with the entire sales period to make your pricing decisions.
Does someone need to look up the term 'circa' ?
And 2035... Unless we get a SERIOUS move on, 2035 will be very, very little different than today: No manned spacecraft to the Moon or Mars at all.
There are 2 kinds of jobs out there: Those that want you linked in, and those that don't.
Those that don't want you linked in are the ones that research a candidate by the myspace profile and decide not to hire based on that.
Those that want you linked in are progressive companies that understand the web, people, and what is going on.
Right now, there are more non-linked companies. So if you want the most options right now, don't link in. If you link in now, you can never un-link due to things like Facebook's TOS and Google.
Hah, you're right. I wasn't even thinking about that. You don't even have to hack the logs, you can just spoof your wireless MAC. -sigh- It's so stupidly easy.
There are ways. You just aren't thinking outside the box. Stop thinking like a programmer and start thinking like a script kiddie or a system engineer and you'll probably think of some.
Factor in the exact number of sales and the cost to create the initial copy before trying to play economist. Yes, they DO matter.
Wish I had one of those handy forms, but it boils down to this:
Even if I kept logs, if they can hack my network, they can hack my logs. In fact, it would probably be easier than the initial hack.
I left that one out thinking that it would mean the programmers quit and go elsewhere, but I suppose it's possible they just get lazy and do a horrible job instead. So yeah, either way it still boils down to the same 'The game won't be as good' conclusion.
Give money to people for Open Source and you'll have a ton of shitty projects designed solely to get money from the Government.
Most of the rest of the projects will be companies claiming free money for projects they would have paid for in-house, but they could get the government to pay for a portion of it instead. The projects won't be useful to anyone else, and especially won't be useful without the in-house project that goes with it.
And no, GPL'ing all the government-funded software isn't the answer, either. At the very least, the companies will just find a way around that license.
I've often wondered if they had a clue about economics. But they probably do. It's not like the developers are doing the pricing, it's the MBA at the top that's doing that. And if he doesn't get economics... Well, the company has pretty major problems.
So then the answer comes down to: They already know how to set pricing, and they've already done it. They need to cut costs if they want to make the product any cheaper, and cutting costs would make the product less 'cool' in the eyes of the consumer.
Cutting costs in software means 1 or more of the following:
Fewer flashy effects.
Shorter game.
Less polished gameplay.
Less testing. (And therefore more bugs.)
Less media hype.
There are probably more ways yet, but they all (except the last) boil down to 1 thing: The game won't be as good. The last one means they'll sell less copies and has probably already been balanced anyhow.
So at the same time gamers are yelling 'too many bugs', 'not long enough', etc, they are also yelling 'too expensive'.
The company has to balance all that out.
And BTW, casual games are a response to this as well. Some companies noticed that games want to buy cheap (sub-$20) games and have fun and they were willing to have less in the game to do it.
They've probably done all they can get away with by blogging and saying that it's not their decision, but is the content owners' instead. If that's not enough for people to get active, then actually giving email addresses isn't going to help much.