"Who is going to develop drugs once there is no longer any money in it? At present, the United States represents more than 82% of the global spending on biomedical research and development."
[citation needed]
Besides, we here in Britain have a thriving medical research industry, far ahead of the US in some areas because we didn't have idiocy like Bush's stem cell funding block in place. We have this despite caps on the amount that can be charged for drugs here and stricter rules and controls on what new treatments are authorised.
It's not like anyone's suggesting ditch healthcare completely, just socialise it. This means money is still being spent on health care, and when you subtract from the cost disparity in the US and European healthcare systems that massive profits made by insurance companies and hospitals you'll realise that it's not like the US is pouring any more money into medical research now, than if it was running even a fully socialised system- the higher medical costs in the US mostly end up as profits in the pockets of the fat cats of the US healthcare system, not in further medical research funding.
"The United States leads in both patient outcomes, and in medical innovation."
I suppose lying to yourself is certainly one way to prove to yourself that you're right. Such action doesn't hold much weight with the rest of us though. How's that life expectancy doing? Let's compare case for case as you say, something current like swine flu- you do realise the US has double the amount of people dead from swine flu as percentage of population than countries like Britain and France with socialised healthcare right? Remind me again, where did those first swine flu vaccines come from? Whose leading the way in stem cell research? Hint: It's not the US- South Korea, Britain, Australia are well ahead of you I'm afraid.
The US healthcare system is awful, there's really no question about it. The suggestion that medical research would suffer is also a joke, it's a fear mongering excuse. The only thing that'll suffer is a few fat cats profiting off the back of people's ill health.
The reason we don't complain about it in Europe is because we realise when you don't commercialise healthcare then everyone is better off because we don't have to spend as much of our income on overheads like the administrative cost of insurance and handling payments etc.
But then, I'd imagine you're one of those who uses the argument of stealing another mans labour but would expect the help of the police, fire brigade or military if required right? Or if your house set on fire would you object to the fire brigade helping because that'd be stealing other men's labour right?
You don't seem to realise that with your healthcare system you're just outright worse off, and people are getting rich off your back by overcharging you for healthcare. Or to put it another way, because you've told yourself you don't like stealing another man's labour (even though you do because you use public roads and so forth which you couldn't afford to pay for yourself) you've got yourself in a situation where some other man is profiting off your labour disproportionately for the service he is providing for that compared to other nations.
This is why Europeans support socialised healthcare, because it's one of those core services along with the police, fire brigade, military, that should be supported by everyone and, well, we have more money for ourselves too as we're not having to needlessly subsidise the running costs of insurance companies and hospital billing departments.
I agree with most of your points, but study? If a kid doesn't study it's generally because you as a teacher aren't engaging him in the subject well enough. I'm not convinced that's one that can be blamed on the parents because even parents can't force a kid to study a subject he isn't interested in. Sure there are some kids who will never be interested in your subject and in that case fair enough, not a lot can be done to prevent him doing crap, nor does the kid likely even care if he does crap in your subject, but if kids aren't studying any subjects at all it's a teaching problem for sure, the teachers just aren't doing enough to get the kid interested. It's not something the parents can really do, because you can't assume that they themselves know the subject well enough to get their kids interested like the teachers (should) do.
...and so once again the constitution proves what an utter fail it is.
Situations change over time, the idea that the constitution should always be followed indefinitely assumes that the people who wrote it had a perfect understanding of the world and the foresight to make decisions that would never become irrelevant over time. That would be quite an achievement because all these years later with the invention of the car, the plane, the internet, nuclear power and so on we still aren't able to do that.
The right to bear arms for example was not created with the vision of nuclear weapons, but if taken literally then Rupert Murdoch has the right to buy an ex-soviet nuclear weapon if he so wishes, unfortunately international law would disagree, but apparently the US constitution takes precedent even though the idea of individuals being able to bear nuclear arms is quite insane. Free speach is a great principal, but shouting fire in a crowded theatre? shouting bomb in a packed football stadium?
Most countries just use laws to do what the constitution does, the effect is the same, but they're more flexible and adaptable with time. The idea that the constitution is some magical document, written by god like people who could foresee the future and write a document that would be correct through all time is rather laughable and despite Americans hanging on to it, they're still no more free and democratic than many other nations without such a constitution and are becoming ever decreasingly less so through things such as warrantless wiretapping and so forth.
It's possible to do what's right without the constitution, and similarly, it's possible to do what's right or wrong with the constitution. Constitutions make a great starting point for a country, but adhering to them through all time is foolish simply because they do not and arguably can not adapt through time well enough.
I'm not sure about in the US, but in the UK there is a disparity in quality simply because religious schools have more funding. The church subsidises the schools on the condition the schools try and indoctrinate the kids into religion.
The schools accept it because more money means a better working environment for their staff, the church does it because it knows the percentage of people who have religious beliefs is in decline and so by paying for indoctrination they can at least stall that decline somewhat. Many kids still don't fall for it however but do at least enjoy the benefit of a better funded school.
Whilst they can't legally teach creationism in science class or anything stupid and must be impartial in religious education classes they do do things such as telling kids they can't go home until they've said their prayers, and make them sing religious hymns every morning as well as dictate to them about god and make them pray.
I'm not sure if your post was sarcasm and it whooshed over the head of the rest of Slashdot or if you're serious.
The KGB (now FSB) took Russia, the Republicans took the US, Ahmadinejad took Iran, Karzai has taken Afghanistan and so on all without winning the elections through fair process.
Unfortunately election fraud by organised groups happens far too often, even in nations where it really shouldn't because they're supposed to be role models (i.e. the US). I'm hoping then that your post was rather subtle sarcasm!
LOL did you really just post a link to an Andrew Orlowski article as backing evidence whilst simultaneously talking down other sources?
You do realise that Orlowski goes as far as outright lying in his articles yes? It's not like he just twists the truth, he outright lies where it suits his agenda.
There is a good reason he is the only author on The Register who consistently has comments disabled on his articles you know and as someone who has sent corrections to him via e-mail when he's made what I initially put down to mistakes I can assure you he also outright ignores them and will not correct those mistakes. The guy is borderline crazy, if you're read some of his articles he often self-praises himself, there was one not so long ago where he suggested he was the only person out of a set of speakers who got an applause. He's possibly the biggest joke in IT journalism nowadays.
I'm not saying you're wrong, but sorry, it's hard to take your post seriously with that kind of non-source. Do you have any more serious sources than the single other site you listed? I ask because there's very little information about what that site is- it's base and home directories just provide blank pages so it is impossible to judge the authenticity, or validity, or whether the site has any specific bias or anything. But then, as you're lecturing people on well sourced original data then you know all this I guess.
"I'm making this assumption based on another passsage from the same page that I linked and quoted earlier: "Xbox LIVE Indie Games are approved in the following languages: English, French, Spanish, Italian, Japanese, and German.""
Yes, but it's not as if you're going to use your fantasy language for the entire game is it? It's just part of your storyline, your menu system and so forth will still need to be in a language players can understand else rejection is quite correct- a game for which no one can understand is useless and stupid. There's still nothing to say you can't use a fantasy language as partr of the story line, if you really believe otherwise e-mail the XNA/Community games team and see what they say- I know full well the answer will be that it's no problem.
"Developing for any console-style platform other than HTPC and XNA does require quitting your day job. Before XNA existed, how did console developers get started?"
No, it really doesn't. You seem to be thinking you're going to be building AAA games from the start, do you really have a multi-million dollar budget and a team of developers just hanging around?
Before XNA was around they did what they do with XNA anyway- build games for an open platform like the PC and then put a tender forward to the console company for a port and if the game is any good they would allow a port.
It depends, you'll find most warranties don't cover user inflicted damage, if the machine is damaged because of the smoke you'll find Apple no longer has a legal responsibility.
Of course, who the burden of proof is on to demonstrate that smoke caused the damage is a different question and probably comes down to the text of the warranty agreement or consumer law of the country in question.
Personally I'd prefer it the other way round - ban it on sidewalks, allow it in private buildings.
As you say, if a pub allows smokers I can choose not to go there so that's fine, it's their choice if they want to lose business or not. In contrast, why the fuck should I have to deal with someone's bad habitat when I'm walking in a public place like a park or a street? Should I have the right to urinate on them if they walk past me because, well, pissing on smokers is just a bad habit I have after all and I should have the right to carry out my bad habit in public places even if it makes their clothes stink just like smoking right?
It's not really a question of nanny state because we already have laws to protect people from others being disrespectful- you can't for example expect to get away with urinating or spitting on someone so there's really little reason smokers should be able to cover people in their smoke either, it's just as unhealthy, and it smells just as bad.
You see, your view isn't even a libertarian one in this respect, because being a libertarian is about being left to get on with what you want to do but with one caveat- as long as it doesn't effect anyone else, otherwise you can say, well, murderers and rapists are just libertarians and shouldn't be persecuted for their political viewpoint right?
You can say the difference is that I can just walk around them, but wind blows smoke, again, a smoker could always just walk round me urinating, and if the wind blows it into them then well, tough shit right?
You can say the difference is that urinating on, spitting on, murdering, or raping someone are all against the law so it's different, but really, this is the point here- areas where smoking in public places is against the law are simply places that have realised that smoking in public around others is really no different from spitting in public and hititng others. They're really just bringing the law into line to add yet another equally damaging, equally disrespectful anti-social behaviour to the list.
No, the political paradigm that covers the suggestion that people should be able to do what they want without the caveat of not causing harm to others is called anarchy.
"Just research the history of plagues and you'll find all the proof that you need."
What are you on about? Causes of plague include food kept in unclean conditions, poor disposal of human waste, and ironically, in this context, people washing in shared rivers that were also used for drinking.
The guy was right and was mostly talking about smell, and smokers really don't smell any better than people who rarely wash, but then, maybe you're a smoker and like the guy who doesn't wash, just doesn't notice it?
It's probably the difference between smokers who smoke outside because their spouse or whatever forces them to and smokers who sit smoking at their desk and drop ash onto their keyboard.
If it's assisted suicide it's not murder. Murder by definition requires malice to be involved, at best it's manslaughter.
That said, you're not wrong that there is such thing as non-violent murder. Some forms of poisoning are a good example because whilst lethal, it is not violent, violence requires force.
Similarly consensual rape is not actual rape, it's simulated rape. Rape by definition is forced, and if it's consensual it is not forced. Statutory rape is the closest you'll gate here, but statutory rape is defined by itself, so is not really the same as rape- it just uses the term rape to try and make the offence sound more brutal than it really is.
"I'm going based on this page. In case the page is not available where you live, allow me to quote: "If your game includes - in any form - characters, symbols, or words from unsupported languages it WILL be FAILED." Perhaps all the games for Xbox 360 including text in a fantasy language are native games published by a big company."
This doesn't seem to include fantasy languages though- you're assuming fantasy languages will be classed as unsupported. It's probably related to character sets more than anything such that the XBox may not support certain character sets. Many Live Arcade titles are not developed by large companies. Have there been any cases of a game with a fantasy language in being rejected on that basis is the real question? Judging by the release on Live Arcade and community games the answer would seem to be no.
"Does Garage Games have a monopoly in publishing small developers' games that are unsuitable for XNA?"
Nope. It's just a good option and one that I'm familiar with.
"If I get turned down, should I consider protesting by marketing the PC version as "the game Microsoft doesn't want you to play"?"
Not really, if it gets turned down it's likely because it's crap or simply innappropriate (i.e. extremely graphic content). There's some games on Live Arcade of questionable quality created by small developers as is, so the bar isn't exactly high.
"I'm trying to build a business plan here, and if getting started in video game development requires first quitting my day job and moving hundreds of miles away from everyone I know, I want to be sure that I'll at least have some income before jumping in head-first."
It doesn't. Most indie developers develop alongside a day job, and I see no reason why you'd need to move. The biggest problem is finding artists, you'll likely have to contract this out. If your releases do well you may have the option of quitting your day job, but it's never a smart idea to quit your day job for something you can't guarantee you'll be successful with, particularly when it's something you can do alongside your day job to get started with.
"Microsoft doesn't allow any text in an XNA game unless it's in one of the languages for which the Xbox 360 system menu has been localized. So if one makes a fantasy themed game for XNA, and it includes text in an elvish language, FAILED."
Got a source for this? There are plenty of XBox games with fantasy languages in already.
"Without synthesis support, dialogue in a game must be pre-recorded, not marked-up-text-to-speech."
See previous comments about producing a native game rather than XNA based game which is a perfectly feasible option.
"One question: Why do PC games (with few exceptions) require a separate PC and monitor per player, while console multiplayer games are more likely to either A. support split screen or B. have a game design like that of Bomberman that doesn't need a split screen? Is there a market for console-style games with minimal if any DRM for home theater PCs?"
How many home theatre PCs are there out there vs. consoles? How many would be used for gaming rather than PVRs or similar? What about the likes of MythTV that has support for console emulators via MythGame?
"Are you sure? I looked at the back of a Disney movie's box today at Best Buy, and the fine print about "DisneyFile" (SD version encoded for handheld players) stated that the file must be activated before a given date. Likewise, a console game publisher might promise to run multiplayer for only the first 12 months after first publication."
Just checked and yep, it explicitly states 2 player coop with no pre-conditions.
"How certain are you that these companies aren't stupid?"
Pretty certain. You see it's as simple as this, if they have a developer capable of implementing DRM (even if just a pre-packaged toolkit), then he must also be technical enough to know that it can be worked around with ease, it's certainly possible they're ignoring their developers, but every company that implements DRM, for the last 4 years? It seems unlikely.
"I'll bet the piracy numbers of the first MW are the reason for the lack of dedicated servers and increased copy protection."
The reason for no dedicated servers is because this is how it works on XBox live and they just wanted to create an abstraction layer allowing them to maintain the same codebase for all clients. It's so much easier for them if they only have to manage one set of netcode- particularly when the PC is the platform with the lowest sales figures it doesn't make sense to spend a disproportionate amount of development time on it.
"Wouldn't reduced piracy numbers reduce the justification for other companies to add DRM? If Activision sees piracy stay high, won't they just try harder (read: get more draconian) with the DRM next time?"
It would be nice, but as we've seen companies get more and more restrictive with DRM regardless of piracy trends of their titles it seems unlikely, also as per my first point that also assumes that DRM is done for piracy reasons rather than to increase income from legitimate buyers.
"That said, I think that Steam is not the issue here, but how it's being used."
I certainly agree, a DRM free version of Steam would be excellent. Even Steve Jobs realised this with iTunes in the end and of course music is far more prone to piracy due to such small file sizes yet they're racking up more profits than ever. I've never been one to sell games second hand myself, previously but with a growing catalogue of titles in my games room, space to keep them all is becoming an issue but what's the option for the ones I can't sell because of Steam DRM? Just throw them away? That seems extremely wasteful to me- effectively they're making games consumables which is a disgusting concept, even my DVDs can be sold on and we know how restrictive the movie industry can be!
"your argument about games costing more because of Steam just doesn't hold up. Steam has incredible sale prices, comparable to buying used. If you don't want to pay full price, then be patient and you'll get a huge discount eventually on some weekend. MW2 being $60 is entirely an Activision decision, not a Steam decision."
Actually it does, I'm guessing you're from the US by your use of US dollars, those of us outside the US have had first hand evidence of this. You see, Steam used to sell exclusively in US dollars, so when there was $2 US to £1, we got to buy a $30 game for £15- we were getting it for the same price as you in the US so things were fair across the globe. Steam eventually changed that to use local currencies, this means a game on Steam that is $30 now sells for £30, so with a $2 exchange rate (although it's not as $2 at the moment but using that figure to demonstrate) we're paying twice as much as you. This is entirely a Steam decision, they could've kept things in US dollars no problem. I've noticed many new titles are £34.99 on Steam now when they used to be around £24.99 also, so prices are certainly going up and it absolutely is a Steam thing, how do I know? Because something that's £34.99 on Steam can be bought boxed for as little as £22.99 on Amazon. Valve do it because they can, because their market share has grown to a level where they can afford to screw the consumer now without fear of vanishing into the history books, and they're pushing DRM because it has and continues to help them push this agenda.
"Why are you console people so poorly informed? Many developers actually care about the PC, and are very successful in preventing hacks, through such revolutionary ideas as using dedicated servers and not trusting the client."
It's ironic that you should a) call me a console person and b) call me poorly informed. I have far more experience gaming on the PC, and in fact, far more experience developing on the PC. The fact is, apart from these new generations of systems like OnLive that act as thin clients you simply cannot trust the client entirely. You see the issue is this, you always have to send the coordinates of other players to each client even when they are not visible, but are nearly visible, if you do not then the players will pop awkwardly. Most games will send clients out to you that only have one wall between you and them so if they or you turns the corner they are there, rather than being invisible until they pop as the data is received and the player rendered. This means it is always possible to create hacked models, aimbots, wallhacks. Various techniques have been tried through the years to check integrity of the client and it's assets to make sure they have not been manipulated but ultimately it's futile because when the client has full access to modify memory on the system as they want they can always make sure any checks see what they expect to see, and not what the actual values of the likes of CRC checks are. As such the PC platform is inherently vulnerable to cheating which goes back to my point about it not being a suitable system for a cheat free environment.
So perhaps, before calling someone ill informed, you should learn a little about the subject you profess to know so much about yourself first.
"So? blocking authentication servers until release day isn't illegal either, as far as I'm aware."
The jury is out in the UK at least, I put in a complaint to trading standards and they certainly see it as enough of an issue to be investigating currently.
"Console games have risen in price dramatically over the years"
Wrong. Console games were higher with the release of next gen. systems as they always are because the customer base is smaller, but the average price of an XBox 360 game on release now has dropped from around the £37 mark down to the £32 mark. Many are only £29.99 now where previously they were £34.99, the rest are £34.99 where they were £39.99. CoD MW2 could be picked up for only £26.99 on release night from some supermarkets here in the UK. Console game prices have most certainly not increased in price and are certainly only decreasing.
"The GP got bit by his own attempt at 'gaming' the system for his own gain. Do that on your dearest Xbox and Microsoft will ban you likewise, preventing you from playing *anything* online until you buy a new machine."
Wrong again. You're confusing piracy (and potentially cheating) which Microsoft bans for and importing (importing is not gaming the system), the two things are different. Some Xbox games are region free such as CoD MW2, many people in the UK imported this from the US as it was cheaper and there is no problem using an imported title on a UK system whatsoever. Some games are region locked and wont work, but sites like PlayAsia (http://www.play-asia.com/) have a business around imports.
"To me, it's not that consoles are closed against cheaters as much as that they're closed against legitimate developers that happen to be small businesses.[1] What would you suggest that an indie studio working on a PC game do to reach a market of people like you?"
This problem has long been solved by XNA. Alternatively, publishing deals are also an option, plenty of XBox live arcade games are by small developers. You do lose the second hand sales option with Live Arcade much like DRM'd Steam games and such, personally whilst this is annoying this is the lowest on my list of concerns with DRM - loss of ability to activate a game is probably top. There's really no barrier to anyone publishing on the 360 other than the XNA subscription costs which are pocket money for anyone releasing a commercial game - £65 for a year, can't remember but even less for 3 months which is all you need to publish. You mention audio synthesized at run time being a problem, but I'm not sure how many titles this would really effect, but there is still the full Live Arcade route, you can develop your game with something like Torque at www.garagegames.com and aim for publish with them as they have experience of moving games from their engine to the 360 or put a tender direct to Microsoft.
"Games from smaller developers tend to have fewer if any digital restrictions management hassles. They rarely if ever have SecuROM bullcrap, for one. Would you consider buying an PC game with no DRM, or would you reject it just because it's for the PC?"
I'm not anti-PC, I've gamed for years on the PC, since 1990 in fact. I've been playing online since around 95, and was playing PC still exclusively until 2006 when I got my XBox. I still buy the odd PC game, but DRM free has become absolutely essential for me to buy a PC game nowadays.
"You say this as if consoles were different in this respect. Can you resell an Xbox Live Marketplace download when you're done with it?"
No, I agree this is a problem with arcade games. You can resell boxed retail titles though which is the main issue- being able to resell a £30 game is a bigger deal than being able to resell a £3 game. With games that require Steam activation even if they're boxed retail you can't resell them because you're limited to tying one key to your Steam account.
"You say this as if consoles were different in this respect. Several times, I've bought a PS2 game from the store, unwrapped the shrink wrap, put the disc in the console, turned it on, and tried to go online only to see that the matchmaking server had already been shut down permanently: "DNAS Error (-103) This software title is not in service.""
This is certainly a problem with online games, but the point is activation effects offline games as well. If matchmaking servers go down for a game with single player and multiplayer then no activation means you can at very least still play the single player game. I'm not sure what Microsoft's policy is on matchmaking servers, but certainly I'm concerned about EA games like Mercenairies 2 which make you authenticate with EA's servers over XBox live, particularly with the news about Pandemic- will the Mercs 2 authentication servers go down so I can't play coop anymore? If this is the case then personally I'm willing to take this up with trading standards and go to court as the box explicitly states 2 player coop is supported. I will again also put my money where my mouth is and no longer buy EA's games, not that I can think of many EA games I've bought recently anyway- Ubisoft and Activision seem to be releasing more, better titles.
Well, I don't have a shortage of games in the first place, that's really key. I really already have access to more games on the 360 that I want to play than I have time to play.
Importantly though DRM on the 360 is very different to DRM on the PC so it's not a sensible comparison. The 360 is a closed platform and the DRM exists to keep it that way, you can't prevent cheating on an open platform like the PC, but you can on a closed platform. As such I'm happy to play on the 360 and accept it's DRM as part of that closed platform because in turn I get to play on a platform where I don't have to deal with cheating. In contrast, I keep my PC as an open platform where I can do the things I want to do, DRM on the PC inherently means interfering with the operating system or regularly phoning home with arbitrary data about my system under the assumption it wont change, and if it does, causing problems for me reactivating. It is this I object to, the PC is my open platform, I do not appreciate steps to alter that, steps which have side effects that inconvenience me. I am happy to play games like I always used to on the PC, the likes of Quake that never hassled me with activation and which just worked, but any level of DRM on the PC is not acceptable to me.
All this said, you state the idea of one time activation as being perhaps acceptable to prevent transferring it to a friend, but again what about my right to sell it on second hand when I've finished with it? What if I have to reinstall on different hardware, can I reactivate? Am I going to run into problems where I have to prat about contacting the developer and waiting for them to respond just to be able to play the game I paid for? What about if they go bust or dissapear for some reason, am I never going to be able to activate it ever again?
Many games now, presumably including CoD MW2 on the PC force you to register with and attach the game to Steam to play them. They use Steam for activation to check your CD key is legit, and now it seems, to ban you from using the game. They can also for example use Steam to prevent you from playing a game you've purchased outside of Steam before the release date if it arrives early.
Read what he posted, the resellers are able to sell it cheaper because they buy keys from a different region of the world where the game is actually priced cheaper than it is in his native country. This is not illegal, as long as you abide by the tax laws in your country importing is perfectly legitimate.
What Valve don't like is the fact he has bought it cheaper because he worked around their price fixing mechanism that aims to squeeze as much money out of people in different parts of the world as possible.
Note that this would effect you identically if you for example bought a copy cheaper whilst in Asia on holiday and took it home to play in say the UK or US where it's more expensive.
They are basically creating their own additional import laws outside of those already imposed by the country into which he is importing goods. It is similar in a way to DVD region encoding, which was used to try and block people in Europe getting films early because they were released 6 months earlier in the US, and also getting them cheaper because the US prices were lower than European prices for example.
I've been pointing out for a while that Steam is bad, in fact, as was pointed out here by someone else the other day they're arguably worse than EA now that EA is a little looser on DRM than it used to be, effectively making Valve the worst proponents of DRM in the industry.
What annoys me most about Steam is that you haven't done anything illegal yet they block access, and similarly those who receive games early who have done nothing illegal (and neither have the suppliers because there's no actual legal duty not to release early, just industry agreement) but get blocked access from using a product they've paid for until release day. Then there's the blocking of second hand sales, again, yes, nothing illegal, in fact in some countries it is a legal right, and yet again, Valve block it, even making sale of full accounts with games attached in itself against their EULA so that such accounts will be shut down if they change owner.
Yet there's still so much support for Steam, they've built an Apple style fanbase that will rabidly defend them no matter how wrong they do, even if to do so means being hypocritical in going against previous stance in other discussions about how bad DRM is.
It's part of a bigger problem, people will whine, and moan, and bitch, but when it comes to if it means not getting that shiny new toy or having to order that game online and wait a whole day for it to arrive by post, or even, god forbid, get off their arse and go to a shop for it then morals be damned, they'll go right against them and keep feeding the machine that is screwing the consumer and reducing consumer rights drastically. They miss the fact that over time this means things are getting a whole lot more expensive for them if it isn't already due to not being able to buy second hand copies of games, or due to not being able to sale games that they've finished with and never intend to play again on, or most prominently by increased cost of games, which anyone whose paid attention to Steam's prices over the years will notice have gone up for new AAA titles- that doesn't matter as long as they can have their game right this minute. You know what? I actually have more respect for pirates than I do people who whine and buy anyway because at least the pirates aren't feeding companies that don't deserve cash for the way they treat their customers. Sending a message by just pirating the game rather than buying still sends a message, and these companies aren't stupid, they know DRM has no effect on piracy and is just designed to try and slowly increase costs for the honest consumer so it's not like any further restrictions will arise as a result of increase piracy, only as an attempt to squeeze the honest consumer more. I suppose in the context of your distaste of the lack of dedicated servers, this sums up my point precisely:
Personally, I just play XBox 360 games, which unlike on Steam, have decreasing prices, and which despite being on a closed platform are less restrictive in that you can still at least sell second hand and such if you wish to. For what it's worth, I do put my money where my mouth is, I wont buy Left 4 Dead 2 after the way Valve pushes DRM, and the way Left 4 Dead had less content than most free mods with the free content that was meant to make up for this eventually being charged for.
I don't ask people to agree with my points, I know many loved Left 4 Dead for example, what I do ask is that people grow some will power and learn to start putting their money where their mouth is on what matters to them- don't bitch about DRM on an open platform like the PC if you're going to buy from Steam for example. If you don't, then don't come crying when you realise things are costing you more and more, and when as it has with the parent, it comes round to bite you.
Slashdot Mirror
"Who is going to develop drugs once there is no longer any money in it? At present, the United States represents more than 82% of the global spending on biomedical research and development."
[citation needed]
Besides, we here in Britain have a thriving medical research industry, far ahead of the US in some areas because we didn't have idiocy like Bush's stem cell funding block in place. We have this despite caps on the amount that can be charged for drugs here and stricter rules and controls on what new treatments are authorised.
It's not like anyone's suggesting ditch healthcare completely, just socialise it. This means money is still being spent on health care, and when you subtract from the cost disparity in the US and European healthcare systems that massive profits made by insurance companies and hospitals you'll realise that it's not like the US is pouring any more money into medical research now, than if it was running even a fully socialised system- the higher medical costs in the US mostly end up as profits in the pockets of the fat cats of the US healthcare system, not in further medical research funding.
"The United States leads in both patient outcomes, and in medical innovation."
I suppose lying to yourself is certainly one way to prove to yourself that you're right. Such action doesn't hold much weight with the rest of us though. How's that life expectancy doing? Let's compare case for case as you say, something current like swine flu- you do realise the US has double the amount of people dead from swine flu as percentage of population than countries like Britain and France with socialised healthcare right? Remind me again, where did those first swine flu vaccines come from? Whose leading the way in stem cell research? Hint: It's not the US- South Korea, Britain, Australia are well ahead of you I'm afraid.
The US healthcare system is awful, there's really no question about it. The suggestion that medical research would suffer is also a joke, it's a fear mongering excuse. The only thing that'll suffer is a few fat cats profiting off the back of people's ill health.
The reason we don't complain about it in Europe is because we realise when you don't commercialise healthcare then everyone is better off because we don't have to spend as much of our income on overheads like the administrative cost of insurance and handling payments etc.
But then, I'd imagine you're one of those who uses the argument of stealing another mans labour but would expect the help of the police, fire brigade or military if required right? Or if your house set on fire would you object to the fire brigade helping because that'd be stealing other men's labour right?
You don't seem to realise that with your healthcare system you're just outright worse off, and people are getting rich off your back by overcharging you for healthcare. Or to put it another way, because you've told yourself you don't like stealing another man's labour (even though you do because you use public roads and so forth which you couldn't afford to pay for yourself) you've got yourself in a situation where some other man is profiting off your labour disproportionately for the service he is providing for that compared to other nations.
This is why Europeans support socialised healthcare, because it's one of those core services along with the police, fire brigade, military, that should be supported by everyone and, well, we have more money for ourselves too as we're not having to needlessly subsidise the running costs of insurance companies and hospital billing departments.
I agree with most of your points, but study? If a kid doesn't study it's generally because you as a teacher aren't engaging him in the subject well enough. I'm not convinced that's one that can be blamed on the parents because even parents can't force a kid to study a subject he isn't interested in. Sure there are some kids who will never be interested in your subject and in that case fair enough, not a lot can be done to prevent him doing crap, nor does the kid likely even care if he does crap in your subject, but if kids aren't studying any subjects at all it's a teaching problem for sure, the teachers just aren't doing enough to get the kid interested. It's not something the parents can really do, because you can't assume that they themselves know the subject well enough to get their kids interested like the teachers (should) do.
...and so once again the constitution proves what an utter fail it is.
Situations change over time, the idea that the constitution should always be followed indefinitely assumes that the people who wrote it had a perfect understanding of the world and the foresight to make decisions that would never become irrelevant over time. That would be quite an achievement because all these years later with the invention of the car, the plane, the internet, nuclear power and so on we still aren't able to do that.
The right to bear arms for example was not created with the vision of nuclear weapons, but if taken literally then Rupert Murdoch has the right to buy an ex-soviet nuclear weapon if he so wishes, unfortunately international law would disagree, but apparently the US constitution takes precedent even though the idea of individuals being able to bear nuclear arms is quite insane. Free speach is a great principal, but shouting fire in a crowded theatre? shouting bomb in a packed football stadium?
Most countries just use laws to do what the constitution does, the effect is the same, but they're more flexible and adaptable with time. The idea that the constitution is some magical document, written by god like people who could foresee the future and write a document that would be correct through all time is rather laughable and despite Americans hanging on to it, they're still no more free and democratic than many other nations without such a constitution and are becoming ever decreasingly less so through things such as warrantless wiretapping and so forth.
It's possible to do what's right without the constitution, and similarly, it's possible to do what's right or wrong with the constitution. Constitutions make a great starting point for a country, but adhering to them through all time is foolish simply because they do not and arguably can not adapt through time well enough.
I'm not sure about in the US, but in the UK there is a disparity in quality simply because religious schools have more funding. The church subsidises the schools on the condition the schools try and indoctrinate the kids into religion.
The schools accept it because more money means a better working environment for their staff, the church does it because it knows the percentage of people who have religious beliefs is in decline and so by paying for indoctrination they can at least stall that decline somewhat. Many kids still don't fall for it however but do at least enjoy the benefit of a better funded school.
Whilst they can't legally teach creationism in science class or anything stupid and must be impartial in religious education classes they do do things such as telling kids they can't go home until they've said their prayers, and make them sing religious hymns every morning as well as dictate to them about god and make them pray.
No, it should be AAA if you think you need to quit your day job to make it.
I'm not sure if your post was sarcasm and it whooshed over the head of the rest of Slashdot or if you're serious.
The KGB (now FSB) took Russia, the Republicans took the US, Ahmadinejad took Iran, Karzai has taken Afghanistan and so on all without winning the elections through fair process.
Unfortunately election fraud by organised groups happens far too often, even in nations where it really shouldn't because they're supposed to be role models (i.e. the US). I'm hoping then that your post was rather subtle sarcasm!
LOL did you really just post a link to an Andrew Orlowski article as backing evidence whilst simultaneously talking down other sources?
You do realise that Orlowski goes as far as outright lying in his articles yes? It's not like he just twists the truth, he outright lies where it suits his agenda.
There is a good reason he is the only author on The Register who consistently has comments disabled on his articles you know and as someone who has sent corrections to him via e-mail when he's made what I initially put down to mistakes I can assure you he also outright ignores them and will not correct those mistakes. The guy is borderline crazy, if you're read some of his articles he often self-praises himself, there was one not so long ago where he suggested he was the only person out of a set of speakers who got an applause. He's possibly the biggest joke in IT journalism nowadays.
I'm not saying you're wrong, but sorry, it's hard to take your post seriously with that kind of non-source. Do you have any more serious sources than the single other site you listed? I ask because there's very little information about what that site is- it's base and home directories just provide blank pages so it is impossible to judge the authenticity, or validity, or whether the site has any specific bias or anything. But then, as you're lecturing people on well sourced original data then you know all this I guess.
"I'm making this assumption based on another passsage from the same page that I linked and quoted earlier: "Xbox LIVE Indie Games are approved in the following languages: English, French, Spanish, Italian, Japanese, and German.""
Yes, but it's not as if you're going to use your fantasy language for the entire game is it? It's just part of your storyline, your menu system and so forth will still need to be in a language players can understand else rejection is quite correct- a game for which no one can understand is useless and stupid. There's still nothing to say you can't use a fantasy language as partr of the story line, if you really believe otherwise e-mail the XNA/Community games team and see what they say- I know full well the answer will be that it's no problem.
"Developing for any console-style platform other than HTPC and XNA does require quitting your day job. Before XNA existed, how did console developers get started?"
No, it really doesn't. You seem to be thinking you're going to be building AAA games from the start, do you really have a multi-million dollar budget and a team of developers just hanging around?
Before XNA was around they did what they do with XNA anyway- build games for an open platform like the PC and then put a tender forward to the console company for a port and if the game is any good they would allow a port.
It depends, you'll find most warranties don't cover user inflicted damage, if the machine is damaged because of the smoke you'll find Apple no longer has a legal responsibility.
Of course, who the burden of proof is on to demonstrate that smoke caused the damage is a different question and probably comes down to the text of the warranty agreement or consumer law of the country in question.
Personally I'd prefer it the other way round - ban it on sidewalks, allow it in private buildings.
As you say, if a pub allows smokers I can choose not to go there so that's fine, it's their choice if they want to lose business or not. In contrast, why the fuck should I have to deal with someone's bad habitat when I'm walking in a public place like a park or a street? Should I have the right to urinate on them if they walk past me because, well, pissing on smokers is just a bad habit I have after all and I should have the right to carry out my bad habit in public places even if it makes their clothes stink just like smoking right?
It's not really a question of nanny state because we already have laws to protect people from others being disrespectful- you can't for example expect to get away with urinating or spitting on someone so there's really little reason smokers should be able to cover people in their smoke either, it's just as unhealthy, and it smells just as bad.
You see, your view isn't even a libertarian one in this respect, because being a libertarian is about being left to get on with what you want to do but with one caveat- as long as it doesn't effect anyone else, otherwise you can say, well, murderers and rapists are just libertarians and shouldn't be persecuted for their political viewpoint right?
You can say the difference is that I can just walk around them, but wind blows smoke, again, a smoker could always just walk round me urinating, and if the wind blows it into them then well, tough shit right?
You can say the difference is that urinating on, spitting on, murdering, or raping someone are all against the law so it's different, but really, this is the point here- areas where smoking in public places is against the law are simply places that have realised that smoking in public around others is really no different from spitting in public and hititng others. They're really just bringing the law into line to add yet another equally damaging, equally disrespectful anti-social behaviour to the list.
No, the political paradigm that covers the suggestion that people should be able to do what they want without the caveat of not causing harm to others is called anarchy.
"Just research the history of plagues and you'll find all the proof that you need."
What are you on about? Causes of plague include food kept in unclean conditions, poor disposal of human waste, and ironically, in this context, people washing in shared rivers that were also used for drinking.
The guy was right and was mostly talking about smell, and smokers really don't smell any better than people who rarely wash, but then, maybe you're a smoker and like the guy who doesn't wash, just doesn't notice it?
It's probably the difference between smokers who smoke outside because their spouse or whatever forces them to and smokers who sit smoking at their desk and drop ash onto their keyboard.
If it's assisted suicide it's not murder. Murder by definition requires malice to be involved, at best it's manslaughter.
That said, you're not wrong that there is such thing as non-violent murder. Some forms of poisoning are a good example because whilst lethal, it is not violent, violence requires force.
Similarly consensual rape is not actual rape, it's simulated rape. Rape by definition is forced, and if it's consensual it is not forced. Statutory rape is the closest you'll gate here, but statutory rape is defined by itself, so is not really the same as rape- it just uses the term rape to try and make the offence sound more brutal than it really is.
"I'm going based on this page. In case the page is not available where you live, allow me to quote: "If your game includes - in any form - characters, symbols, or words from unsupported languages it WILL be FAILED." Perhaps all the games for Xbox 360 including text in a fantasy language are native games published by a big company."
This doesn't seem to include fantasy languages though- you're assuming fantasy languages will be classed as unsupported. It's probably related to character sets more than anything such that the XBox may not support certain character sets. Many Live Arcade titles are not developed by large companies. Have there been any cases of a game with a fantasy language in being rejected on that basis is the real question? Judging by the release on Live Arcade and community games the answer would seem to be no.
"Does Garage Games have a monopoly in publishing small developers' games that are unsuitable for XNA?"
Nope. It's just a good option and one that I'm familiar with.
"If I get turned down, should I consider protesting by marketing the PC version as "the game Microsoft doesn't want you to play"?"
Not really, if it gets turned down it's likely because it's crap or simply innappropriate (i.e. extremely graphic content). There's some games on Live Arcade of questionable quality created by small developers as is, so the bar isn't exactly high.
"I'm trying to build a business plan here, and if getting started in video game development requires first quitting my day job and moving hundreds of miles away from everyone I know, I want to be sure that I'll at least have some income before jumping in head-first."
It doesn't. Most indie developers develop alongside a day job, and I see no reason why you'd need to move. The biggest problem is finding artists, you'll likely have to contract this out. If your releases do well you may have the option of quitting your day job, but it's never a smart idea to quit your day job for something you can't guarantee you'll be successful with, particularly when it's something you can do alongside your day job to get started with.
"Microsoft doesn't allow any text in an XNA game unless it's in one of the languages for which the Xbox 360 system menu has been localized. So if one makes a fantasy themed game for XNA, and it includes text in an elvish language, FAILED."
Got a source for this? There are plenty of XBox games with fantasy languages in already.
"Without synthesis support, dialogue in a game must be pre-recorded, not marked-up-text-to-speech."
See previous comments about producing a native game rather than XNA based game which is a perfectly feasible option.
"One question: Why do PC games (with few exceptions) require a separate PC and monitor per player, while console multiplayer games are more likely to either A. support split screen or B. have a game design like that of Bomberman that doesn't need a split screen? Is there a market for console-style games with minimal if any DRM for home theater PCs?"
How many home theatre PCs are there out there vs. consoles? How many would be used for gaming rather than PVRs or similar? What about the likes of MythTV that has support for console emulators via MythGame?
"Are you sure? I looked at the back of a Disney movie's box today at Best Buy, and the fine print about "DisneyFile" (SD version encoded for handheld players) stated that the file must be activated before a given date. Likewise, a console game publisher might promise to run multiplayer for only the first 12 months after first publication."
Just checked and yep, it explicitly states 2 player coop with no pre-conditions.
"How certain are you that these companies aren't stupid?"
Pretty certain. You see it's as simple as this, if they have a developer capable of implementing DRM (even if just a pre-packaged toolkit), then he must also be technical enough to know that it can be worked around with ease, it's certainly possible they're ignoring their developers, but every company that implements DRM, for the last 4 years? It seems unlikely.
"I'll bet the piracy numbers of the first MW are the reason for the lack of dedicated servers and increased copy protection."
The reason for no dedicated servers is because this is how it works on XBox live and they just wanted to create an abstraction layer allowing them to maintain the same codebase for all clients. It's so much easier for them if they only have to manage one set of netcode- particularly when the PC is the platform with the lowest sales figures it doesn't make sense to spend a disproportionate amount of development time on it.
"Wouldn't reduced piracy numbers reduce the justification for other companies to add DRM? If Activision sees piracy stay high, won't they just try harder (read: get more draconian) with the DRM next time?"
It would be nice, but as we've seen companies get more and more restrictive with DRM regardless of piracy trends of their titles it seems unlikely, also as per my first point that also assumes that DRM is done for piracy reasons rather than to increase income from legitimate buyers.
"That said, I think that Steam is not the issue here, but how it's being used."
I certainly agree, a DRM free version of Steam would be excellent. Even Steve Jobs realised this with iTunes in the end and of course music is far more prone to piracy due to such small file sizes yet they're racking up more profits than ever. I've never been one to sell games second hand myself, previously but with a growing catalogue of titles in my games room, space to keep them all is becoming an issue but what's the option for the ones I can't sell because of Steam DRM? Just throw them away? That seems extremely wasteful to me- effectively they're making games consumables which is a disgusting concept, even my DVDs can be sold on and we know how restrictive the movie industry can be!
"your argument about games costing more because of Steam just doesn't hold up. Steam has incredible sale prices, comparable to buying used. If you don't want to pay full price, then be patient and you'll get a huge discount eventually on some weekend. MW2 being $60 is entirely an Activision decision, not a Steam decision."
Actually it does, I'm guessing you're from the US by your use of US dollars, those of us outside the US have had first hand evidence of this. You see, Steam used to sell exclusively in US dollars, so when there was $2 US to £1, we got to buy a $30 game for £15- we were getting it for the same price as you in the US so things were fair across the globe. Steam eventually changed that to use local currencies, this means a game on Steam that is $30 now sells for £30, so with a $2 exchange rate (although it's not as $2 at the moment but using that figure to demonstrate) we're paying twice as much as you. This is entirely a Steam decision, they could've kept things in US dollars no problem. I've noticed many new titles are £34.99 on Steam now when they used to be around £24.99 also, so prices are certainly going up and it absolutely is a Steam thing, how do I know? Because something that's £34.99 on Steam can be bought boxed for as little as £22.99 on Amazon. Valve do it because they can, because their market share has grown to a level where they can afford to screw the consumer now without fear of vanishing into the history books, and they're pushing DRM because it has and continues to help them push this agenda.
"Why are you console people so poorly informed? Many developers actually care about the PC, and are very successful in preventing hacks, through such revolutionary ideas as using dedicated servers and not trusting the client."
It's ironic that you should a) call me a console person and b) call me poorly informed. I have far more experience gaming on the PC, and in fact, far more experience developing on the PC. The fact is, apart from these new generations of systems like OnLive that act as thin clients you simply cannot trust the client entirely. You see the issue is this, you always have to send the coordinates of other players to each client even when they are not visible, but are nearly visible, if you do not then the players will pop awkwardly. Most games will send clients out to you that only have one wall between you and them so if they or you turns the corner they are there, rather than being invisible until they pop as the data is received and the player rendered. This means it is always possible to create hacked models, aimbots, wallhacks. Various techniques have been tried through the years to check integrity of the client and it's assets to make sure they have not been manipulated but ultimately it's futile because when the client has full access to modify memory on the system as they want they can always make sure any checks see what they expect to see, and not what the actual values of the likes of CRC checks are. As such the PC platform is inherently vulnerable to cheating which goes back to my point about it not being a suitable system for a cheat free environment.
So perhaps, before calling someone ill informed, you should learn a little about the subject you profess to know so much about yourself first.
"So? blocking authentication servers until release day isn't illegal either, as far as I'm aware."
The jury is out in the UK at least, I put in a complaint to trading standards and they certainly see it as enough of an issue to be investigating currently.
"Console games have risen in price dramatically over the years"
Wrong. Console games were higher with the release of next gen. systems as they always are because the customer base is smaller, but the average price of an XBox 360 game on release now has dropped from around the £37 mark down to the £32 mark. Many are only £29.99 now where previously they were £34.99, the rest are £34.99 where they were £39.99. CoD MW2 could be picked up for only £26.99 on release night from some supermarkets here in the UK. Console game prices have most certainly not increased in price and are certainly only decreasing.
"The GP got bit by his own attempt at 'gaming' the system for his own gain. Do that on your dearest Xbox and Microsoft will ban you likewise, preventing you from playing *anything* online until you buy a new machine."
Wrong again. You're confusing piracy (and potentially cheating) which Microsoft bans for and importing (importing is not gaming the system), the two things are different. Some Xbox games are region free such as CoD MW2, many people in the UK imported this from the US as it was cheaper and there is no problem using an imported title on a UK system whatsoever. Some games are region locked and wont work, but sites like PlayAsia (http://www.play-asia.com/) have a business around imports.
"To me, it's not that consoles are closed against cheaters as much as that they're closed against legitimate developers that happen to be small businesses.[1] What would you suggest that an indie studio working on a PC game do to reach a market of people like you?"
This problem has long been solved by XNA. Alternatively, publishing deals are also an option, plenty of XBox live arcade games are by small developers. You do lose the second hand sales option with Live Arcade much like DRM'd Steam games and such, personally whilst this is annoying this is the lowest on my list of concerns with DRM - loss of ability to activate a game is probably top. There's really no barrier to anyone publishing on the 360 other than the XNA subscription costs which are pocket money for anyone releasing a commercial game - £65 for a year, can't remember but even less for 3 months which is all you need to publish. You mention audio synthesized at run time being a problem, but I'm not sure how many titles this would really effect, but there is still the full Live Arcade route, you can develop your game with something like Torque at www.garagegames.com and aim for publish with them as they have experience of moving games from their engine to the 360 or put a tender direct to Microsoft.
"Games from smaller developers tend to have fewer if any digital restrictions management hassles. They rarely if ever have SecuROM bullcrap, for one. Would you consider buying an PC game with no DRM, or would you reject it just because it's for the PC?"
I'm not anti-PC, I've gamed for years on the PC, since 1990 in fact. I've been playing online since around 95, and was playing PC still exclusively until 2006 when I got my XBox. I still buy the odd PC game, but DRM free has become absolutely essential for me to buy a PC game nowadays.
"You say this as if consoles were different in this respect. Can you resell an Xbox Live Marketplace download when you're done with it?"
No, I agree this is a problem with arcade games. You can resell boxed retail titles though which is the main issue- being able to resell a £30 game is a bigger deal than being able to resell a £3 game. With games that require Steam activation even if they're boxed retail you can't resell them because you're limited to tying one key to your Steam account.
"You say this as if consoles were different in this respect. Several times, I've bought a PS2 game from the store, unwrapped the shrink wrap, put the disc in the console, turned it on, and tried to go online only to see that the matchmaking server had already been shut down permanently: "DNAS Error (-103) This software title is not in service.""
This is certainly a problem with online games, but the point is activation effects offline games as well. If matchmaking servers go down for a game with single player and multiplayer then no activation means you can at very least still play the single player game. I'm not sure what Microsoft's policy is on matchmaking servers, but certainly I'm concerned about EA games like Mercenairies 2 which make you authenticate with EA's servers over XBox live, particularly with the news about Pandemic- will the Mercs 2 authentication servers go down so I can't play coop anymore? If this is the case then personally I'm willing to take this up with trading standards and go to court as the box explicitly states 2 player coop is supported. I will again also put my money where my mouth is and no longer buy EA's games, not that I can think of many EA games I've bought recently anyway- Ubisoft and Activision seem to be releasing more, better titles.
Well, I don't have a shortage of games in the first place, that's really key. I really already have access to more games on the 360 that I want to play than I have time to play.
Importantly though DRM on the 360 is very different to DRM on the PC so it's not a sensible comparison. The 360 is a closed platform and the DRM exists to keep it that way, you can't prevent cheating on an open platform like the PC, but you can on a closed platform. As such I'm happy to play on the 360 and accept it's DRM as part of that closed platform because in turn I get to play on a platform where I don't have to deal with cheating. In contrast, I keep my PC as an open platform where I can do the things I want to do, DRM on the PC inherently means interfering with the operating system or regularly phoning home with arbitrary data about my system under the assumption it wont change, and if it does, causing problems for me reactivating. It is this I object to, the PC is my open platform, I do not appreciate steps to alter that, steps which have side effects that inconvenience me. I am happy to play games like I always used to on the PC, the likes of Quake that never hassled me with activation and which just worked, but any level of DRM on the PC is not acceptable to me.
All this said, you state the idea of one time activation as being perhaps acceptable to prevent transferring it to a friend, but again what about my right to sell it on second hand when I've finished with it? What if I have to reinstall on different hardware, can I reactivate? Am I going to run into problems where I have to prat about contacting the developer and waiting for them to respond just to be able to play the game I paid for? What about if they go bust or dissapear for some reason, am I never going to be able to activate it ever again?
Not play it.
I know, it's a tough concept for some.
Many games now, presumably including CoD MW2 on the PC force you to register with and attach the game to Steam to play them. They use Steam for activation to check your CD key is legit, and now it seems, to ban you from using the game. They can also for example use Steam to prevent you from playing a game you've purchased outside of Steam before the release date if it arrives early.
Read what he posted, the resellers are able to sell it cheaper because they buy keys from a different region of the world where the game is actually priced cheaper than it is in his native country. This is not illegal, as long as you abide by the tax laws in your country importing is perfectly legitimate.
What Valve don't like is the fact he has bought it cheaper because he worked around their price fixing mechanism that aims to squeeze as much money out of people in different parts of the world as possible.
Note that this would effect you identically if you for example bought a copy cheaper whilst in Asia on holiday and took it home to play in say the UK or US where it's more expensive.
They are basically creating their own additional import laws outside of those already imposed by the country into which he is importing goods. It is similar in a way to DVD region encoding, which was used to try and block people in Europe getting films early because they were released 6 months earlier in the US, and also getting them cheaper because the US prices were lower than European prices for example.
I've been pointing out for a while that Steam is bad, in fact, as was pointed out here by someone else the other day they're arguably worse than EA now that EA is a little looser on DRM than it used to be, effectively making Valve the worst proponents of DRM in the industry.
What annoys me most about Steam is that you haven't done anything illegal yet they block access, and similarly those who receive games early who have done nothing illegal (and neither have the suppliers because there's no actual legal duty not to release early, just industry agreement) but get blocked access from using a product they've paid for until release day. Then there's the blocking of second hand sales, again, yes, nothing illegal, in fact in some countries it is a legal right, and yet again, Valve block it, even making sale of full accounts with games attached in itself against their EULA so that such accounts will be shut down if they change owner.
Yet there's still so much support for Steam, they've built an Apple style fanbase that will rabidly defend them no matter how wrong they do, even if to do so means being hypocritical in going against previous stance in other discussions about how bad DRM is.
It's part of a bigger problem, people will whine, and moan, and bitch, but when it comes to if it means not getting that shiny new toy or having to order that game online and wait a whole day for it to arrive by post, or even, god forbid, get off their arse and go to a shop for it then morals be damned, they'll go right against them and keep feeding the machine that is screwing the consumer and reducing consumer rights drastically. They miss the fact that over time this means things are getting a whole lot more expensive for them if it isn't already due to not being able to buy second hand copies of games, or due to not being able to sale games that they've finished with and never intend to play again on, or most prominently by increased cost of games, which anyone whose paid attention to Steam's prices over the years will notice have gone up for new AAA titles- that doesn't matter as long as they can have their game right this minute. You know what? I actually have more respect for pirates than I do people who whine and buy anyway because at least the pirates aren't feeding companies that don't deserve cash for the way they treat their customers. Sending a message by just pirating the game rather than buying still sends a message, and these companies aren't stupid, they know DRM has no effect on piracy and is just designed to try and slowly increase costs for the honest consumer so it's not like any further restrictions will arise as a result of increase piracy, only as an attempt to squeeze the honest consumer more. I suppose in the context of your distaste of the lack of dedicated servers, this sums up my point precisely:
http://kotaku.com/5403286/what-modern-warfare-2-boycotters-are-playing
Personally, I just play XBox 360 games, which unlike on Steam, have decreasing prices, and which despite being on a closed platform are less restrictive in that you can still at least sell second hand and such if you wish to. For what it's worth, I do put my money where my mouth is, I wont buy Left 4 Dead 2 after the way Valve pushes DRM, and the way Left 4 Dead had less content than most free mods with the free content that was meant to make up for this eventually being charged for.
I don't ask people to agree with my points, I know many loved Left 4 Dead for example, what I do ask is that people grow some will power and learn to start putting their money where their mouth is on what matters to them- don't bitch about DRM on an open platform like the PC if you're going to buy from Steam for example. If you don't, then don't come crying when you realise things are costing you more and more, and when as it has with the parent, it comes round to bite you.