Never mind the fact XGL and OpenGL are just as viable, if not more so, than the oh so resource-efficient MS implementations.
I sense sarcasm where there shouldn't be any. Do some research on OpenGL, specifically how it manages resources compared to DirectX, and you'll see why so many developers pick the latter. I'll also quote John Carmack:
"Actually, DX9 is really quite a good API level. Even with the D3D side of things, where I know I have a long history of people thinking I'm antagonistic against it. Microsoft has done a very, very good job of sensibly evolving it at each step - they're not worried about breaking backwards compatibility - and it's a pretty clean API. I especially like the work I'm doing on the 360, and it's probably the best graphics API as far as a sensibly designed thing that I've worked with."
Introducing Games for Windows LIVE, the free gaming service built for Windows that makes great Windows games even better. With Games for Windows LIVE, you get an online identity called a gamertag and a friends list that works across multiple games, the XBOX 360, and even the Zune music service. You can easily find and communicate with your friends online with text and voice chat. Earn achievements and Gamerscore that lets you track and compare your accomplishments.
Play multiplayer games with your friends, or play against new opponents online using our exclusive TrueSkill matchmaking system with other Windows® players or with or against XBOX 360 players (in supported games.)
The point raised was "to be an adult you can only enjoy what you pay for"
Actually, his point as I understood it was that if a price is set, then if you're morally mature (adult or child) you'll pay it or do without as the creator wishes. I think that's the way it should be - if someone wants to give it away, let them, but at the same time it's a creator's prerogative to want recompense for hard work, which I think you agree with. You disagree with copyright as the method, and I have proposed changes to the way it works to make it fairer myself, so I'm not unsympathetic to that.
Really, I think you only picked up on that part of the sentence not because you actually disagree with him, but because you wanted an excuse to rail against copyright in general. That's fair enough, but let's not pretend it's actually relevant to the point at hand, which is - if someone makes something and puts a price on it, depriving the maker of that price is not moral by any stretch of the imagination.
It's kind of sad that you don't understand what is wrong with everything you just said, from the insane "$2 to make, $1 billion to sell" comparison to the failure to take on any part of GPs point.
You are perfectly free to make something for $2 and sell it for $1 billion. Don't be surprised when no-one buys it, and it still wouldn't be moral for anybody to copy it.
I've never had a problem with logging in, nor have either of the other 2 people in my house. Why don't you choose a server that doesn't have queues, then you might not have an issue?
Occasionally, my character will animate as though he/she's unarmed even though she's holding a weapon. Also, weapon trails will occasionally continue to be shown for a minute or so after the animation is finished.
That's what I mean, though I do see my summary left a lot to be desired.
I doubt you'd find many people that would argue that eBay is not a monopoly in the online auction area, and the rules change when you're a monopoly for a good reason. You're specifically not allowed to use a monopoly in one area (online auction provider) to kill competition in another (online payment processing).
For your analogy to work, you'd only be cutting two classes from the 9 rather than 6, but I appreciate your point.
I would, however, very much doubt that the cities and classes will be out of the game for very long, and doubt further that they'll have to be paid for considering the way they were removed, but that's just me. I'm not feeling very cynical tonight, which makes a change.
I disagree - I think this is entirely fair. If you want to compete, compete, but don't assume you can wait for someone else to write good code and then absorb their hard work into yours without compensating them for it.
I throw out the phrase "Better than WoW" after a long period of due consideration. It's not just hype - it's really that good.
The only problem I have with it is that there are a few glitches they haven't quite ironed out yet (animations getting stuck, occasionally a HUD window will vanish for no reason), so I would give it a month.
That doesn't excuse banning competing payment systems, however, especially ones that meet the same standard as Paypal.
This is a sideways move towards allowing only Paypal transactions to be made in the US - they're testing the water and seeing how far they can push it.
Yep - unfortunately, they might be right. I have a couple if iPhone-owning friends who are rationalising this behaviour for them without Apple having to try.
Are you content just to accuse random people of being paid to have opinions just because they don't align with yours, or are you going to actually try and argue the point?
My only complaint is that they could have gone the whole hog and programmed a little animation in Flash so that, instead of the Terms and Conditions being displayed, it flashed a big message in bright pink that says "Don't bother developing for the iPhone".
Then again, on reflection, you wouldn't be able to view that on the iPhone anyway.
For people with OS X development experience, the learning curve is minimal to non existent.
Yep, it's exactly like coding for Mac OS X, except you have the extra step of praying to whichever deity you think will help you the most that your app isn't too good.
Slashdot Mirror
Let's pretend that I was confirming it for him.
Never mind the fact XGL and OpenGL are just as viable, if not more so, than the oh so resource-efficient MS implementations.
I sense sarcasm where there shouldn't be any. Do some research on OpenGL, specifically how it manages resources compared to DirectX, and you'll see why so many developers pick the latter. I'll also quote John Carmack:
"Actually, DX9 is really quite a good API level. Even with the D3D side of things, where I know I have a long history of people thinking I'm antagonistic against it. Microsoft has done a very, very good job of sensibly evolving it at each step - they're not worried about breaking backwards compatibility - and it's a pretty clean API. I especially like the work I'm doing on the 360, and it's probably the best graphics API as far as a sensibly designed thing that I've worked with."
GFW Live is free. Website quote time:
Introducing Games for Windows LIVE, the free gaming service built for Windows that makes great Windows games even better. With Games for Windows LIVE, you get an online identity called a gamertag and a friends list that works across multiple games, the XBOX 360, and even the Zune music service. You can easily find and communicate with your friends online with text and voice chat. Earn achievements and Gamerscore that lets you track and compare your accomplishments.
Play multiplayer games with your friends, or play against new opponents online using our exclusive TrueSkill matchmaking system with other Windows® players or with or against XBOX 360 players (in supported games.)
All of this is possible today and at no charge.
I got hit with the 'troll' stick too, and I couldn't give a damn :) I consider all negative moderations to be "-1: Inconvenient Truth".
The article you linked to, and the quote that you've printed, doesn't go anywhere near proving what you were asked to prove.
Ignore me, I re-read and a lot of what I said wasn't relevant.
I'm going to stop posting till I'm off my night shifts ;)
It's called reductio ad absurdum.
You throw that out like it's a good thing.
The point raised was "to be an adult you can only enjoy what you pay for"
Actually, his point as I understood it was that if a price is set, then if you're morally mature (adult or child) you'll pay it or do without as the creator wishes. I think that's the way it should be - if someone wants to give it away, let them, but at the same time it's a creator's prerogative to want recompense for hard work, which I think you agree with. You disagree with copyright as the method, and I have proposed changes to the way it works to make it fairer myself, so I'm not unsympathetic to that.
Really, I think you only picked up on that part of the sentence not because you actually disagree with him, but because you wanted an excuse to rail against copyright in general. That's fair enough, but let's not pretend it's actually relevant to the point at hand, which is - if someone makes something and puts a price on it, depriving the maker of that price is not moral by any stretch of the imagination.
If "nobody has been caught" is the only justification you need to steal something, then go right ahead.
Disclaimer: I know it's not "theft", but I can't be bothered to increase the size of my post tenfold just to make a point.
It's kind of sad that you don't understand what is wrong with everything you just said, from the insane "$2 to make, $1 billion to sell" comparison to the failure to take on any part of GPs point.
You are perfectly free to make something for $2 and sell it for $1 billion. Don't be surprised when no-one buys it, and it still wouldn't be moral for anybody to copy it.
I've never had a problem with logging in, nor have either of the other 2 people in my house. Why don't you choose a server that doesn't have queues, then you might not have an issue?
Occasionally, my character will animate as though he/she's unarmed even though she's holding a weapon. Also, weapon trails will occasionally continue to be shown for a minute or so after the animation is finished.
That's what I mean, though I do see my summary left a lot to be desired.
When did you ever see a ninja at all?
Thank you!
I doubt you'd find many people that would argue that eBay is not a monopoly in the online auction area, and the rules change when you're a monopoly for a good reason. You're specifically not allowed to use a monopoly in one area (online auction provider) to kill competition in another (online payment processing).
For your analogy to work, you'd only be cutting two classes from the 9 rather than 6, but I appreciate your point.
I would, however, very much doubt that the cities and classes will be out of the game for very long, and doubt further that they'll have to be paid for considering the way they were removed, but that's just me. I'm not feeling very cynical tonight, which makes a change.
I disagree - I think this is entirely fair. If you want to compete, compete, but don't assume you can wait for someone else to write good code and then absorb their hard work into yours without compensating them for it.
I throw out the phrase "Better than WoW" after a long period of due consideration. It's not just hype - it's really that good.
The only problem I have with it is that there are a few glitches they haven't quite ironed out yet (animations getting stuck, occasionally a HUD window will vanish for no reason), so I would give it a month.
That doesn't excuse banning competing payment systems, however, especially ones that meet the same standard as Paypal.
This is a sideways move towards allowing only Paypal transactions to be made in the US - they're testing the water and seeing how far they can push it.
Do they think their users are idiots?
Yep - unfortunately, they might be right. I have a couple if iPhone-owning friends who are rationalising this behaviour for them without Apple having to try.
I also happen to think that an insanely long uncut movie of you writing Slashdot trolls would be pretty pathetically sad.
I don't think you can judge someone's life by "Would it make a good movie?". There's precious few existences that would live up to that benchmark.
Are you content just to accuse random people of being paid to have opinions just because they don't align with yours, or are you going to actually try and argue the point?
I don't think you can.
Absolutely, the risks are very clearly stated.
My only complaint is that they could have gone the whole hog and programmed a little animation in Flash so that, instead of the Terms and Conditions being displayed, it flashed a big message in bright pink that says "Don't bother developing for the iPhone".
Then again, on reflection, you wouldn't be able to view that on the iPhone anyway.
For people with OS X development experience, the learning curve is minimal to non existent.
Yep, it's exactly like coding for Mac OS X, except you have the extra step of praying to whichever deity you think will help you the most that your app isn't too good.
There's nothing quite like enforced mediocrity.
90% of the population of what? A crack den?
My bad, I just realised that you covered that in your post and you just don't care.
Fair enough.