Yeah I'm sure not nearly enough people here have read FFXII bashing every time the series is brought up. The game has sold a LOT of copies, so to say that FFXIII wouldn't help sales is absurd. Some consider FFXII to be the best of the series.
It sounds like you only played the game for about thirty minutes. The tutorial is a prologue; you're not playing with main characters there. And "jumping to some characters you've never met"???? HAHAHAH it's the beginning of the game! Where did you expect to meet them beforehand?
As for the combat system, it's like KOTOR (which a lot of people enjoyed) but with optional AI routines you can set for your party members to speed along the flow of battle. If you don't want the game to "play for you" then turn those routines off, simple as that.
... from its high price. The DS was $150, the PSP was $250. With the usual accessories (carrying pouch perhaps, etc.), sales tax, and a game, folks who bought a PSP walked out of the store down $320-$350. That is a LOT for a handheld. Considering the price of UMD movies and PSP games, Sony's handheld may have been one of worst systems to purchase ever in terms of value for the dollar.
Now that it's much cheaper, it's a wiser purchase to make. And yes, *now* it is its game library that's hurting it as well as its smaller player network. The DS has more good games and still costs less. Also, because of its success, it has better online play since there are more folks out there playing whatever you want to play via wi-fi.
I think that's a different subject. Two wrongs don't make a right, but I have little to say on that topic beyond that. I'm not sure what kind of "moral" weight I can put on the actions of people who violate copyright compared to the actions of those who own that copyright. I'm also not trying to "justify" anything, as there is nothing "just" about the entire issue.
That's the thing, though, isn't it? That the SERVICE THEY ARE PROVIDING isn't very valuable. It's crippled by DRM, it has even gone so far as to prevent people from creating guitar tabs by ear and sharing them. Such service might be worth *something* monetarily, but far less than consumers are being charged. It is not that they are providing garbage per se, more that the *manner* in which they are providing music/film/etc. is unsuitable for many people.
Your analogy to cars is okay, but isn't it true that the entire business model for an auto manufacturer is different from that of a software one? I mean, there is no such thing as a car manufacturer releasing a free, bare-bones version of a car and then having a "commercial-level" (or whatever) version at a cost. Software RELIES on this model much of the time (Avast, for instance), as it generates word-of-mouth, lets people try software for free which they might want to buy support for, etc. It's a software model that WORKS, and I don't find anything inherently immoral or legally questionable about it. Software just doesn't work the way the auto industry does:-/ so the environment functions differently.
But anyway, you are arguing for a *change* in the way MS (and other software vendors) deal with some of their software. That is, they DO (or try to, heh) have licensing agreements that prohibit modification (or some kinds of modification) to the software that they sell/distribute. "Circumventing copy protection" is usually in there, and distribution of that circumvention has nothing to do with it. It's some DMCA stuff (which I really dislike but I'm just using it as an example).
My "example":-) of "what customers want" wasn't really an attempt at an analogy or anything. I was just saying that what people want and what they can get are two different things. Sometimes the latter is decided by law, sometimes by market price, sometimes by contract, sometimes by EULA.
Mind you, I personally am not a big supporter of EULAs, and I find that they are often indefensible (ESPECIALLY if, say, a minor clicks the "I agree," you know?). But I do believe that they represent a sort of contract that can be used to defend actions *outlined in the EULA.* This may be an aside, by the way... but suppose it says in an EULA "if you do *this and that* to the software, the vendor can restrict your access to it entirely and indefinitely." Well, since you clicked "I agree" to that, you're basically S.O.L. if you do what they want you not to, and then get pwned as a result.
Most often, EULAs are a way of covering the vendor's arse in case someone wants to sue them for random reasons. Using them offensively is tougher and doesn't go well a lot of the time; that is why MS is trying hard to avoid that, hehehe.
Anyway, I still do think that your approach to this topic is burdened by your negative view of MS, but what if some small, non-profit software company was in this same situation? Would you feel the same way?
It should be noted that in this case MS's EULA was very vague and they might have a very difficult time establishing that the section "in violation" was indeed in violation. So while in principle the stance MS is taking would be fine (had Jamie actually been violating the EULA), in this case one can argue that they don't have a leg to stand on. Poor (or incomplete) description might have screwed them over. Oh well, tough cookies for MS. Still doesn't make random flaming of MS defensible, though.
Wow, tone down the hostility there, bro. Your hatred for Microsoft is IRRELEVANT TO THIS ISSUE. Your comment was nothing but tired repetition of the usual anti-MS rhetoric I'm so used to seeing here, and ignored what this topic is actually about. I didn't mischaracterize your post in the least.
MANY software companies will have free and commercial versions of their products, with corresponding restrictions spelled out in licence agreements. If someone writing extensions to software isn't responsible enough to read the licence agreement, that doesn't mean it isn't supposed to be honored. If such licenses aren't honored, the commercial software may lose its value in comparison, which is damaging to the software company. NOTE: Whether or not you like the software company is not the point, nor does it matter from a legal standpoint.
Whether licence agreements used offensively in court hold up or not, that depends on a lot of things and is largely a case-by-case issue. It's also beside the point right now because Microsoft is only asking he remove Express support as per their EULA. How can they be any fairer than this?
Your comment about "setting back computing" is strange to me. You imply that by only allowing addins to commercial versions of their software that MS is inhibiting progress in the field. You can't be serious.
MS is NOT penalizing people for using MS tools. They have set restrictions for how their tools are to be used, and they are enforcing those restrictions. The same functionality that MS promises users downloading Express on their website is the functionality users have available to them. No tricks, no catches.
It's not about "what customers want" all the time. "Customers" might want $100 Lamborghinis and cherries at $0.10 a pound. It doesn't mean they should get that. Just because people want to ignore the EULA of the software they got for free doesn't mean they're entitled to.
MS has been delivering on what they are promising on the page you download Express from. As long as they continue to, I maintain that they will not "drive people away" as you suggest.
And yes, I felt a need to "discredit" your comment because it was getting far more than its due. As far as "proving" something about either one of us, you're just trying to insult me with that and I don't find it particularly honorable of you. Not that you'd care, and you shouldn't. But don't waste time trying to discredit ME by calling me an idiot/liar rather than, you know, sticking to the relevant issues.
Shame on moderators for giving Insightful to a post that basically defines what a Troll is. Is Microsoft hate really that popular? If their License Agreement says that addins aren't allowed for some software version, anyone making something for their software in good faith should indeed honor that agreement. So many folks are acting like MS is out of spite refusing some godly gift that makes their horrible software wonderful. I would hope people here had a more mature view than that.
I have without delay submitted a tech request for a 1986 Mac Plus. I expect to soon be the envy of all the other developers, who will remain stuck with their kickas^H^H^H pointless workstations.
I'm a bit rusty on my C++, but assert() statements in Java are discouraged in anything besides testing, since invoking them is a runtime config and is off by default in some environments. So, production code shouldn't have asserts() if it's Java.
Well, considering you'll need *something* play games like Smash Bros Brawl (i.e. the Wiimote isn't enough I think) and seeing how that is basically the Wii's killer app, I personally think that price is just not that valid of a discussion point w.r.t. Wii vs 360. Considering that 1 more good game on either system means you'll probably spend $50-$60 there, it really ends up making little difference either way.
I got my premium 360 for $300 (MicroCenter's had this deal going on for ages), and with the Wii's controllers (+nunchuck) being more expensive than the 360's, I can't say the Wii "costs much less." In fact it *barely* costs any less.
Everyone here's gonna post some smartass comment about it all so just have a bot go through and give everyone +5 Funny to save time as well as valuable mod points.
You missed the point by a mile. When you can spend FAR less than $600 on a couple of devices that let you both watch *more than one movie* and listen to music for like *ten* hours and and make calls for, like, *two or three days,* then spending hundreds more just to combine them into one device that needs charging twice as often doesn't seem like that great a bargain.
Running a battery down on a phone in and of itself is nothing to discuss. It's *what it takes* to run down the battery, and how much one is paying for such a device.
If you're paying $600 for something that forces you to use "self control" so the battery doesn't run out because you tried to use what you paid for, that's pretty pathetic. If it were a $200 device, that would be different.
At the moment it's 5 hours of video, web, or calls. Or 16 hours of music. Something like that, according to the specs someone posted on wikipedia. For a media player / web browser that's acceptable, but if you use it like most folks use such a device, I think you'll find little battery power left for calls. I know I'd never trust my Cowon A2 to have enough battery power to also be a phone for me, and that thing has a way longer-lasting battery than Apple's stuff.
Rather than more memory (aren't there iPods with that already?) how about they at least confirm that the current iPhone has voice dialing or make darn sure they put it into the next release. I can only imagine the number of idiots trying to press "buttons" on their flat touch screen while driving. (if they've confirmed it then nevermind, and that's good to hear)
A longer-lasting battery is also a MUST if you want to use the sucker as *both* a media player/comp00tar and a phone. Want to watch a movie? Sure, but then you're out of a phone, buddy. Not so sure that's a great tradeoff. In-flight entertainment on long trips and something to call a buddy to pick you up from the airport? Better luck next time ^^
So, things to look forward to in the next release perhaps.
Must've been one of them ADD slashdotters who are like "omg wtf I have 5 mod points must use quickly" and are totally random about where they click on the drop-down menus.
I'm aware of what you're talking about, but that's beside the point. I'm talking about politicians doing something so they can put the blame on the other party; you're saying it was some super clever tactic to force Bush's hand and nothing else. Somehow given what actually ended up happening I'm not convinced it was as one-sided as you describe. But meh, there's no point in discussing it further.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah I'm sure not nearly enough people here have read FFXII bashing every time the series is brought up. The game has sold a LOT of copies, so to say that FFXIII wouldn't help sales is absurd. Some consider FFXII to be the best of the series.
It sounds like you only played the game for about thirty minutes. The tutorial is a prologue; you're not playing with main characters there. And "jumping to some characters you've never met"???? HAHAHAH it's the beginning of the game! Where did you expect to meet them beforehand?
As for the combat system, it's like KOTOR (which a lot of people enjoyed) but with optional AI routines you can set for your party members to speed along the flow of battle. If you don't want the game to "play for you" then turn those routines off, simple as that.
... from its high price. The DS was $150, the PSP was $250. With the usual accessories (carrying pouch perhaps, etc.), sales tax, and a game, folks who bought a PSP walked out of the store down $320-$350. That is a LOT for a handheld. Considering the price of UMD movies and PSP games, Sony's handheld may have been one of worst systems to purchase ever in terms of value for the dollar.
Now that it's much cheaper, it's a wiser purchase to make. And yes, *now* it is its game library that's hurting it as well as its smaller player network. The DS has more good games and still costs less. Also, because of its success, it has better online play since there are more folks out there playing whatever you want to play via wi-fi.
I think that's a different subject. Two wrongs don't make a right, but I have little to say on that topic beyond that. I'm not sure what kind of "moral" weight I can put on the actions of people who violate copyright compared to the actions of those who own that copyright. I'm also not trying to "justify" anything, as there is nothing "just" about the entire issue.
Gimme a G! Gimme a G! Gimme a L! Gimme an E!
I like that word more because it reminds me of Number Munchers which is a sweet game.
That's the thing, though, isn't it? That the SERVICE THEY ARE PROVIDING isn't very valuable. It's crippled by DRM, it has even gone so far as to prevent people from creating guitar tabs by ear and sharing them. Such service might be worth *something* monetarily, but far less than consumers are being charged. It is not that they are providing garbage per se, more that the *manner* in which they are providing music/film/etc. is unsuitable for many people.
Possibly some "animal tracks" around those giant pitch-black caves that they've shown photos of. That would be so awesome.
Your analogy to cars is okay, but isn't it true that the entire business model for an auto manufacturer is different from that of a software one? I mean, there is no such thing as a car manufacturer releasing a free, bare-bones version of a car and then having a "commercial-level" (or whatever) version at a cost. Software RELIES on this model much of the time (Avast, for instance), as it generates word-of-mouth, lets people try software for free which they might want to buy support for, etc. It's a software model that WORKS, and I don't find anything inherently immoral or legally questionable about it. Software just doesn't work the way the auto industry does :-/ so the environment functions differently.
:-) of "what customers want" wasn't really an attempt at an analogy or anything. I was just saying that what people want and what they can get are two different things. Sometimes the latter is decided by law, sometimes by market price, sometimes by contract, sometimes by EULA.
But anyway, you are arguing for a *change* in the way MS (and other software vendors) deal with some of their software. That is, they DO (or try to, heh) have licensing agreements that prohibit modification (or some kinds of modification) to the software that they sell/distribute. "Circumventing copy protection" is usually in there, and distribution of that circumvention has nothing to do with it. It's some DMCA stuff (which I really dislike but I'm just using it as an example).
My "example"
Mind you, I personally am not a big supporter of EULAs, and I find that they are often indefensible (ESPECIALLY if, say, a minor clicks the "I agree," you know?). But I do believe that they represent a sort of contract that can be used to defend actions *outlined in the EULA.* This may be an aside, by the way... but suppose it says in an EULA "if you do *this and that* to the software, the vendor can restrict your access to it entirely and indefinitely." Well, since you clicked "I agree" to that, you're basically S.O.L. if you do what they want you not to, and then get pwned as a result.
Most often, EULAs are a way of covering the vendor's arse in case someone wants to sue them for random reasons. Using them offensively is tougher and doesn't go well a lot of the time; that is why MS is trying hard to avoid that, hehehe.
Anyway, I still do think that your approach to this topic is burdened by your negative view of MS, but what if some small, non-profit software company was in this same situation? Would you feel the same way?
It should be noted that in this case MS's EULA was very vague and they might have a very difficult time establishing that the section "in violation" was indeed in violation. So while in principle the stance MS is taking would be fine (had Jamie actually been violating the EULA), in this case one can argue that they don't have a leg to stand on. Poor (or incomplete) description might have screwed them over. Oh well, tough cookies for MS. Still doesn't make random flaming of MS defensible, though.
Wow, tone down the hostility there, bro. Your hatred for Microsoft is IRRELEVANT TO THIS ISSUE. Your comment was nothing but tired repetition of the usual anti-MS rhetoric I'm so used to seeing here, and ignored what this topic is actually about. I didn't mischaracterize your post in the least.
MANY software companies will have free and commercial versions of their products, with corresponding restrictions spelled out in licence agreements. If someone writing extensions to software isn't responsible enough to read the licence agreement, that doesn't mean it isn't supposed to be honored. If such licenses aren't honored, the commercial software may lose its value in comparison, which is damaging to the software company. NOTE: Whether or not you like the software company is not the point, nor does it matter from a legal standpoint.
Whether licence agreements used offensively in court hold up or not, that depends on a lot of things and is largely a case-by-case issue. It's also beside the point right now because Microsoft is only asking he remove Express support as per their EULA. How can they be any fairer than this?
Your comment about "setting back computing" is strange to me. You imply that by only allowing addins to commercial versions of their software that MS is inhibiting progress in the field. You can't be serious.
MS is NOT penalizing people for using MS tools. They have set restrictions for how their tools are to be used, and they are enforcing those restrictions. The same functionality that MS promises users downloading Express on their website is the functionality users have available to them. No tricks, no catches.
It's not about "what customers want" all the time. "Customers" might want $100 Lamborghinis and cherries at $0.10 a pound. It doesn't mean they should get that. Just because people want to ignore the EULA of the software they got for free doesn't mean they're entitled to.
MS has been delivering on what they are promising on the page you download Express from. As long as they continue to, I maintain that they will not "drive people away" as you suggest.
And yes, I felt a need to "discredit" your comment because it was getting far more than its due. As far as "proving" something about either one of us, you're just trying to insult me with that and I don't find it particularly honorable of you. Not that you'd care, and you shouldn't. But don't waste time trying to discredit ME by calling me an idiot/liar rather than, you know, sticking to the relevant issues.
Shame on moderators for giving Insightful to a post that basically defines what a Troll is. Is Microsoft hate really that popular? If their License Agreement says that addins aren't allowed for some software version, anyone making something for their software in good faith should indeed honor that agreement. So many folks are acting like MS is out of spite refusing some godly gift that makes their horrible software wonderful. I would hope people here had a more mature view than that.
Pokemon. Gotta catch 'em all, but it's easier than doing it with terrorists.
I have without delay submitted a tech request for a 1986 Mac Plus. I expect to soon be the envy of all the other developers, who will remain stuck with their kickas^H^H^H pointless workstations.
I'm a bit rusty on my C++, but assert() statements in Java are discouraged in anything besides testing, since invoking them is a runtime config and is off by default in some environments. So, production code shouldn't have asserts() if it's Java.
Well, considering you'll need *something* play games like Smash Bros Brawl (i.e. the Wiimote isn't enough I think) and seeing how that is basically the Wii's killer app, I personally think that price is just not that valid of a discussion point w.r.t. Wii vs 360. Considering that 1 more good game on either system means you'll probably spend $50-$60 there, it really ends up making little difference either way.
I got my premium 360 for $300 (MicroCenter's had this deal going on for ages), and with the Wii's controllers (+nunchuck) being more expensive than the 360's, I can't say the Wii "costs much less." In fact it *barely* costs any less.
Everyone here's gonna post some smartass comment about it all so just have a bot go through and give everyone +5 Funny to save time as well as valuable mod points.
You missed the point by a mile. When you can spend FAR less than $600 on a couple of devices that let you both watch *more than one movie* and listen to music for like *ten* hours and and make calls for, like, *two or three days,* then spending hundreds more just to combine them into one device that needs charging twice as often doesn't seem like that great a bargain.
Running a battery down on a phone in and of itself is nothing to discuss. It's *what it takes* to run down the battery, and how much one is paying for such a device.
Batman would never in a million years type up something of that sort. Shame on you for impersonating my lord and savior.
If you're paying $600 for something that forces you to use "self control" so the battery doesn't run out because you tried to use what you paid for, that's pretty pathetic. If it were a $200 device, that would be different.
Duuh, it's like "why are you looking at other girls, when you haven't solved the issues with your current one?" I wonder :-P
At the moment it's 5 hours of video, web, or calls. Or 16 hours of music. Something like that, according to the specs someone posted on wikipedia. For a media player / web browser that's acceptable, but if you use it like most folks use such a device, I think you'll find little battery power left for calls. I know I'd never trust my Cowon A2 to have enough battery power to also be a phone for me, and that thing has a way longer-lasting battery than Apple's stuff.
Rather than more memory (aren't there iPods with that already?) how about they at least confirm that the current iPhone has voice dialing or make darn sure they put it into the next release. I can only imagine the number of idiots trying to press "buttons" on their flat touch screen while driving. (if they've confirmed it then nevermind, and that's good to hear)
A longer-lasting battery is also a MUST if you want to use the sucker as *both* a media player/comp00tar and a phone. Want to watch a movie? Sure, but then you're out of a phone, buddy. Not so sure that's a great tradeoff. In-flight entertainment on long trips and something to call a buddy to pick you up from the airport? Better luck next time ^^
So, things to look forward to in the next release perhaps.
Must've been one of them ADD slashdotters who are like "omg wtf I have 5 mod points must use quickly" and are totally random about where they click on the drop-down menus.
General Motors is granting amnesty to all employees who trade in their Acura TL for a Chevy Malibu.
Also, Nokia is granting amnesty to all employees who trade in their Nintendo DS for an N-Gage.
Interestingly, there has been an increase in the number of Acura TLs driven by GM lower management...
I'm aware of what you're talking about, but that's beside the point. I'm talking about politicians doing something so they can put the blame on the other party; you're saying it was some super clever tactic to force Bush's hand and nothing else. Somehow given what actually ended up happening I'm not convinced it was as one-sided as you describe. But meh, there's no point in discussing it further.