Well I for one can't wait for the stories about how kids...erm employees are wasting 8 hours a day in these "jobs" and we get some laws in place to restrict them to something reasonable like a couple of hours a day.
And the plot to the as yet unannounced Hobbit prequel has already been leaked.
Re:Internet on TV? Really?
on
I Want My GTV
·
· Score: 1
I can already do this by plugging in my phone, my netbook/laptop, not to mention my popcorn hour, why do I need yet another set top box to stream internet video?
Re:Internet on TV? Really?
on
I Want My GTV
·
· Score: 1
It'd better be cheaper than a separate TV and PCH then, and even then I can't imagine why someone would want to couple these two into a signle device. Both streams of technology are advancing pretty quickly, far better to decouple the devices so that they can be independently upgraded (not to mention portability, I love the fact that I can grab my PCH when I head off to my parents for a few days and take all my media with me in one bag, couldn't do that if it was integrated into a 42"+ TV screen). Having said that, for Joe Public who just wants a plug and play device there might be some appeal.
Either way it would be a long way from collusion, even a very loose definition. It's not like Hulu have some kind of unassailable position in the market place, anyone can set up a rival service, and companies do exclusivity deals all the time, it's only illegal in a very limited subset of situations.
If all those other companies had a history of trying to lock users into a proprietary media format then that might carry more weight. Just because they agreed to it, doesn't necessarily mean they were the driving force behind it. Of course, it doesn't mean it was Sony driving it either, but I know where my money is (especially considering they're the member who also have huge music and movie strings to their bow).
So... am I missing something or doesn't this mean it's still costing them? Okay they're paying for it with a trade of services instead of money, but that's still bandwidth they could have sold elsewhere if they didn't have to worry about Youtube, so it's still effective cost them the amount that they offset with the ISPs, which could conceivably be close to the amount in the original report.
[...] (contrary to what a lot of people think, the current levy only exists to compensate for private use copying, which is perfectly legal, not piracy).
If that's true then it's seriously messed up. So I buy a CD, based on past experience and knowing they use the cheapest possible dyes and materials, I make a copy so that my original doesn't get scratched... and for that I'm expected to compensate the record labels? For providing an inferior product which is liable to be easily damaged?
Unfortunately governments don't think that way - I pay for BBC programmes to be made with my license fee but if I want the box set of the latest comedy or drama series I still have to pay them again. Moreover this tax hits everyone regardless of how they plan to use the media. They have sucessfully criminalised the entire media buying population by insinuating that they all intend to pirate, and while it might be convenient for those who did intend to pirate, it's hardly a fair or just way to handle the situation.
Just to add to that - if they stop making DRM-infected games (even at the cost of just not making games for the format), then I wouldn't cry over it. If there is a viable PC games market (and the fact that there are still lots of games released for the PC suggests there is, despite people predicting the death of PC gaming for the last decade - sure it might not be as lucrative as the console market but it's there, company's don't make games for fun after all) then publishers making games without DRM will just fill the void, if there's not a viable market then why artificially try to stimulate it with technology that inconveniences customers?
I bought an XBOX to avoid dealing with DRM on the PC (I know the XBOX is DRM'ed to death, but at least stuff generally just works out the box), but now that I have a shiny 250gb hard drive with my favourite games installed to the drive I *still* have to stick the original disk in when I want to play (which makes me sound lazy, but in reality I have two XBOXes in different parts of the house so I have to go disk hunting whenever I want to change games or just go play upstairs so my other half can have the big TV, etc), which is absolutely ridiculous in this age of cloud computing and digital distribution. Meanwhile people pirating games have none of the hassles of DRM, while other people can use no-CD cracks to circumvent the need to have the disk in the drive. Add on the hefty price tag of games and you have to wonder what incentives there are to honesty these days.
I totally agree we should complain more when stuff doesn't work, but good luck proving which bit of software/hardware was at fault in GP's case to the checkout monkey at your local media store. The interactions between all these things are so baffling to the average user (and even the not so average user with specialist knowledge) that they've got very little chance of getting their money back, let alone dealing with stores which have a no returns policy for PC software, etc.
The crux of this is they don't expect the regular user to figure out all of the above, they expect them to get frustrated but just end up buying their content all over again. That was the only reason DRM was ever used with video/audio media, it certainly wasn't to fight piracy, even casual piracy is still idiotically simple. Suddenly the media companies were facing a switch from physical formats which degraded over time to a pure data format which would theoretically last forever. How else are they going to sell your grandkids the same disney movies they sold you as a kid if your copy is still valid?
That's a personal win for you, and I feel the same way (actually I gave up buying most PC games around the time Oblivion was released because I had so much hassle with DRM and patches and hardware incompatibilities and have only bought DoW:II, Witcher and Fallout 3 on PC since, everything else I play on console) but it's not a win against DRM while so few people follow suit. Maybe if enough people withheld the cash and let the publishers know why it could work, but realistically as someone else said, gamers are too impatient for the latest releases to do that in any kind of significant numbers.
the big ISP's fight any anti-p2p thing, but are of course salivating with the idea of destroying net neutrality.
The ISPs might publicly be on board with P2P because none of them wants to frighten away customers by being the first to say they want to kill P2P, but in reality their dream would be a world where the government outlaws this completely. People would still need the net for email, business, shopping, socialising, gaming, etc but these are all generally low bandwidth, high profit services for ISPs - it's a win-win for them, if a law gets passed they can play the good guys unwillingly complying with a draconian government while seeing a likely increase in their profits.
Oh FFS! We are in a global war on terror, and those crazy Spaniards pull something like this? It is Thursday morning here in Europe, by Monday all of Spain's society will have collapsed and we will have another Iraq, right on our doorstep. Tuesday, tops.
Strangely, a "try-before-you-buy" system might be the only niche where DRM could be effective. If I could have an album via a free, or at most nominal (a few pence per download) price for a couple of weeks to decide if I like it, after that the album disappears and I buy the non-DRM version, or not depending on my opinion of the trial.
Of course this terrifies labels because they can't rely on their old fashioned model of having two songs out of 8 worth listening to and hyping the hell out of them in order to sell the album, which is why we're unlikely to ever see it despite it being pretty much a no brainer in terms of the right fit of technology and marketing.
Just because the courts have ruled that it's not illegal under current law, that doesn't prevent the labels lobbying/buying up politicians until there are enough to pass a new, more stringent law.
In the meantime it will be a useful experiment, if music sales in Spain don't suddenly drop off a huge cliff then this could be a strong message of support to people worldwide who have been saying downloading != actual loss for a long time (having said that, I wouldn't be surprised if the labels played it dirty, slashing marketing spend and raising prices to give the opposite result and an excuse for exactly those strict laws).
The problem here is that people who were planning to buy the game likely won't change their mind because one of the VAs changed, while a few people who otherwise might not be buying the game might be enticed in by it being linked to a known name. Another example where the real fans get screwed in the name of a few extra dollars.
Clearly further evidence then that the issue isn't the format, nor is it the money that's thrown at it, but rather the way it's carried out. If one company can manage to do this consistently well without charging a premium then others should be able to do the same.
XIII is a great example of why TFA is wrong - it contains hours of dialogue where your characters are completely on rails, they know exactly what level you will be, what choices you will have made, who is in your party, what interaction you've previously had with the NPC, etc and yet it still sucks. Considering how much effort they put into the visuals it just shows up the voice acting even more, what they need is good actors (not necessarily expensive actors) a solid casting process and most of all a director who knows the format and how to get the best from it.
Alternatively have them record their lines then play through the key scenes so they get a feel for how their character should be emoting and re-record where necessary (and usually it's only one or two places where the emphasis is placed on the wrong word). The reality is that this all comes down to money - the reason voice acting in games sucks is that actors are brought in, they sit in a booth and read ten pages of lines then they go. If they had to be properly directed or involved or rewored their lines it would cost a lot more which means you can't afford to have $CELEB_A_LIST plastered on your marketing. There are enough total on-rails games with sucky dialogue to instantly disprove the "alternative interactions spoiling the acting flow" excuse.
It's not quite the same as this isn't a recognised religion. Whether you or I think other religious symbols are ridiculous is besides the point, the law states that you can't discriminate based on religion. Having said that, nothing here suggests they rescinded their no hoodie rule where Jedi are concerned, just that they apologised for his inconvenience, which is a pretty rare case of courtesy from a public organisation.
Slashdot Mirror
Well I for one can't wait for the stories about how kids...erm employees are wasting 8 hours a day in these "jobs" and we get some laws in place to restrict them to something reasonable like a couple of hours a day.
And the plot to the as yet unannounced Hobbit prequel has already been leaked.
I can already do this by plugging in my phone, my netbook/laptop, not to mention my popcorn hour, why do I need yet another set top box to stream internet video?
It'd better be cheaper than a separate TV and PCH then, and even then I can't imagine why someone would want to couple these two into a signle device. Both streams of technology are advancing pretty quickly, far better to decouple the devices so that they can be independently upgraded (not to mention portability, I love the fact that I can grab my PCH when I head off to my parents for a few days and take all my media with me in one bag, couldn't do that if it was integrated into a 42"+ TV screen). Having said that, for Joe Public who just wants a plug and play device there might be some appeal.
Either way it would be a long way from collusion, even a very loose definition. It's not like Hulu have some kind of unassailable position in the market place, anyone can set up a rival service, and companies do exclusivity deals all the time, it's only illegal in a very limited subset of situations.
If all those other companies had a history of trying to lock users into a proprietary media format then that might carry more weight. Just because they agreed to it, doesn't necessarily mean they were the driving force behind it. Of course, it doesn't mean it was Sony driving it either, but I know where my money is (especially considering they're the member who also have huge music and movie strings to their bow).
Maybe they're hanging around with Sony to make them look even more Not Evil in comparison.
maintaining fiber? What do you think they have to actually maintain?
Don't they have to polish the ends to ensure faster data throughput?
So... am I missing something or doesn't this mean it's still costing them? Okay they're paying for it with a trade of services instead of money, but that's still bandwidth they could have sold elsewhere if they didn't have to worry about Youtube, so it's still effective cost them the amount that they offset with the ISPs, which could conceivably be close to the amount in the original report.
[...] (contrary to what a lot of people think, the current levy only exists to compensate for private use copying, which is perfectly legal, not piracy).
If that's true then it's seriously messed up. So I buy a CD, based on past experience and knowing they use the cheapest possible dyes and materials, I make a copy so that my original doesn't get scratched... and for that I'm expected to compensate the record labels? For providing an inferior product which is liable to be easily damaged?
Unfortunately governments don't think that way - I pay for BBC programmes to be made with my license fee but if I want the box set of the latest comedy or drama series I still have to pay them again. Moreover this tax hits everyone regardless of how they plan to use the media. They have sucessfully criminalised the entire media buying population by insinuating that they all intend to pirate, and while it might be convenient for those who did intend to pirate, it's hardly a fair or just way to handle the situation.
Just to add to that - if they stop making DRM-infected games (even at the cost of just not making games for the format), then I wouldn't cry over it. If there is a viable PC games market (and the fact that there are still lots of games released for the PC suggests there is, despite people predicting the death of PC gaming for the last decade - sure it might not be as lucrative as the console market but it's there, company's don't make games for fun after all) then publishers making games without DRM will just fill the void, if there's not a viable market then why artificially try to stimulate it with technology that inconveniences customers?
I bought an XBOX to avoid dealing with DRM on the PC (I know the XBOX is DRM'ed to death, but at least stuff generally just works out the box), but now that I have a shiny 250gb hard drive with my favourite games installed to the drive I *still* have to stick the original disk in when I want to play (which makes me sound lazy, but in reality I have two XBOXes in different parts of the house so I have to go disk hunting whenever I want to change games or just go play upstairs so my other half can have the big TV, etc), which is absolutely ridiculous in this age of cloud computing and digital distribution. Meanwhile people pirating games have none of the hassles of DRM, while other people can use no-CD cracks to circumvent the need to have the disk in the drive. Add on the hefty price tag of games and you have to wonder what incentives there are to honesty these days.
I totally agree we should complain more when stuff doesn't work, but good luck proving which bit of software/hardware was at fault in GP's case to the checkout monkey at your local media store. The interactions between all these things are so baffling to the average user (and even the not so average user with specialist knowledge) that they've got very little chance of getting their money back, let alone dealing with stores which have a no returns policy for PC software, etc.
The crux of this is they don't expect the regular user to figure out all of the above, they expect them to get frustrated but just end up buying their content all over again. That was the only reason DRM was ever used with video/audio media, it certainly wasn't to fight piracy, even casual piracy is still idiotically simple. Suddenly the media companies were facing a switch from physical formats which degraded over time to a pure data format which would theoretically last forever. How else are they going to sell your grandkids the same disney movies they sold you as a kid if your copy is still valid?
That's a personal win for you, and I feel the same way (actually I gave up buying most PC games around the time Oblivion was released because I had so much hassle with DRM and patches and hardware incompatibilities and have only bought DoW:II, Witcher and Fallout 3 on PC since, everything else I play on console) but it's not a win against DRM while so few people follow suit. Maybe if enough people withheld the cash and let the publishers know why it could work, but realistically as someone else said, gamers are too impatient for the latest releases to do that in any kind of significant numbers.
the big ISP's fight any anti-p2p thing, but are of course salivating with the idea of destroying net neutrality.
The ISPs might publicly be on board with P2P because none of them wants to frighten away customers by being the first to say they want to kill P2P, but in reality their dream would be a world where the government outlaws this completely. People would still need the net for email, business, shopping, socialising, gaming, etc but these are all generally low bandwidth, high profit services for ISPs - it's a win-win for them, if a law gets passed they can play the good guys unwillingly complying with a draconian government while seeing a likely increase in their profits.
Oh FFS! We are in a global war on terror, and those crazy Spaniards pull something like this? It is Thursday morning here in Europe, by Monday all of Spain's society will have collapsed and we will have another Iraq, right on our doorstep. Tuesday, tops.
On the plus side, we should make some excellent headway with reducing global warming.
Strangely, a "try-before-you-buy" system might be the only niche where DRM could be effective. If I could have an album via a free, or at most nominal (a few pence per download) price for a couple of weeks to decide if I like it, after that the album disappears and I buy the non-DRM version, or not depending on my opinion of the trial.
Of course this terrifies labels because they can't rely on their old fashioned model of having two songs out of 8 worth listening to and hyping the hell out of them in order to sell the album, which is why we're unlikely to ever see it despite it being pretty much a no brainer in terms of the right fit of technology and marketing.
Just because the courts have ruled that it's not illegal under current law, that doesn't prevent the labels lobbying/buying up politicians until there are enough to pass a new, more stringent law.
In the meantime it will be a useful experiment, if music sales in Spain don't suddenly drop off a huge cliff then this could be a strong message of support to people worldwide who have been saying downloading != actual loss for a long time (having said that, I wouldn't be surprised if the labels played it dirty, slashing marketing spend and raising prices to give the opposite result and an excuse for exactly those strict laws).
The problem here is that people who were planning to buy the game likely won't change their mind because one of the VAs changed, while a few people who otherwise might not be buying the game might be enticed in by it being linked to a known name. Another example where the real fans get screwed in the name of a few extra dollars.
Clearly further evidence then that the issue isn't the format, nor is it the money that's thrown at it, but rather the way it's carried out. If one company can manage to do this consistently well without charging a premium then others should be able to do the same.
XIII is a great example of why TFA is wrong - it contains hours of dialogue where your characters are completely on rails, they know exactly what level you will be, what choices you will have made, who is in your party, what interaction you've previously had with the NPC, etc and yet it still sucks. Considering how much effort they put into the visuals it just shows up the voice acting even more, what they need is good actors (not necessarily expensive actors) a solid casting process and most of all a director who knows the format and how to get the best from it.
Alternatively have them record their lines then play through the key scenes so they get a feel for how their character should be emoting and re-record where necessary (and usually it's only one or two places where the emphasis is placed on the wrong word). The reality is that this all comes down to money - the reason voice acting in games sucks is that actors are brought in, they sit in a booth and read ten pages of lines then they go. If they had to be properly directed or involved or rewored their lines it would cost a lot more which means you can't afford to have $CELEB_A_LIST plastered on your marketing. There are enough total on-rails games with sucky dialogue to instantly disprove the "alternative interactions spoiling the acting flow" excuse.
It's not quite the same as this isn't a recognised religion. Whether you or I think other religious symbols are ridiculous is besides the point, the law states that you can't discriminate based on religion. Having said that, nothing here suggests they rescinded their no hoodie rule where Jedi are concerned, just that they apologised for his inconvenience, which is a pretty rare case of courtesy from a public organisation.