I actually like the name LibreOffice more than OpenOffice. Also, a new name gives them a chance to shed the negative baggage that was associated with the OpenOffice name while still being able to point back to it for creditability.
Their dense inscrutable UI can make a terrible first impression a second time!
No need to worry that my system has a proprietary Dell power supply
When's the last time you looked inside a Dell case? They've been using standard components as long as I've been buying from them. (Since about 2002.) I had no issues at all swapping the PSU in the desktop Dell I'm using now with a Fry's discount off-the-shelf unit.
I mean do what you like, but make sure your knowledge is up-to-date, it helps with decision-making processes.
I used to build my own, now I just let Dell do it and cram in an extra HD and video card when it gets to me. SOOO much easier, quicker, cheaper, and I know it'll work the first time I hit the power button.
Pretty sure Spain hasn't been annexed into the US... yet.
I've never figured out why people always have to say, "why didn't you mention (thing that doesn't fit criteria of the list)!" Well, because it doesn't fit the criteria of the list. Duh.
The size of their dickishnes is dwarfed by the magnitude of their stupidity. The guy is already a customer, but instead of trying to retain him, they (effectively) tell him to go fuck himself. It's bad business sense - retention is far cheaper than recruitment. Especially while your ex-customers are warning off potential ones.
At this point, reading this thread and others about FF13, it's not even a surprise. It's like Square Enix, in the last 2 years, has completely and utterly flushed away all customer goodwill, at least outside of Japan.
The speed at which they've accomplished this is pretty remarkable-- even RealPlayer took longer than that before all their customers hated them!
On the 360, it'd probably just crash if the user went to the Dashboard. (Which is the closest thing the 360 has equivalent to alt-tab.) The good news is that Microsoft won't give a logo to a game that fails to correctly handle a switch to the dashboard, so they'd be *forced* to fix it on Xbox 360 before they could publish. Windows has equivalent quality programs (such as Games for Windows, and the logo program) but alas none of them are required.
But this game isn't due to be released for Xbox 360 anyway, so it's kind of moot.
If the program allows windowed mode, and still crashes on alt-tab, it's a bug. (After all, if the goal was to prevent the user from running "cheating tools", then you could still run those with FFXI in windowed mode.)
All you're saying is, "it's a bug they don't care to fix." Either because they're too incompetent to fix it, too lazy to fix it, or genuinely believe crashing on alt-tab is the best action to take. If their software is so insecure that people can steal passwords *simply by running another program at the same time*, then: 1) Preventing alt-tab won't fix that anyway 2) They need to fix their program's shitty security
The "cheating tools" crap is just crap... I'm surprised they found a single person gullible enough to believe it!
It appears we're running straight into Layne's Law of Debate over the definitions of "user" and "developer".
I don't know if Layne's Law implies we're supposed to stop debating, or whatever, but you're the one who basically stated users have to turn *into* developers before they care about iOS lockdowns. I don't see any disagreement over the definition, I think you're trying to have your cake and eat it, too.
In response to your 2): You are a boldfaced liar. There is no BSD style jail to break out of on any android devices. Some may be locked down in many ways, but none use a BSD style jail.
Well, then replace the word "jailbreak" with whatever the correct term is for "forcibly defeating the phone's defense mechanism to flash a new ROM." Maybe the word is "fwibble," I don't fucking know, and I already stated in the original post that I probably have the term wrong.
I'm sorry I'm using the wrong terminology, but that doesn't make me a "boldfaced liar." This response, however, does make you an asshole.
But in order to load an application that Apple hasn't approved on the App Store onto the iPod touch, a user needs to become a developer.
Ok, and then they are no longer a user. I don't see how your sentence there refutes my point at all.
In the latter case, there is competition. I can buy an unbranded phone and plug in a SIM card sold separately (at a discount if I use T-Mobile), or I can buy a phone from a different carrier that doesn't lock it down (again T-Mobile), and it'll still run the same apps from the same Market. But if I want to run apps for the iPhone and iPod touch, on the other hand, all units are equally locked down.
And I can choose between a Nintendo Wii, Sony PS3, and Microsoft Xbox 360 for my video gaming needs, but they're still all locked-down.
Google doesn't charge you $599 for a special computer plus $99 per year for a developer agreement to use "Unknown sources" on most Android phones.
Again, you're talking about developers. Not users. Developers for the most part are not users; users for the most part are not developers.
That's the fault of AT&T, not the fault of Google. AT&T, unlike the other three major United States mobile phone carriers, removes the "Unknown sources" option from its subsidized handsets.
There's no practical difference between "your phone is locked-down because the maker locks it down" (Apple) and "your phone is locked-down because the carrier locks it down" (Android). No difference whatsoever.
The only real difference is that iOS fans don't claim it's free and open, whereas Android fans do-- which means anybody buying an Android phone at the advice of one of those fans is likely to be disappointed. (As I was.)
"Any product-related materials that mention the FSF endorsement must not also carry endorsements or badges related to proprietary software, such as "Works with Windows" or "Made for Mac" badges"
That doesn't make any sense. The Windows Logo program doesn't exclude open source products! It's not like having a "Compatible with Windows 7" logo is somehow mutually-exclusive with being free software.
Well, ok but: 1) Android developers aren't users. 2) Android phones are, by and large, exactly as locked-down as iOS devices. I had to jailbreak (or whatever the term is) my HTC Aria before I could remove ATT's built-in apps, for example.
Just see how many exclusive titles Microsoft had to purchase in order to ensure XBOX's success.
While Microsoft did make quite a few purchases in this area, it was certainly no more than has historically been done for a console. That's just normal business in that industry-- or do you honestly think Sony has never bought exclusives either? (Nintendo is kind of a special case, as their own in-house game development is prolific enough that I think they can mostly slide by without third-party developers. Despite that, before Microsoft bought Rare titles, Nintendo did...)
Only in this case the developers are driving the apps and they're choosing Android because its much more open.
That's why I said, bundling IMAP, CalDAV and LDAP with a proprietary layer does not a unique product make.
Well, first of all, Outlook was around before that combination of protocols existed in the first place, so they have a first-mover advantage and a network effect.
Secondly, the fact that Exchange is selling like hotcakes and nobody's setting up the configuration you're proposing suggests to me that IMAP, CalDAV and LDAP *do not* meet user needs-- otherwise they'd be being used right now. This could be for a variety of reasons: maybe because it's harder to admin? Maybe because it's missing a critical feature? (I know Thunderbird is missing tons) Maybe because nobody's pulled it together as a single product with a single brand name? But the fact of the matter is, something's wrong with it.
The fact that Exchange is so popular proves it's doing something the alternatives are not. This is self-evident. You can either accept that fact, and attempt to fix your solution so that it does everything Exchange does, or continue to live in denial.
and Apple even bundles an open source offering that rivals Exchange in Mac OS X Server.
Perhaps but: 1) Nobody uses Macs for corporate work 2) If they do, they sure as hell don't use Mac OS X Server, it's expensive with crappy support and few admins know it
I'm not sure that's a reasonable question. A more reasonable question is, does it replace the features in Outlook that you actually use?
Well, no. Frankly.
As far as I can tell, and maybe I was just using it wrong, there's practically zero integration between email and calendaring in Thunderbird... you can't send an event invite and ask people to reply with "Accept" or "Decline" like in Outlook. When scheduling, you can't see their calendars to find out when the most people are available. You can't look up the status of meeting resources like conference rooms or projectors. You can't go back and look an hour later to see how many people accepted and how many declined, or easily move the meeting to another conference room if it turns out you get more respondents than you expected, or send a quick ballot asking if people want to meet at a restaurant instead of a conference room, or any of the million of things people do seamlessly in Outlook every hour of every day without even thinking about it.
Putting HD on the console is not revolutionary. It is just the next logical step, it is an evolutionary change.
Ok...
The motion controller for Wii is revolutionary. It brought in casual gamers and geezers who would never have bought a game console otherwise.
Even though tons of motion sensing peripherals existed before?
So, let me get this straight: 1) Microsoft putting a never-before-seen feature into their game console = not revolutionary 2) Nintendo putting a peripheral we've seen 100 times before into their game console = revolutionary
I'll readily admit that the Wii hit critical mass with motion controls, but motion controls were certainly not new at the time, nor did Nintendo invent them. (Guess what: despite selling a shitload of tablets, Apple didn't invent any of the technologies of the iPad either. It happens sometimes.)
I'll also readily accept that putting a HD into a game console isn't a revolutionary step, but an evolutionary one. But, on the other hand, that was also the *weakest* of my examples-- you never bothered to address the ones that were significantly more revolutionary.
But I'm not going to admit that Wii's motion controls are "more" revolutionary than Xbox's integrated HD. I don't think there's any basis in reality for that claim.
Like I said before, in my opinion, you're just being delusional at this point. Hate Microsoft all you want, I don't care... but try to hold on to rationality in the process ok?
Supposed you have a bicycle. You chain it to a lamppost. It is now secured. Supposed you take the same bicycle and decide purposely to not chain it to anything. Just because you decided not to chain it doesn't make it magically secured. It's still unsecured, you just made the decision not to secure it.
Yes, but in the second case, it's not a "shocking revelation" (or whatever hyperbole the article says.)
This guy is trying to say our networks are WRONG, BAD for being unencrypted. He's doing more than just giving numbers, he's making judgments. That's why the distinction is being pointed out here.
Unless he knocked on the door of all of those houses, and asked, "did you intent your wifi to be secured with a password?" he's drawing conclusions based on incomplete data.
Ok; that replaces a third of Outlook, now what about the other 2/3rds?
Sorry for the snark, but I'm sick of open source pundits like you suggesting replacements for Outlook (and other applications) when you don't even understand what Outlook does! Nobody uses Outlook for the email alone. (Well, statistically, I'm sure a few people do.)
Do any of those named products have feature-parity with Outlook? I can guarantee Thunderbird and Apple Mail don't. (Not that Apple Mail is an option in many companies anyway, since it won't run on Windows.) I haven't used the other two.
It did not even come up with an innovative concept like motion controller of Wii.
Oh come on! I understand you hate Microsoft and probably foam at the mouth at just hearing their name, but let's not make up history here.
Putting a HD in a console for the original Xbox was huge. Xbox Live was huge, and notice how every other console maker including Nintendo has ripped it off. Using a console as a media center was huge. The Achievements system was huge, and everybody's copied that too.
Look, you're welcome to hate Microsoft, to hate Xbox. But saying that they've never innovated anything is plain WRONG. It means you're delusional, not debating.
Much like Photoshop, Office's price is dictated by the majority of its customers, large corporations. Obviously Microsoft (and Adobe for that matter) knows that the price increases piracy, but they don't care because: 1) The amount of piracy is trivial compared to the volume of corporate sales 2) The high price corporations are able/willing to pay makes up for the piracy many times over 3) There's no basis for charging a vastly different price to consumers than to corporations-- you'd just end up with corporate IT guys running to Best Buy whenever they needed Office copies. Plus you risk lawsuits.
Let me put it this way: the people who bash RPN are mostly people who have not really used it. If a person actually takes the time to learn RPN and become proficient with it, they never seem to want to go back.
One funny aspect of the human brain is that the longer you work with something, the more you like it. This leads to a lot of interesting outcomes, like Stockholm Syndrome and is probably a major cause of nostalgia.
In any case, truly good technologies don't require much time to learn. Since RPN does, I suggest it is not a very good technology.
I haven't seen that opinion much. What was so much better about it? The appeal of the first game, for me, was the clever setting (love the takeoff on Atlas Shrugged), the artwork (throwback art deco), and the characters (Lilly Poppies!). The gameplay was decent. I avoided the sequel, because like the poster you replied to, even if they ramped up the gameplay the novelty of the original setting wouldn't be there.
The novelty is gone, given, but the art design is incredible. The levels where you have to walk along the bottom of the ocean are spectacular, as is the level where you play as a Little Sister. (Seeing the world through Little Sister eyes is a complete mind-fuck!) The combat is far superior; you can now use a plasmid and a weapon at the same time. The Big Sisters are a much greater challenge than the Big Daddies of the original.
I dunno, it just was better in every way... better graphics, better sound, on-par story, better art direction, more diversity in levels, etc. I never tried the multiplayer mode, but I can't imagine it's any good... I could be wrong.
Slashdot Mirror
I actually like the name LibreOffice more than OpenOffice. Also, a new name gives them a chance to shed the negative baggage that was associated with the OpenOffice name while still being able to point back to it for creditability.
Their dense inscrutable UI can make a terrible first impression a second time!
No need to worry that my system has a proprietary Dell power supply
When's the last time you looked inside a Dell case? They've been using standard components as long as I've been buying from them. (Since about 2002.) I had no issues at all swapping the PSU in the desktop Dell I'm using now with a Fry's discount off-the-shelf unit.
I mean do what you like, but make sure your knowledge is up-to-date, it helps with decision-making processes.
I used to build my own, now I just let Dell do it and cram in an extra HD and video card when it gets to me. SOOO much easier, quicker, cheaper, and I know it'll work the first time I hit the power button.
Pretty sure Spain hasn't been annexed into the US... yet.
I've never figured out why people always have to say, "why didn't you mention (thing that doesn't fit criteria of the list)!" Well, because it doesn't fit the criteria of the list. Duh.
The size of their dickishnes is dwarfed by the magnitude of their stupidity. The guy is already a customer, but instead of trying to retain him, they (effectively) tell him to go fuck himself. It's bad business sense - retention is far cheaper than recruitment. Especially while your ex-customers are warning off potential ones.
At this point, reading this thread and others about FF13, it's not even a surprise. It's like Square Enix, in the last 2 years, has completely and utterly flushed away all customer goodwill, at least outside of Japan.
The speed at which they've accomplished this is pretty remarkable-- even RealPlayer took longer than that before all their customers hated them!
On the 360, it'd probably just crash if the user went to the Dashboard. (Which is the closest thing the 360 has equivalent to alt-tab.) The good news is that Microsoft won't give a logo to a game that fails to correctly handle a switch to the dashboard, so they'd be *forced* to fix it on Xbox 360 before they could publish. Windows has equivalent quality programs (such as Games for Windows, and the logo program) but alas none of them are required.
But this game isn't due to be released for Xbox 360 anyway, so it's kind of moot.
If the program crashes at all, it's a bug.
If the program allows windowed mode, and still crashes on alt-tab, it's a bug. (After all, if the goal was to prevent the user from running "cheating tools", then you could still run those with FFXI in windowed mode.)
All you're saying is, "it's a bug they don't care to fix." Either because they're too incompetent to fix it, too lazy to fix it, or genuinely believe crashing on alt-tab is the best action to take. If their software is so insecure that people can steal passwords *simply by running another program at the same time*, then:
1) Preventing alt-tab won't fix that anyway
2) They need to fix their program's shitty security
The "cheating tools" crap is just crap... I'm surprised they found a single person gullible enough to believe it!
It appears we're running straight into Layne's Law of Debate over the definitions of "user" and "developer".
I don't know if Layne's Law implies we're supposed to stop debating, or whatever, but you're the one who basically stated users have to turn *into* developers before they care about iOS lockdowns. I don't see any disagreement over the definition, I think you're trying to have your cake and eat it, too.
In response to your 2):
You are a boldfaced liar. There is no BSD style jail to break out of on any android devices. Some may be locked down in many ways, but none use a BSD style jail.
Well, then replace the word "jailbreak" with whatever the correct term is for "forcibly defeating the phone's defense mechanism to flash a new ROM." Maybe the word is "fwibble," I don't fucking know, and I already stated in the original post that I probably have the term wrong.
I'm sorry I'm using the wrong terminology, but that doesn't make me a "boldfaced liar." This response, however, does make you an asshole.
But in order to load an application that Apple hasn't approved on the App Store onto the iPod touch, a user needs to become a developer.
Ok, and then they are no longer a user. I don't see how your sentence there refutes my point at all.
In the latter case, there is competition. I can buy an unbranded phone and plug in a SIM card sold separately (at a discount if I use T-Mobile), or I can buy a phone from a different carrier that doesn't lock it down (again T-Mobile), and it'll still run the same apps from the same Market. But if I want to run apps for the iPhone and iPod touch, on the other hand, all units are equally locked down.
And I can choose between a Nintendo Wii, Sony PS3, and Microsoft Xbox 360 for my video gaming needs, but they're still all locked-down.
Google doesn't charge you $599 for a special computer plus $99 per year for a developer agreement to use "Unknown sources" on most Android phones.
Again, you're talking about developers. Not users. Developers for the most part are not users; users for the most part are not developers.
That's the fault of AT&T, not the fault of Google. AT&T, unlike the other three major United States mobile phone carriers, removes the "Unknown sources" option from its subsidized handsets.
There's no practical difference between "your phone is locked-down because the maker locks it down" (Apple) and "your phone is locked-down because the carrier locks it down" (Android). No difference whatsoever.
The only real difference is that iOS fans don't claim it's free and open, whereas Android fans do-- which means anybody buying an Android phone at the advice of one of those fans is likely to be disappointed. (As I was.)
"Any product-related materials that mention the FSF endorsement must not also carry endorsements or badges related to proprietary software, such as "Works with Windows" or "Made for Mac" badges"
That doesn't make any sense. The Windows Logo program doesn't exclude open source products! It's not like having a "Compatible with Windows 7" logo is somehow mutually-exclusive with being free software.
Just goes to show how out-of-touch the FSF is.
If that were true Android never would have taken off: "App developers more bullish on Android than iOS"
http://community.nasdaq.com/News/2010-09/app-developers-more-bullish-on-android-than-ios.aspx?storyid=37842
Well, ok but:
1) Android developers aren't users.
2) Android phones are, by and large, exactly as locked-down as iOS devices. I had to jailbreak (or whatever the term is) my HTC Aria before I could remove ATT's built-in apps, for example.
Just see how many exclusive titles Microsoft had to purchase in order to ensure XBOX's success.
While Microsoft did make quite a few purchases in this area, it was certainly no more than has historically been done for a console. That's just normal business in that industry-- or do you honestly think Sony has never bought exclusives either? (Nintendo is kind of a special case, as their own in-house game development is prolific enough that I think they can mostly slide by without third-party developers. Despite that, before Microsoft bought Rare titles, Nintendo did...)
Only in this case the developers are driving the apps and they're choosing Android because its much more open.
Except it's not more open.
That's why I said, bundling IMAP, CalDAV and LDAP with a proprietary layer does not a unique product make.
Well, first of all, Outlook was around before that combination of protocols existed in the first place, so they have a first-mover advantage and a network effect.
Secondly, the fact that Exchange is selling like hotcakes and nobody's setting up the configuration you're proposing suggests to me that IMAP, CalDAV and LDAP *do not* meet user needs-- otherwise they'd be being used right now. This could be for a variety of reasons: maybe because it's harder to admin? Maybe because it's missing a critical feature? (I know Thunderbird is missing tons) Maybe because nobody's pulled it together as a single product with a single brand name? But the fact of the matter is, something's wrong with it.
The fact that Exchange is so popular proves it's doing something the alternatives are not. This is self-evident. You can either accept that fact, and attempt to fix your solution so that it does everything Exchange does, or continue to live in denial.
and Apple even bundles an open source offering that rivals Exchange in Mac OS X Server.
Perhaps but:
1) Nobody uses Macs for corporate work
2) If they do, they sure as hell don't use Mac OS X Server, it's expensive with crappy support and few admins know it
I'm not sure that's a reasonable question. A more reasonable question is, does it replace the features in Outlook that you actually use?
Well, no. Frankly.
As far as I can tell, and maybe I was just using it wrong, there's practically zero integration between email and calendaring in Thunderbird... you can't send an event invite and ask people to reply with "Accept" or "Decline" like in Outlook. When scheduling, you can't see their calendars to find out when the most people are available. You can't look up the status of meeting resources like conference rooms or projectors. You can't go back and look an hour later to see how many people accepted and how many declined, or easily move the meeting to another conference room if it turns out you get more respondents than you expected, or send a quick ballot asking if people want to meet at a restaurant instead of a conference room, or any of the million of things people do seamlessly in Outlook every hour of every day without even thinking about it.
Putting HD on the console is not revolutionary. It is just the next logical step, it is an evolutionary change.
Ok...
The motion controller for Wii is revolutionary. It brought in casual gamers and geezers who would never have bought a game console otherwise.
Even though tons of motion sensing peripherals existed before?
So, let me get this straight:
1) Microsoft putting a never-before-seen feature into their game console = not revolutionary
2) Nintendo putting a peripheral we've seen 100 times before into their game console = revolutionary
I'll readily admit that the Wii hit critical mass with motion controls, but motion controls were certainly not new at the time, nor did Nintendo invent them. (Guess what: despite selling a shitload of tablets, Apple didn't invent any of the technologies of the iPad either. It happens sometimes.)
I'll also readily accept that putting a HD into a game console isn't a revolutionary step, but an evolutionary one. But, on the other hand, that was also the *weakest* of my examples-- you never bothered to address the ones that were significantly more revolutionary.
But I'm not going to admit that Wii's motion controls are "more" revolutionary than Xbox's integrated HD. I don't think there's any basis in reality for that claim.
Like I said before, in my opinion, you're just being delusional at this point. Hate Microsoft all you want, I don't care... but try to hold on to rationality in the process ok?
Supposed you have a bicycle. You chain it to a lamppost. It is now secured.
Supposed you take the same bicycle and decide purposely to not chain it to anything. Just because you decided not to chain it doesn't make it magically secured. It's still unsecured, you just made the decision not to secure it.
Yes, but in the second case, it's not a "shocking revelation" (or whatever hyperbole the article says.)
This guy is trying to say our networks are WRONG, BAD for being unencrypted. He's doing more than just giving numbers, he's making judgments. That's why the distinction is being pointed out here.
Unless he knocked on the door of all of those houses, and asked, "did you intent your wifi to be secured with a password?" he's drawing conclusions based on incomplete data.
Charlie Chaplin famously thought sound was a gimmick, although he did eventually adopt it. (Kind of-- the movies are still *mostly* silent.)
Ok; that replaces a third of Outlook, now what about the other 2/3rds?
Sorry for the snark, but I'm sick of open source pundits like you suggesting replacements for Outlook (and other applications) when you don't even understand what Outlook does! Nobody uses Outlook for the email alone. (Well, statistically, I'm sure a few people do.)
Do any of those named products have feature-parity with Outlook? I can guarantee Thunderbird and Apple Mail don't. (Not that Apple Mail is an option in many companies anyway, since it won't run on Windows.) I haven't used the other two.
It did not even come up with an innovative concept like motion controller of Wii.
Oh come on! I understand you hate Microsoft and probably foam at the mouth at just hearing their name, but let's not make up history here.
Putting a HD in a console for the original Xbox was huge. Xbox Live was huge, and notice how every other console maker including Nintendo has ripped it off. Using a console as a media center was huge. The Achievements system was huge, and everybody's copied that too.
Look, you're welcome to hate Microsoft, to hate Xbox. But saying that they've never innovated anything is plain WRONG. It means you're delusional, not debating.
Much like Photoshop, Office's price is dictated by the majority of its customers, large corporations. Obviously Microsoft (and Adobe for that matter) knows that the price increases piracy, but they don't care because:
1) The amount of piracy is trivial compared to the volume of corporate sales
2) The high price corporations are able/willing to pay makes up for the piracy many times over
3) There's no basis for charging a vastly different price to consumers than to corporations-- you'd just end up with corporate IT guys running to Best Buy whenever they needed Office copies. Plus you risk lawsuits.
Let me put it this way: the people who bash RPN are mostly people who have not really used it. If a person actually takes the time to learn RPN and become proficient with it, they never seem to want to go back.
One funny aspect of the human brain is that the longer you work with something, the more you like it. This leads to a lot of interesting outcomes, like Stockholm Syndrome and is probably a major cause of nostalgia.
In any case, truly good technologies don't require much time to learn. Since RPN does, I suggest it is not a very good technology.
They already used Puma, which isn't on your list, so I'm guessing they'll just pick some smaller cats. OS X 10.8 Serval!
And Apple is 100% likely to get free press every single day, regardless of what they have or have not done with their products recently.
I'd swear they give kickbacks to the tech press, but I think it's more due to simple journalist laziness.
I haven't seen that opinion much. What was so much better about it? The appeal of the first game, for me, was the clever setting (love the takeoff on Atlas Shrugged), the artwork (throwback art deco), and the characters (Lilly Poppies!). The gameplay was decent. I avoided the sequel, because like the poster you replied to, even if they ramped up the gameplay the novelty of the original setting wouldn't be there.
The novelty is gone, given, but the art design is incredible. The levels where you have to walk along the bottom of the ocean are spectacular, as is the level where you play as a Little Sister. (Seeing the world through Little Sister eyes is a complete mind-fuck!) The combat is far superior; you can now use a plasmid and a weapon at the same time. The Big Sisters are a much greater challenge than the Big Daddies of the original.
I dunno, it just was better in every way... better graphics, better sound, on-par story, better art direction, more diversity in levels, etc. I never tried the multiplayer mode, but I can't imagine it's any good... I could be wrong.