mod parent up - eminently sensible comment, and a valid response to the question 'cui bono'?
Once again, the games industry is focussing on the street date. This ridiculous scheme is there to give them an enforcable street date, and to make sure the game cannot be pirated before that street date. Combine this with not shipping the EXE on the disc (Bioshock, I'm looking at you) and you have a lifetime of added complexity for three days of (a highly questionable) increase in sales.
Once again, the games industry shows who it cares about most, and once again the pirates - or at least, those who can wait three days - have the vastly superior product.
Please, show me a good reason to pay for a product which is worse than the one that is free. Only, do so without using a moral argument, since the games industry is immune to them. If they can hardline it, so can we. The answer to the question of Cui Bono ought to be us.
Simply putting up the money doesn't mean you have the right to impact other peoples use of the same infrastructure they're paying for. Downloaders aren't the only ones using the network.
I agree that when you pay for something like an iPhone it's yours to do with as you please. A uni, however, is offering you a service for a fee. They're free to dictate terms on the use of that service. Don't like the terms, goto a different uni.
Another post with no relation to the real world.
Don't like the terms, go to a different uni? I'm sure there's a perfect University out there somewhere, but I've yet to find it. And I've been at, and worked at, a whole bunch of what would be Ivy League institutions, if we had such a thing in Britain. No, you've got to work with what you've got, in the real world.
If you pay for a service, and that service cannot support you and everyone else using it, then that is only your problem if you are using it wrong. Otherwise, whomever you're paying for the service has a duty, legally, to step up and provide you, and everyone else, with that acceptable level of service.
This is no different in a University. However as I originally stated the terms of use at a University are usually quite restrictive. Looking to bolster your music collection? Look elsewhere. Bit-torrenting a series of relevant lectures, but can't, because the connection is too shitty? Your institution needs to help you out.
So, as you can see, we can't just shove some protocol into a black hole. Hell, World of Warcraft uses bit torrent to distribute patches and there are a LOT of students legitimately using that for studies in virtual worlds. It might not be a supported application, and they might not have a right to get their pally up to 80 on our networks for FUN, but trust me, a lot of forwards looking institutions take virtual worlds very seriously and if there's even a HINT of educational benefit, the IT department cannot make a unilateral decision to stand in the way.
So, welcome to the real world. We have jobs to do, and we have to do right by the people we're doing them for.
If you want to bootleg content, then pay for your own connection.
I have to disagree with your final point; in almost any University environment the students ARE paying for their connections one way or another. The terms under which they can use it, however, are usually a bit more restrictive that your standard ISP.
The suddenoutbreakofcommonsense shown on this small scale is coming too late, I fear. Because even now, ISPs are caving to big media. Phorm worms its way through many UK ISPs, apparently undiminished. A consortium of service providers have agreed to keep tabs on the situation for the record insdustry, amongst others, and send out warning letters to infringers. Usenet has been all but dropped from the roster of ISP services.
Unlike the naysayers, I always believed that the internet would remain free. After all, ISPs have always been protected as carriers, just like the postal service - and the postal service is not subject to search and seizure without due process. Nobody can open my private mail (unless it crosses borders) and check for pirated DVDs, without a really good reason to suspect that I'm pirating DVDs.
But I was wrong, and stupid, and for once in my damn life, too optimistic.
Because for every smart call like the one above, there are ten stories of companies we need to be able to trust voluntarily caving to pressure. It's too damn late.
Wow. Unimaginative lackey fails to see utility of research interface technology to bland desk job, big picture. Film at 11.
What do you work for these guys or something? Call me when your shitty company goes bust, and we'll see if I've a job for you.
This invention neither replaces nor improves upon the mouse. Any suggestions to the contrary are unfounded.
As punishment for your fanboy embrace of this tech, you should be made to use it for 12 hours straight. No doubt you'd still be talking about how cool, imaginitive, and edgy you are, even through the tears.
Congratulations on illustrating to the world that you have little to no fine motor control. Not to mention you're talking out your ass. Let's make a guess: You prefer text only browsing, right?
I use Windows, and Firefox. I'm not actually that old. I draw the line at Flash, but only because it's not W3 spec, and it's almost never used well.
If you honestly believe that the Wii's remote was not a disappointment, your opinion is as valueless as sand in the Sahara.
It's fun. Some of the games are fun too. It has the precision of a sawn off shotgun.
That's the old fart talking. We've been using a mouse most of our lives, so sure it's better for us. Take a look at the wii, it took me a while to adjust killing zombies by pointing at the screen instead of using my thumb.
If kids growing up use this interface, not only will it be natural to them, they'll be in much better shape.
The wii's controller is unreservedly terrible. The only thing it's good for is amusement. If kids grow up using that interface, I'll be surprised if they can open 'My Documents' by the age of thirteen.
I'm sorry, but waving your arms around and working an office job are just mutually incompatible unless you're a manager.
I look forwards to something bettering the mouse, just as I look forwards to each new technological advance. I don't buy into stuff because it's cool, which is where the kids go wrong. I buy in when something is better.
Oblong calls g-speak a 'spatial operating environment' and adds that 'the SOE's combination of gestural i/o, recombinant networking, and real-world pixels brings the first major step in computer interface since 1984.
I'm tired of hearing about all these things that will replace the mouse. The mouse will be replaced one day, but not until something comes out which is better, not merely cooler.
This minority report interface will tire your arms out in less than five minutes. I'm embarrased to admit it, but I use a computer for upwards of eight hours a day. Sometimes upwards of twelve.
The mouse is ideal in that your fingers have precision, the feel of pointing is natural, and crucially your hand, wrist, arm, are all more or less at rest throughout the process. Sure, you move them. But you don't hold them anywhere. It's a fundamentally different type of task from minority reporting, or wii-ing, or other stupid-but-cool flailing systems.
So no, I don't know what will replace the mouse. Something, eventually. If I knew what it was, I'd make a bloody fortune. But improving on the mouse will take a damn shot more work than making me say 'Wow', let alone 'meh'.
What right does the government have to tell a company what to do with it's own property?
Are you in denial about the current economic state of affairs? Companies should not necessarily enjoy the same rights and priviledges with their property, or other peoples property, as individuals should.
And one of the reasons is that a big, nasty company can fuck a whole lot of individuals. And frankly, I don't think our governments enjoy that kind of competition.
The Blade system worked fine, having played with the new one for a little while I have to say it appear to blow goats, it's not particularly intuitive and it doesn't make brilliant use of screen real estate.
The blade system always looked like a bunch of building blocks for the under fives. From day one it has been cursingly ugly. So, whilst it 'worked fine' I don't think that was quite enough. Not when the competitors' alternative looks and drives like an Aston Martin.
The new system is much more sleek, and appealed to me instantly. I do share your concern about screen real estate, though. Whilst it doesn't cause me any problems, I'm not sure I would be saying that if I was playing on a standard def screen.
I managed to make someone who looks remarkably like myself, which I've never managed on a wii.
So did I, but my wife started to cry, so I changed it to look like someone else.
There's a t-shirt for your avatars with the Xbox 'green circle of light' on it. I know this is kind of an obvious comment, but I genuinely looked for the red one to go with it, before realised why it would not be there.
So iconic is that red circle, that I consider its presence to be missing in xbox related merch.
1) The new contract excludes one of the original parties in the consortium.
2) The renegotiated contract includes 'significant savings'.
Sounds like the government decided five nines wasn't as important as cutting the bill in half... as well as one of the former parties to the contract.;)
I never understood what these guys were trying to do. It was clear from the off that they would be legally defeated at every single last turn. Blam.
You see, whether or not you agree or disagree with the legal standing of this EULA, or that EULA... whether or not you have a position on all this stuff, whether or not you agree that the law needs to be codified more properly for modern times, changed to fit the needs of the public... whatever you think there are just simply weaker cases which need to be tested first.
These guys marched straight into the castle stronghold without a hope in hell, and pissed on the kings chips.
We all stood back watching, saying to ourselves... well, this won't go anywhere. This was stupid. These guys are going to get slaughtered.
And lo! It was stupid, it didn't go anywhere, and they just got it handed to them.
. The issue philosophically is complicated but the legal treatment is somewhat clear. And neither of these fall into the simple boxes of product or license, so accusing a company of wanting it both ways is not only unfair, it misses the point entirely.
I agree with everything that you said, except this last part. From what I can see, a lot of software companies, particularly games publishers, do want it both ways.
Large enterprise software has been sold for years under license. There are philosophical debates to have here, also. But the way in which they operate is fairly clear.
They arguably charge too much for the media, usually about 20 dollars a pop. But they also don't care if you buy 1 or 100 copies of the media for your 100 seats. Because the media is simply something containing the data, and the money you pay for the media is simply for the production of that media, not the software on it.
When you pay them for a license, you pay for a license to use that software. This will be explicit, agreed upon, in many cases negotiable. It will include guarantees of uptime, and generally a certain level of support. It is accepted that you are paying them for their time, for their development, for their continued involvement in your enterprise. They might not always deliver, but that's usally the understanding.
A game comes on a disc. You buy the disc, you buy the game. Sure, you can resell it. Sure, you can lend it to a friend. Sure, you can pretend there are license restrictions, but you never got a chance to read them, you never got a chance to negotiate, you can't return the software if you don't like the terms - not unless you're really willing to push it. And if you can't play it, tough luck. Company X has no responsibility to you - you bought a product, and you can do what you like with it. It's out the door, now.
But things have changed. Now Company X wants to tell you that you can't resell it. You bought, and agreed to, a license. One sale, one user - period. They also have the right to permanently revoke your access to the software - something that would never, could never, apply to any product which had been outright sold. That can only apply to a licensed service.
But where are the responsibilities that come with providing such a service? When their activation servers go down, whether for a weekend, or for life, what comeback do you have?
Nothing. Sorry, you bought a product, and we can't help you with it any more.
I see this more and more, and I see it coming to a head in the next few years. If entertainment is big business, where are the consumer rights? If you can face hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines for not paying for your license, where are the fines for denying you access to a service you paid for - which companies like Valve and Take 2 are perfectly capable of doing - and it DOES HAPPEN.
It's a product with certain additional legal protections.
Why do people on Slashdot insist on pidgeonholing the issue into "must be A or B"? The world is more complicated than that and I think that's something we should be intelligent enough to understand.
I take offense to that. Products and licenses are two different things. You cannot sell something which is both, without selling two things. It is not right, fair, or reasonable for companies which sell games to take the best qualities of both for themselves, and leave their customers in the lurch. Furthermore, it is perfectly reasonable to ask whether what you are purchasing is one, or the other.
You yourself go on to define games software as one of these things, rather than the other, assuming a selection of special 'legal protections', but don't go on to question what these are, or whether they are properties that can rightly be applied to something which is only a product. In fact, you paint a picture which is much more black and white than I do, you don't go on to question the status quo - even though I've opened that court - and then you accuse OTHER slashdotters of polarisation.
I would say this whole anti-secondary sale issue is another example of the blind greed that is currently taring down the banks.
The gaming industry is starting to eat itself.
It's something else to watch these gigantic corporate entities try to turn sharing, borrowing, and reselling into the next big evil. You'd think they'd stand no chance of getting the popular vote on this, but everywhere now you start to see ordinary regular people asking the question: What can be done about the second hand market?
The more pertinent question is: What the fuck? followed by You are kidding, right?
No other industry enjoys this priviledge. Not even the RIAA is seriously trying to argue that you can't sell a used CD, and they've argued that ripping to MP3s is stealing, and that you need to buy a new copy every time you listen on a new device.
The part I find the most ignorant and self-serving is the part where people talk about the damage it is doing to the industry. The industry is not an end in itself. It adapts to market pressures, or it doesn't. As an ordinary, rational consumer there's nothing that I need or want to do for the industry. They produce games at affordable prices, and just suck up the fact that I am not going to buy all of them as first sales, or they don't.
Something everybody seems to forget in the talk about the evil of second hand sales, is that every one of them, no matter how dilute from reselling, must have been a first sale at some point.
And for crying out loud - what happened to just being thrilled that someone wanted to play your shitty game at all?
I don't get it. A laptop that costs $99 each is selling for £275 for two (or £135.50 each) at Amazon, so you would think the extra cost was for shipping, nope, that will be another £50.
£325 in total then.
The BBCs reporting on this has not been impressive, failing to mention the shipping cost at all and glossing over the expense of this 100 dollar laptop.
In both cases the gorilla in the room is Bill Ockham's shaving instrument - in order to explain what is, something much bigger and more complicated has to be postulated which is not observable.
Occam's razor is not called Occam's law, other than by those that don't understand the concept. There is no law here, just a sensible rule of thumb.
It is sensible not to postulate a complex explanation, when a simple one will do.
In the case of a universal theory, or an understanding of the beginnings of the Universe, or in the existence of God, it is likely that any definitive answer will be quite complex.
Furthermore, no simple explanation has so far sufficed.
I'm just thrilled to note that, at time of writing, and thanks to Slashdot's fervent disregard for logic, consistency, or relevancy; my brazenly flippant remark has somehow been modded DOWN to informative.
Trust me, if I was karma whoring, I'd be doing it for the lulz in this particular instance. And whilst it's true that the best comedy is fact presented without the veneer of contextualised bullshit, I really hadn't planned that far ahead in this case.
Slashdot Mirror
Once again, the games industry is focussing on the street date. This ridiculous scheme is there to give them an enforcable street date, and to make sure the game cannot be pirated before that street date. Combine this with not shipping the EXE on the disc (Bioshock, I'm looking at you) and you have a lifetime of added complexity for three days of (a highly questionable) increase in sales.
Once again, the games industry shows who it cares about most, and once again the pirates - or at least, those who can wait three days - have the vastly superior product.
Please, show me a good reason to pay for a product which is worse than the one that is free. Only, do so without using a moral argument, since the games industry is immune to them. If they can hardline it, so can we. The answer to the question of Cui Bono ought to be us.
...so is suicide.
Simply putting up the money doesn't mean you have the right to impact other peoples use of the same infrastructure they're paying for. Downloaders aren't the only ones using the network. I agree that when you pay for something like an iPhone it's yours to do with as you please. A uni, however, is offering you a service for a fee. They're free to dictate terms on the use of that service. Don't like the terms, goto a different uni.
Another post with no relation to the real world.
Don't like the terms, go to a different uni? I'm sure there's a perfect University out there somewhere, but I've yet to find it. And I've been at, and worked at, a whole bunch of what would be Ivy League institutions, if we had such a thing in Britain. No, you've got to work with what you've got, in the real world.
If you pay for a service, and that service cannot support you and everyone else using it, then that is only your problem if you are using it wrong. Otherwise, whomever you're paying for the service has a duty, legally, to step up and provide you, and everyone else, with that acceptable level of service.
This is no different in a University. However as I originally stated the terms of use at a University are usually quite restrictive. Looking to bolster your music collection? Look elsewhere. Bit-torrenting a series of relevant lectures, but can't, because the connection is too shitty? Your institution needs to help you out.
So, as you can see, we can't just shove some protocol into a black hole. Hell, World of Warcraft uses bit torrent to distribute patches and there are a LOT of students legitimately using that for studies in virtual worlds. It might not be a supported application, and they might not have a right to get their pally up to 80 on our networks for FUN, but trust me, a lot of forwards looking institutions take virtual worlds very seriously and if there's even a HINT of educational benefit, the IT department cannot make a unilateral decision to stand in the way.
So, welcome to the real world. We have jobs to do, and we have to do right by the people we're doing them for.
If you want to bootleg content, then pay for your own connection.
I have to disagree with your final point; in almost any University environment the students ARE paying for their connections one way or another. The terms under which they can use it, however, are usually a bit more restrictive that your standard ISP.
The suddenoutbreakofcommonsense shown on this small scale is coming too late, I fear. Because even now, ISPs are caving to big media. Phorm worms its way through many UK ISPs, apparently undiminished. A consortium of service providers have agreed to keep tabs on the situation for the record insdustry, amongst others, and send out warning letters to infringers. Usenet has been all but dropped from the roster of ISP services.
Unlike the naysayers, I always believed that the internet would remain free. After all, ISPs have always been protected as carriers, just like the postal service - and the postal service is not subject to search and seizure without due process. Nobody can open my private mail (unless it crosses borders) and check for pirated DVDs, without a really good reason to suspect that I'm pirating DVDs.
But I was wrong, and stupid, and for once in my damn life, too optimistic.
Because for every smart call like the one above, there are ten stories of companies we need to be able to trust voluntarily caving to pressure. It's too damn late.
Wow. Unimaginative lackey fails to see utility of research interface technology to bland desk job, big picture. Film at 11.
What do you work for these guys or something? Call me when your shitty company goes bust, and we'll see if I've a job for you.
This invention neither replaces nor improves upon the mouse. Any suggestions to the contrary are unfounded.
As punishment for your fanboy embrace of this tech, you should be made to use it for 12 hours straight. No doubt you'd still be talking about how cool, imaginitive, and edgy you are, even through the tears.
Congratulations on illustrating to the world that you have little to no fine motor control. Not to mention you're talking out your ass. Let's make a guess: You prefer text only browsing, right?
I use Windows, and Firefox. I'm not actually that old. I draw the line at Flash, but only because it's not W3 spec, and it's almost never used well. If you honestly believe that the Wii's remote was not a disappointment, your opinion is as valueless as sand in the Sahara. It's fun. Some of the games are fun too. It has the precision of a sawn off shotgun.
That's the old fart talking. We've been using a mouse most of our lives, so sure it's better for us. Take a look at the wii, it took me a while to adjust killing zombies by pointing at the screen instead of using my thumb. If kids growing up use this interface, not only will it be natural to them, they'll be in much better shape.
The wii's controller is unreservedly terrible. The only thing it's good for is amusement. If kids grow up using that interface, I'll be surprised if they can open 'My Documents' by the age of thirteen.
I'm sorry, but waving your arms around and working an office job are just mutually incompatible unless you're a manager.
I look forwards to something bettering the mouse, just as I look forwards to each new technological advance. I don't buy into stuff because it's cool, which is where the kids go wrong. I buy in when something is better.
Oblong calls g-speak a 'spatial operating environment' and adds that 'the SOE's combination of gestural i/o, recombinant networking, and real-world pixels brings the first major step in computer interface since 1984.
I'm tired of hearing about all these things that will replace the mouse. The mouse will be replaced one day, but not until something comes out which is better, not merely cooler.
This minority report interface will tire your arms out in less than five minutes. I'm embarrased to admit it, but I use a computer for upwards of eight hours a day. Sometimes upwards of twelve.
The mouse is ideal in that your fingers have precision, the feel of pointing is natural, and crucially your hand, wrist, arm, are all more or less at rest throughout the process. Sure, you move them. But you don't hold them anywhere. It's a fundamentally different type of task from minority reporting, or wii-ing, or other stupid-but-cool flailing systems.
So no, I don't know what will replace the mouse. Something, eventually. If I knew what it was, I'd make a bloody fortune. But improving on the mouse will take a damn shot more work than making me say 'Wow', let alone 'meh'.
What right does the government have to tell a company what to do with it's own property?
Are you in denial about the current economic state of affairs? Companies should not necessarily enjoy the same rights and priviledges with their property, or other peoples property, as individuals should.
And one of the reasons is that a big, nasty company can fuck a whole lot of individuals. And frankly, I don't think our governments enjoy that kind of competition.
This is exactly the kind of response we need in our arsenal when smart-arsed technophobes badmouth our trade and leisure.
The Blade system worked fine, having played with the new one for a little while I have to say it appear to blow goats, it's not particularly intuitive and it doesn't make brilliant use of screen real estate.
The blade system always looked like a bunch of building blocks for the under fives. From day one it has been cursingly ugly. So, whilst it 'worked fine' I don't think that was quite enough. Not when the competitors' alternative looks and drives like an Aston Martin.
The new system is much more sleek, and appealed to me instantly. I do share your concern about screen real estate, though. Whilst it doesn't cause me any problems, I'm not sure I would be saying that if I was playing on a standard def screen.
I managed to make someone who looks remarkably like myself, which I've never managed on a wii.
So did I, but my wife started to cry, so I changed it to look like someone else. There's a t-shirt for your avatars with the Xbox 'green circle of light' on it. I know this is kind of an obvious comment, but I genuinely looked for the red one to go with it, before realised why it would not be there.
So iconic is that red circle, that I consider its presence to be missing in xbox related merch.
Note: I know nothing about the London system, my experience is in areas in the US.
When it comes to transport, the UK has a lot of firsts. And especially, as that relates to rail transport.
Ever wonder why continental europe has sexy trains on two levels, but we don't in the UK?
Because our century and older railway bridges are too low.
We don't have steam trains any more, but our entire infrastructure was built around them.
Work on a London underground railway began in 1854 - although it wasn't really the London Underground till the 1930's.
2) The renegotiated contract includes 'significant savings'.
Sounds like the government decided five nines wasn't as important as cutting the bill in half... as well as one of the former parties to the contract. ;)
You see, whether or not you agree or disagree with the legal standing of this EULA, or that EULA... whether or not you have a position on all this stuff, whether or not you agree that the law needs to be codified more properly for modern times, changed to fit the needs of the public... whatever you think there are just simply weaker cases which need to be tested first.
These guys marched straight into the castle stronghold without a hope in hell, and pissed on the kings chips.
We all stood back watching, saying to ourselves... well, this won't go anywhere. This was stupid. These guys are going to get slaughtered.
And lo! It was stupid, it didn't go anywhere, and they just got it handed to them.
. The issue philosophically is complicated but the legal treatment is somewhat clear. And neither of these fall into the simple boxes of product or license, so accusing a company of wanting it both ways is not only unfair, it misses the point entirely.
I agree with everything that you said, except this last part. From what I can see, a lot of software companies, particularly games publishers, do want it both ways.
Large enterprise software has been sold for years under license. There are philosophical debates to have here, also. But the way in which they operate is fairly clear.
They arguably charge too much for the media, usually about 20 dollars a pop. But they also don't care if you buy 1 or 100 copies of the media for your 100 seats. Because the media is simply something containing the data, and the money you pay for the media is simply for the production of that media, not the software on it.
When you pay them for a license, you pay for a license to use that software. This will be explicit, agreed upon, in many cases negotiable. It will include guarantees of uptime, and generally a certain level of support. It is accepted that you are paying them for their time, for their development, for their continued involvement in your enterprise. They might not always deliver, but that's usally the understanding.
A game comes on a disc. You buy the disc, you buy the game. Sure, you can resell it. Sure, you can lend it to a friend. Sure, you can pretend there are license restrictions, but you never got a chance to read them, you never got a chance to negotiate, you can't return the software if you don't like the terms - not unless you're really willing to push it. And if you can't play it, tough luck. Company X has no responsibility to you - you bought a product, and you can do what you like with it. It's out the door, now.
But things have changed. Now Company X wants to tell you that you can't resell it. You bought, and agreed to, a license. One sale, one user - period. They also have the right to permanently revoke your access to the software - something that would never, could never, apply to any product which had been outright sold. That can only apply to a licensed service.
But where are the responsibilities that come with providing such a service? When their activation servers go down, whether for a weekend, or for life, what comeback do you have?
Nothing. Sorry, you bought a product, and we can't help you with it any more.
I see this more and more, and I see it coming to a head in the next few years. If entertainment is big business, where are the consumer rights? If you can face hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines for not paying for your license, where are the fines for denying you access to a service you paid for - which companies like Valve and Take 2 are perfectly capable of doing - and it DOES HAPPEN.
It's a product with certain additional legal protections. Why do people on Slashdot insist on pidgeonholing the issue into "must be A or B"? The world is more complicated than that and I think that's something we should be intelligent enough to understand.
I take offense to that. Products and licenses are two different things. You cannot sell something which is both, without selling two things. It is not right, fair, or reasonable for companies which sell games to take the best qualities of both for themselves, and leave their customers in the lurch. Furthermore, it is perfectly reasonable to ask whether what you are purchasing is one, or the other.
You yourself go on to define games software as one of these things, rather than the other, assuming a selection of special 'legal protections', but don't go on to question what these are, or whether they are properties that can rightly be applied to something which is only a product. In fact, you paint a picture which is much more black and white than I do, you don't go on to question the status quo - even though I've opened that court - and then you accuse OTHER slashdotters of polarisation.
I would say this whole anti-secondary sale issue is another example of the blind greed that is currently taring down the banks.
The gaming industry is starting to eat itself.
It's something else to watch these gigantic corporate entities try to turn sharing, borrowing, and reselling into the next big evil. You'd think they'd stand no chance of getting the popular vote on this, but everywhere now you start to see ordinary regular people asking the question: What can be done about the second hand market?
The more pertinent question is: What the fuck? followed by You are kidding, right?
No other industry enjoys this priviledge. Not even the RIAA is seriously trying to argue that you can't sell a used CD, and they've argued that ripping to MP3s is stealing, and that you need to buy a new copy every time you listen on a new device.
The part I find the most ignorant and self-serving is the part where people talk about the damage it is doing to the industry. The industry is not an end in itself. It adapts to market pressures, or it doesn't. As an ordinary, rational consumer there's nothing that I need or want to do for the industry. They produce games at affordable prices, and just suck up the fact that I am not going to buy all of them as first sales, or they don't.
Something everybody seems to forget in the talk about the evil of second hand sales, is that every one of them, no matter how dilute from reselling, must have been a first sale at some point.
And for crying out loud - what happened to just being thrilled that someone wanted to play your shitty game at all?
By what methods are they trying to fight used sales? Whatever happened to the doctrine of first sale?
It's not a product, it's a license. That is, until you need to take advantage of one of the legal benefits of being a licensee... then it's product.
I don't get it. A laptop that costs $99 each is selling for £275 for two (or £135.50 each) at Amazon, so you would think the extra cost was for shipping, nope, that will be another £50. £325 in total then.
The BBCs reporting on this has not been impressive, failing to mention the shipping cost at all and glossing over the expense of this 100 dollar laptop.
Here's the story
So 325, eh? That's a grand total of nearly 500 dollars for the 100 dollar laptop. Oh, yeah, sorry - two of them. Where do I sign up?
It's like saying "Can I do this?" to a police officer and then saying "But he said I could do it" when another comes to arrest you.
Under what circumstances would that not be the police officer's fault?
In both cases the gorilla in the room is Bill Ockham's shaving instrument - in order to explain what is, something much bigger and more complicated has to be postulated which is not observable.
Occam's razor is not called Occam's law, other than by those that don't understand the concept. There is no law here, just a sensible rule of thumb.
It is sensible not to postulate a complex explanation, when a simple one will do.
In the case of a universal theory, or an understanding of the beginnings of the Universe, or in the existence of God, it is likely that any definitive answer will be quite complex.
Furthermore, no simple explanation has so far sufficed.
Ergo, Occam's Razor does not (yet) apply.
Trust me, if I was karma whoring, I'd be doing it for the lulz in this particular instance. And whilst it's true that the best comedy is fact presented without the veneer of contextualised bullshit, I really hadn't planned that far ahead in this case.
You could offer a homeless man on the street a free sandwich, and if he had to walk a block to get it, Stallman wouldn't think it was free.
He'd also have to make it himself, and not use any sauce with a logo on the bottle.
I Just Took A Huge Shit. It was free!
Good for you buddy. I keep trying, but can only release vaporware.
I'll need to get some prune juice, it's the latest 'open sauce'.