On 1/25/2011 3:05 AM, Invisible wrote:
> On 25/01/2011 04:12 AM, Darren New wrote:
>> Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>>> I love the way that Steam won't let you log in twice, so you can
>>> install the same game on two PCs, but you can only play it on one at
>>> once...
>>>
>>> ...unless you put Steam into offline mode. *facepalm*
>>
>> Sure. Steam keeps the honest people honest. It's sufficiently easy to
>> bypass that nobody really feels the need to *crack* it. But it's hard
>> enough to bypass (in that you actually need the steam account that
>> bought the game to play it) that it keeps them earning money.
>
> More to the point, Steam does genuinely *useful* stuff. If you could
> remove it, you probably wouldn't want to. It doesn't stop you copying
> stuff (actually, it *assists* you in copying stuff). It just stops you
> (or rather, everybody you gave the copies to) from using more than one
> copy at once. And since all your online activity is linked to your user
> account anyway, you probably wouldn't *want* to let other people use
> your account anyway.
>
> In all, it works rather nicely.
>
Only drawbacks with it tend to be: No extra/modded content for games, 
unless you download the non-steam exe some place, and no trainers. Like 
to seriously hurt the people doing "trainers" for everything now... 
Mind, I only go looking for one if I am like 36 hours into some RPG type 
game, like Call of Pripyat, massively screwed up some where along the 
line, and don't want to go back (or can't due to how I used the save 
games) to some point 4 days earlier. But, still.. its nice to have the 
option. And the mod/extra stuff really *really* annoys me in some cases.

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

On 1/25/2011 3:22 AM, scott wrote:
>> The problem I have always had with that "harm", though, is the assumption
>> that those who illegally copy would have paid for the product if they had
>> no other choice.
>
> Yep, the problem is they assume every single illegally downloaded file
> would have been bought otherwise. Sure if piracy was impossible they
> might sell a few more copies, but certainly not the same number that
> were illegally downloaded.
>
Yeah, its the same argument you get for everything from them. The *real* 
way it works is:

1. Assume some stuff will get stolen from the shelf.
2. Post a price on it high enough you sell 90% of your "goal", since 
100% would either be unattainable, or so cheap you can't actually afford 
to make the product.
3. The "90%" mark is almost always higher than what you "could have" put 
it at, since, ironically, 50% of your customers would fail to buy it is 
it was too cheap, and thus seemed "poor quality".

What they complain about:

1. Can't pay people, even though they can't buy the product, because we 
would have to raise the cost of the product. (The standard - minimum 
wage doesn't help, because we are assholes and plan to simply price our 
stuff out of that wage range the moment we can.)
2. We expect to sell 100%, and have back orders, and never lose one from 
the shelf, so its **your fault** if any of these things happen, 
especially the last one, which is why we need to charge you $75 for it!
3. All of this, especially the first one, means we can't afford to make 
the product here in the US, so we just hired 2 million Asians to make 
them for us instead, so we can "keep the price down".

Both arguments are shear bullshit, but its like listening to US 
Christians whine that they get 50 national holidays, special tax breaks, 
catered to by even the non-believing politicians (who need to get 
reelected), but someone just said Happy Holidays, so its 
***persecution!!***. Its not so much delusional, though it is, since its 
a losing long term strategy, but purely a case of, "I have mine, but I 
want yours too! I deserve it! And not giving it to me is evil!"

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

>> More to the point, Steam does genuinely *useful* stuff.
>>
>> In all, it works rather nicely.
>>
> Only drawbacks with it tend to be: No extra/modded content for games,
> unless you download the non-steam exe some place, and no trainers.

I don't know about that... For games actually developed by Valve, they 
*give* you the damned modding tools for free! And, for example, every 
new update for Team Fortress 2 includes a stackload of custom maps that 
various people outside Valve have developed. Connect to just about any 
TF2 or CSS server and it starts downloading custom maps that the server 
admins have put up on their server... there's a *stackload* of custom 
content! And usually you don't even need to *do* anything to access it.

You may have heard a bunch of guys are actually porting the original 
HalfLife game to the new Source engine. (The project was originally 
called Black Mesa: Source. I'm not sure what they call it now or whether 
it's still extant.) A while back I played Dystopia, a whole game 
developed using the Source engine and given away for free. OK, it wasn't 
/that great/, but it's there. A bit later I played Insurgency, another 
independent game. Quite impressive technically, but a tad too realistic 
for my taste. (I.e., you spawn, walk two feet, and instantly die because 
a sniper 2 miles away shot you. Which is how a real war zone actually 
is... but then, real war zones aren't fun.)

Now, for games that are distributed on Steam but aren't actually 
developed by Valve... I can't really comment. I haven't looked at any. 
But the stuff from Valve themselves has terrific support.

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

On 1/25/2011 2:56 PM, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>>> More to the point, Steam does genuinely *useful* stuff.
>>>
>>> In all, it works rather nicely.
>>>
>> Only drawbacks with it tend to be: No extra/modded content for games,
>> unless you download the non-steam exe some place, and no trainers.
>
> I don't know about that... For games actually developed by Valve, they
> *give* you the damned modding tools for free! And, for example, every
> new update for Team Fortress 2 includes a stackload of custom maps that
> various people outside Valve have developed. Connect to just about any
> TF2 or CSS server and it starts downloading custom maps that the server
> admins have put up on their server... there's a *stackload* of custom
> content! And usually you don't even need to *do* anything to access it.
>
Yeah, depends heavily on the game. Trainers are a bigger problem anyway, 
since they don't mod files, they effectively "latch" into the engine, so 
as to mod the data while in-game. Hacking the game file, with checksums 
and other messes is harder, apparently. But, you *need* the latch points 
to be right for it to work. Ironically, you can thank Windows continues 
bad security that it even works at all with non-Steam versions. lol

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

On 25-1-2011 10:39, Invisible wrote:
> On 24/01/2011 10:09 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>
>> And so it is that I spend about $130/month on a basic digital cable
>> package and end up skipping through commercials.
>
> Hey, don't worry. When I eventually get somewhere of my own to live, I
> will have to pay money to fund the BBC, even though I don't watch TV or
> listen to the radio. The fact that the building doesn't contain a TV
> apparently is no excuse.

Did I miss something? Are you considering to live somewhere on your own? 
What happened to the SO?

Post a reply to this message

On 25-1-2011 12:05, Stephen wrote:
> On 25/01/2011 10:47 AM, Invisible wrote:
>>> You don't have to prove you're not using iPlayer, they will prove if you
>>> *are* using it!
>>
>> In other words, they will say "you possess a device capable of watching
>> TV, give us your money".
>
> From
> http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check-if-you-need-one/topics/technology-top8/
>
> Many TV channels are now available to watch over the internet. If you’re
> watching programmes on a computer or laptop as they're being shown on
> TV, then you need a TV Licence. However, you don’t need to be covered by
> a licence if you’re only using ‘on-demand’ services to watch programmes
> after they have been shown on TV. So, you need a licence to watch any
> channel live online, *but you wouldn’t need one to use BBC iPlayer to
> catch up on an episode of a programme you missed, for example.*
>
> Does that explain it?

It doesn't explain why I am not allowed to watch iPlayer.

Post a reply to this message

On 25/01/2011 11:34 PM, andrel wrote:
>> Does that explain it?
>
> It doesn't explain why I am not allowed to watch iPlayer.

We still remember De Engelse Zeeoorlogen. :-P

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 25/01/2011 11:32 PM, andrel wrote:
> Did I miss something? Are you considering to live somewhere on your own?
> What happened to the SO?

Possibly thinking of the GF ;-)

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 25/01/2011 11:32 PM, andrel wrote:

> Did I miss something? Are you considering to live somewhere on your own?

It's no secret that I *want* to move out. I need to find the money first.

Apparently my girlfriend's sister works for the OU, so I'm going to try 
talking to her about ways to make them hire me...

Post a reply to this message

>>>> People paying money for computer systems that purposely prevent them
>>>> doing stuff? Not gonna be popular. :-P
>>>
>>> Game consoles? Blu-ray players? DVD players? No, none of those are
>>> popular at all.
>>
>> Last time I checked, a DVD player isn't a "computer system".
>
> Wow. You really think so?
>
> Shit, man, my TV runs Linux. My TV takes longer to boot than my XBox does.

Yeah, my mum's TV takes an inexplicably long time to turn on. As does 
the expensive BluRay player. (Actually, the menu system on that looks 
suspiciously like the menu on my sister's PS3...)

> But the people who don't know there's a computer in the DVD player
> aren't the people who will be cracking the DRM on DVD disks, is it?

Well, no, you get some computer software for playing DVDs and crack 
that. Much easier than cracking custom hardware and voiding your warranty.

>> (FWIW, *my* cassette machine actually has a computer in it. Not joking.)
>
> So does my vacuum cleaner. Figure that one out. (And not even the vacuum
> part. Just the power head. $75 to replace the computer in the brush.)

Hehehe. And to think Eric has a vacuum cleaner so old it's made of 
Bakelite, and it still works...

Post a reply to this message