I would venture to say that there is a big difference between saying "Internet connection required", which kind of implies that you may need to log on periodically (for instance for updates, synching, verification), and "Always on internet connection required", which suggests that the game will always need to be online.
Regardless, all of this has made me reluctant to pony up £44 (c.$66) for a game that doesn't even have the gameplay on it. And I bought Diablo I and II several times, including at the start.
I suspect that this defence won't work for wandering around the street naked, but anyone stripping off at a TSA checkpoint could be reasonably assumed to be making a protest, especially once this is known. This is particularly appropriate as a protesting method as it is in direct relation to the unwarranted actions by the state, i.e. to sexually assault you or make illegal porn of you.
How's that full-on War on Terror going for you? I see Iraq and Afghanistan are havens of peace and My Little Ponies.
Funnily enough, most terrorists aren't easily accessible except via the net, or identifiable in any meaningful way. If the right sort of trolling makes a few think, it's a heck of a lot cheaper in dollars and more importantly lives than a marine division or shooting down unarmed airliners.
Ahh, Free Republic. If you've managed to troll them without getting banned, then I am impressed. Moreso if you can manage to read their brand of inhumanity and stupidity for any length of time. All that site does is make me *very* glad I have several thousand miles of ocean between me and them.
MySpace's problem wasn't that it was everywhere, it was that it failed to have enough for enough people, and that it failed to keep and maintain enough perceived value amongst the public. I know, as someone in my late 30s when it was big, and not that bothered about music, that it really had nothing to interest me, whereas Facebook had more people, more simplicity, and a less throwback-to-early-webpages look/feel. And the less said about Bebo the better...
Even if these things are ubiquitous, some will stand out due to word of mouth, better (cross-)promotion, or just sheer better quality. It's the same as any other 'entertainment/educational' thing vying for our limited attention and dollars. There are millions of blogs out there and I can only read a fraction of them, so to keep my attention they have to provide me with something - even if it is just amusement value for the trolling/stupidity.
First of all, because it saves a lot of people who can't afford to buy content from having to spend silly money. Look how many people can't afford DVD box sets.
Secondly, because advertising does actually serve a purpose for most people. No matter how many useless or annoying ads you see, some ads will be interesting, relevant or entertaining - or hopefully all three! The trick is to improve the ratio of good:bad. I know that there are many things I have found out about, bought or become interested in from ads, and so I know that they can have a value. Obviously that value declines when they are intrusive/annoying(auto-video clips anyone?) but you can't write them all off as they are a workable model.
On the flip side of this, ads as entertainment has a long tradition. Look at the effort going into Superbowl ads, or some of the really funny ones from the past. We get ads that become a mini-series, such as the Gold Blend ads with Anthony Stewart Head (pre-Buffy) in the UK, or our current Meerkat ads that have been so popular that they have spawned their own product line.
There is also the creativity that the entertainment element provides. For all that I hate smoking, cigarette companies have had fantastic ads. In the old days, Hamlet had some really good ads, and later when they couldn't depict cigarettes, Silk Cut did some really good plays on their name - simple but powerful.
Ads are a genre like any other, and they can serve as entertainment. If it is done carefully and tactfully, I don't see any reason why it can't be done the other way, using entertainment to advertise products or services. ("Ooo, Chloe in Smallville is using an Alienware, looks tasty I want one!" for example.)
If nothing else, a clever advertiser (with a good brand) could even promote their product/service without mentioning it. For example, mentioning on screen that X character can do/buy Y might lead people to for Y and discover brand Z.
By this very argument, the moment someone accuses Apple themselves of patent infringement, they have a duty to remove products from the market! So it's a bit stupid, and prematurely judgemental. They only have a duty to remove products once they have been found to infringe.
That's a little Randian fundamentalist. Maybe a company can have other responsibilities, although making money can be one of the most important. Certainly, it should be making money legally and responsibly. Companies benefit from society and its protections, so they should contribute back.
Mike objects to 'meaningless' invocations of 'for the children' - where there are existing laws, where most of it is just meaningless grandstanding by organisations.
Here Mike is telling a story of how specifically named children are harmed by a particular legal stupidity - and you have the gall to slag it off? He isn't saying "patents hurt (unspecified anonymous) children". He's saying "this patent fight and the way it's been handled is likely to hurt these specific vulnerable children". And still you find something to attack him with, and it's not even the same/correct thing. Pathetic.
Also, it is massively insulting claiming (with zero evidence) that anyone here is 'not caring' about children being harmed. You sir, are not just a troll, you a a particularly vile form of one.
Same here in Glasgow, where we have some of the football. Everyone in Britain pretty well knows how much football is an effective religion in Scotland - and yet well over half the Olympic football tickets remain unsold. Other than a brief fillip for the torch coming through, no-one seems too impressed - I guess London 2012 is just 'another London-centric' event that is meaningless to us.
Plus, living near the venue myself (Hampden) I'm not looking forward to the disruption either. I really pity the poor buggers in London.
On the post: German Consumer Group Not Happy With Diablo 3 Internet Requirements
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Diablo 3 Online
I would venture to say that there is a big difference between saying "Internet connection required", which kind of implies that you may need to log on periodically (for instance for updates, synching, verification), and "Always on internet connection required", which suggests that the game will always need to be online.
Regardless, all of this has made me reluctant to pony up £44 (c.$66) for a game that doesn't even have the gameplay on it. And I bought Diablo I and II several times, including at the start.
On the post: German Consumer Group Not Happy With Diablo 3 Internet Requirements
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Attendee At Batman Shooting Plans To Sue Warner Bros For Making Batman Too Violent
Re: Re: Re: Well
On the post: Apparently Stripping Nude To Protest TSA Search Is Protected By The First Amendment
Re: Re:
On the post: Apparently Stripping Nude To Protest TSA Search Is Protected By The First Amendment
Re: Re:
On the post: State Department Wants To Troll Terrorists Online
Re:
Funnily enough, most terrorists aren't easily accessible except via the net, or identifiable in any meaningful way. If the right sort of trolling makes a few think, it's a heck of a lot cheaper in dollars and more importantly lives than a marine division or shooting down unarmed airliners.
On the post: State Department Wants To Troll Terrorists Online
Re:
On the post: State Department Wants To Troll Terrorists Online
Re: Nothing new
On the post: Content Is Advertising, Advertising Is Content: Media Company Buys Ad Firm That Makes Good Content
Re:
Even if these things are ubiquitous, some will stand out due to word of mouth, better (cross-)promotion, or just sheer better quality. It's the same as any other 'entertainment/educational' thing vying for our limited attention and dollars. There are millions of blogs out there and I can only read a fraction of them, so to keep my attention they have to provide me with something - even if it is just amusement value for the trolling/stupidity.
On the post: Content Is Advertising, Advertising Is Content: Media Company Buys Ad Firm That Makes Good Content
Re:
Secondly, because advertising does actually serve a purpose for most people. No matter how many useless or annoying ads you see, some ads will be interesting, relevant or entertaining - or hopefully all three! The trick is to improve the ratio of good:bad. I know that there are many things I have found out about, bought or become interested in from ads, and so I know that they can have a value. Obviously that value declines when they are intrusive/annoying(auto-video clips anyone?) but you can't write them all off as they are a workable model.
On the flip side of this, ads as entertainment has a long tradition. Look at the effort going into Superbowl ads, or some of the really funny ones from the past. We get ads that become a mini-series, such as the Gold Blend ads with Anthony Stewart Head (pre-Buffy) in the UK, or our current Meerkat ads that have been so popular that they have spawned their own product line.
There is also the creativity that the entertainment element provides. For all that I hate smoking, cigarette companies have had fantastic ads. In the old days, Hamlet had some really good ads, and later when they couldn't depict cigarettes, Silk Cut did some really good plays on their name - simple but powerful.
Ads are a genre like any other, and they can serve as entertainment. If it is done carefully and tactfully, I don't see any reason why it can't be done the other way, using entertainment to advertise products or services. ("Ooo, Chloe in Smallville is using an Alienware, looks tasty I want one!" for example.)
If nothing else, a clever advertiser (with a good brand) could even promote their product/service without mentioning it. For example, mentioning on screen that X character can do/buy Y might lead people to for Y and discover brand Z.
On the post: Megaupload To DOJ: You Don't Get To Make Up The Rules That Suit You
Re: Re:
On the post: US Olympic Committee Forces 30 Year Old Philidelphia Gyro Restaraunt To Change Its Name
Re: Hmmm
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olympic_rings#Olympic_rings)
On the post: US Olympic Committee Forces 30 Year Old Philidelphia Gyro Restaraunt To Change Its Name
Re: Re:
On the post: In The Patent Battle Over Speech Devices, The Real 'Irreparable Harm' Is A Child Losing Her Only Voice
Re: Apple vs Samsung
On the post: In The Patent Battle Over Speech Devices, The Real 'Irreparable Harm' Is A Child Losing Her Only Voice
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: To a corporation..
On the post: In The Patent Battle Over Speech Devices, The Real 'Irreparable Harm' Is A Child Losing Her Only Voice
Re: Re:
On the post: In The Patent Battle Over Speech Devices, The Real 'Irreparable Harm' Is A Child Losing Her Only Voice
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Here Mike is telling a story of how specifically named children are harmed by a particular legal stupidity - and you have the gall to slag it off? He isn't saying "patents hurt (unspecified anonymous) children". He's saying "this patent fight and the way it's been handled is likely to hurt these specific vulnerable children". And still you find something to attack him with, and it's not even the same/correct thing. Pathetic.
Also, it is massively insulting claiming (with zero evidence) that anyone here is 'not caring' about children being harmed. You sir, are not just a troll, you a a particularly vile form of one.
On the post: Olympics Can't Hire Enough Actual Security, But Fully Staffed With 'Brand Police'
Re: Re:
Plus, living near the venue myself (Hampden) I'm not looking forward to the disruption either. I really pity the poor buggers in London.
On the post: Olympics Can't Hire Enough Actual Security, But Fully Staffed With 'Brand Police'
Re:
They could draft those 300 into security, that's 8% or so of the shortfall filled instantly!
But no, they'd rather go and turn this into even more of a publicity nightmare.
On the post: Olympics Can't Hire Enough Actual Security, But Fully Staffed With 'Brand Police'
Re: Re: Who needs foot patrols...
Next >>