Thursday Next

Just to correct a couple of details there (trainee solicitor, so this stuff is all pretty fresh in the mind). A civil marriage is still a marriage. You are completely married even if you have never even set foot in a church. A civil partnership can only be same sex. Co-habiting couples can apply for certain rights, reliefs and protection, however, these do not automatically vest over a period of time, some form fillage is required.

Doesn't mean it's cool or okay. Can't just go "that was then, this is now, lump it or leave it". Not necessarily saying that it is cool, more that times change and you do have to "like it or lump it" or "take it or leave it" or your somewhat unhinged mash up of the two. Back in the day piracy was much less widespread, the pre-owned market was smaller and games were much cheaper to produce. Companies today spend LOADS making games and piracy and preowned sales are a global issue. So, they adapt. They release episodic content which gives a better ROI (profit margins on DLC are generally higher because a lot of the donkey work has been done in building the engine and assets for the main game) and subscription games to combat some of these issues.

I disagree on the randomness aspect. Non-thermodynamically speaking H(X) = E[i(X)] In fact your coin toss example is perfectly applicable here too , provided it's a fair coin that can be used in a Bernoulli Trial. As a side note all measures are human-made because our mind is incapable of thinking without measuring sticks. Think of anything that's based on human studies and you'll find there are scales and levels on which they are measured because that's how our minds work. Take away those systems and it's still random. It's not measuring systems, those are made by us mostly to measure uncertainty and they themselves are uncertain when we get to much smaller or larger levels. It's why Quantum Science today is in a state of flux. Note: I'm not discussing religion here, but you just brought up all my years of studying Engineering and Maths from nearly 10 years ago. Bah I remember wasting so much time on Theory of Computation and Algorithm Analyses. Is that entropy? I didn't study Physics past A level, or maths beyond GCSE, so that's a bit beyond me (other than vaguely recognising it). I like the idea that we change randomness into predictability by our nature to measure stuff, the whole observing an atom thing is awesome... Like I said, if there is a proof that anything that is supposedly random is random, then cool. I love being challenged and getting stuff wrong just means I've got an opportunity to learn. "Believing" that what appears random at the moment is not truly random is just that, a belief. I've got no evidence to base it on as I simply don't know enough, I have to choose one way or the other. Once I've learned a bit more, then maybe that belief will change. That's kind of my point about the religion vs. atheism thing. Religion can't (or at least technically shouldn't) change. It is in the past. I look forward so my beliefs change (or at least can change) with everything I learn. Being an atheist is great, it gives me a huge amount of excitement for the future.

Declaring that you are 100% sure that there is no god is not a claim to omniscience. I'm 100% sure that I exist. I'm 100% sure that the sun will rise tomorrow. I can't prove either of these, but it doesn't make me any less sure. With that, I am 100% certain that there is no deity, no after life, no higher power. As for my personal beliefs, I kind of think of existence as a big set of incredibly complex dominoes. When you toss a coin you may consider whether it is heads or tails to be a random event, but in fact it was decided the second the coin left your hand. In fact, it was decided by the neurons firing before that, and the chemical reaction in your brain before that, and so on and so on, all the way back to the big bang. In any belief system, including atheism, there has to be a leap of faith. Mine is that there is no such thing as a truly "random" event. I believe that the things we consider random, like the decay of a radioactive atom, are in fact measurable and predictable. We just don't know how to measure or predict it... yet. That said, I accept that I could be wrong, that the universe could be random. That's why I love to read about new discoveries, new theories, so that I can get closer to understanding how my world actually works. I think that's where I have a big disconnect with Religion. Religion tells us that we have the answers already, or that the answers are unknowable. To be forever looking back at what was said ~2000-6000 years ago and say, that's it, is very depressing for me. The idea of an "Ineffable" god who "moves in mysterious ways" takes all the fun out of the universe. I prefer my outlook, that everything is knowable, it's just waiting for us to discover it. P.S. That comment in the OP about failing the test of faith, and buckling under the pressure was HUGELY patronising. It would be like me saying that you relying on your imaginary friend to help you through hard times is nothing to be ashamed of. EDIT: For those interested, you need to look up "Royal Assent" for the Monarch's powers to refuse to adopt a bill into law. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Assent the Queen did it in 1999 though, as noted in the article, it was moot anyway.

Hehehe... priceless.

Do you have any concept of how much it costs to create a video game? At the moment "we" can't supply a luxury at no measurable expense. It costs tens of millions of pounds and hundreds upon hundreds of hours. "We" being the people who create the content. No, just pointing out that while I will share necessities, and gladly, I won't share the luxuries I have worked to achieve. So if you aren't owed it, and you didn't pay for it, why take it? You are "sharing" something that doesn't belong to you. How about caring about the people who actually put their time and effort into making the games and helping them pay their bills? I'm just pointing out that if everyone is taking stuff and sharing it, but no one is putting anything in, then the system collapses. As for saying I'm not listening, I think if you look to my conversation with Ethan it's clear that I am happy to have a dialogue with someone who is not so entrenched in their position as to feel insulted when someone suggests that taking something without permission is wrong. What and because you think publishers shouldn't have the right to say who can and can't use what they have created you feel that you have the right to just take what you want? Also, since when does it cost nothing? As I said before, games cost millions to make. Sure, run away. You can try to claim all you want that piracy costs the developers nothing, you can throw up hypothetical situations where this would be true (such as Ethan's "Pirate who would never by the game at any price, ever.") but they're impossible to prove and it is closer to the truth to say that many people who pirate would buy the game if there was no other choice. And as for pirates being all about "Sharing and caring" what a load of total nonsense. It's not about giving stuff away, it's about getting stuff for nothing. The number of leechers always outweighs the number of seeds. The number of people putting content up is dwarfed by the vast quantities of people downloading it.

I'm certainly not attacking your integrity with regard to theft by its legal definition. My "nailed down or on fire" comment was intended to be light hearted. To get a bit legalese on the issue, I attach more weight to the mens rea than the actus reus. That is, the intention to get something for nothing, knowing that the person who made it would rather you pay. As opposed to the fact that the victim in your hypothetical was not harmed. Finally, I might point out that there is no way of determining that a person absolutely would not have acquired the product legitimately under any circumstances. The person in question would be hard pressed to be certain about that, let alone someone who sees their actions from afar like a publisher.

My own personal moral philosophy holds that something is only morally wrong if it harms someone else. If the pirate was not going to purchase the game, even in the absence of piracy being possible, then the dev wasn't getting the money either way and so is not harmed. Here's a misconception, it's not that the pirate "can't wait", it's that they don't need to. The whole thing is based on the assumption that the pirate would not buy the game even if it were impossible to pirate it, in which case he would wait until the price was such that he was willing/able to buy it. However, he still has some desire to play it, and piracy provides a way to satisfy that desire without harming anyone else in the process. Then later, once the price drops, he must buy it for the cost that he would have been willing to pay in a world without piracy, or I would agree he has committed a wrong. In that case, you and I fundamentally disagree on what is right and wrong. To me, if you were never going to buy it then you shouldn't take it. Further, if you intend to buy it when the price drops to a certain point then you should only take possession of it at that time. From other comments I get the impression that I'm in a minority on that and should probably spend my days throwing cloaks over puddles for ladies to step on and such while everyone else grabs whatever isn't nailed down or on fire simply because it's too easy not to.

You also need to make sure you initialise the drive. I always forget that bit.

It's royalty based. Around 1/4 - 1/3 of the trade price. Obviously varies by publisher and by title.

Communist! Seriously though, since when was earning a luxury an outmoded concept? I'll offer a glass of water if someone is thirsty and needs a drink, I'm not gonna demand a contribution to the water rates, I'm not a monster. You won't die if you don't update twitter right away and you won't die if you have to wait 6 months for a price drop so you can play Killzone 3. It's not so much a case of my out dated concept that you should earn things, rather this strange new attitude that you are somehow owed something just because it exists and you can take it. Your humanity is going to be short lived if everyone is sitting about the campfire waiting for someone else to bring some food to share. EDIT: Also... that you choose to share stuff that you have earned and paid for is fine. Don't you also think you should have the right to choose not to share stuff?

When one of my mates does this it makes me want to twist his head off. Slowly.

You're still taking something without permission and not paying a fair price for it. How is that not morally wrong? If someone uses my internet connection when I'm not at home, it won't affect my bandwidth cos I'm not using it, I've got an unlimited data plan so it won't affect my costs, but if I go home and find that someone has been free loading off of something that I work to provide I'll be, I think justifiably, pissed off. If you are never going to buy something, then you will never have the right, morally or legally to use it, unless the owner decides to give it away for free. If the user does decide to give it away for free then you have the right to use it from that moment on. It does not make it cool for you to have pirated it in advance of it being given away. On the subject of "pirate now, pay later," morally that too is wrong. The product has a value now. That value will be different tomorrow. If you use it now then you have a moral obligation to pay for it now. The fact that you "can't" wait till later when the price is within your budget is in itself justification that the value now is higher for a good reason. *NOTE: When I say something "Is morally right / wrong" I am of course measuring this by my own subjective standard.*

Yeah I think I read your comment a little too quickly and only took away "Make guns moar betterer." rather than the far more sensible "Fix it or scrap it." I'm definitely in favour of scrapping it. I could see a case for a tazer (not the one you fire, the one you jab into people's ribs... well not you personally, unless you do...) or flash-bang as ways of dropping people quickly without being lethal.

From the people that brought you "We Dare". I too am excited for this. Is it Move compatible? Seems ideally suited to it.

@ Johnny: Just threw the knives idea in there as you seemed to be pretty keen to have some form of weapons involved and I think they make a better alternative than guns, being quiet and what not. @Ethan: For sure, I think a way of quickly hobbling or incapacitating your opponents is what Faith needed in ME1. Getting involved in fights was frustrating when all you really wanted to do was blast past someone, disorientate them as you went and move on. One of the worst parts of the game for me, was when you were in the car park and had to knock out half a dozen baddies before you could proceed. It was jarring to say the least. I think a sequel could benefit from coop/competitive modes whereby you either work together to help each other, by opening gates, providing a step up etc (though you'd need to be careful not to slow down the pace too much...) or race against each other and close gates, trip switches etc. to slow your opponent and make them take a different route.

Kratos is pretty much a perfect fit for the franchise. Not played an MK in yeeeeeeaaaaaars. So I'm rather looking forward to the demo. 4 fighters and two arenas are probably enough that I won't need to buy the game (I've never really gotten into fighters except Tekken and Fighter's Destiny). Especially when two of the fighters (Sub Zero & Scorpion) are the iconic characters in the series. I can pretty much be happy playing as either of them and wailing on Johnny Cage for quite some time.

Disagree with Johnny's option A/B. The gun mechanics should be kept as is. No reloads, no aiming reticules, just iron sights or blind firing to make the enemy stop and take cover. Faith is a free runner, not a gun slinger after all, guns should be an absolute last resort and being able to play through without firing a shot should be possible. The combat could, perhaps should be improved, in fact, they could borrow some ideas from Assassin's Creed. Some throwing daggers (the bag drops can serve as ammo points) and a knife or some other sort of blade that can be easily deployed and retracted. You could then fight as the game suggests, burst out from knowhere, do some damage and be gone before the enemy catches on. In fact, another game they could stand to borrow from is Bushido Blade. Rather than getting in to a long, drawn out fight to the death, get in, severely damage a limb and then hop over a fence knowing that your enemy is too wounded to effectively pursue.

First game I played with a "moral choice" was... LoK Soul Reaver. If you drained the locals dry they would fear you and the guards would attack you. If you only "sipped" a little at their souls, they would praise you for dealing with the vampire menace. A great "moral" system imho, there were no guages or meters, if you started acting like a monster people would react to you like one, if you stopped and acted more like a hero, people reacted to that too. There was no punishment, no points, no upgrades attached to whether I rampaged through Nosgoth draining the souls of its residents or skipped lightly amongst them, kissing babies and picking flowers. Just, the people there either liked you or didn't. There seems to be a belief amongst developers that unless you attach a carrot and stick... or carrot and evil carrot to a choice, that it has no emotional value. Once, when I played through Soul Reaver, I hadn't been harming the humans, and as such, they were all pretty cool with me, but I was suuuuuper low on health and was in a dark alley when this chick strolls by, all on her own... well, I drained every last drop of her soul and left her for dead. It didn't upset my karma, the one offence went fairly unnoticed, but I felt really bad about doing it. On the other hand, I've done playthroughs where I was the scourge of Nosgoth where I drained every citizen, even if I was on full health and treated the humans like cattle. Every now and then, I would let one go, not sure why, perhaps to tell the others, perhaps to make myself feel like less of a monster. I think that's how morality should be handled in games, not through some sort of good/evil swing-o-meter and rewards for being ultra good or ultra bad. All your powers should give you the potential to do either good or evil, you should be left to choose how you use them and the world should react to you accordingly. The challenge then is to make you care about what a bunch of fictional people think about your videogame alter-ego.

Crashed through Bulletstorm on PS3 on Normal, and played a bit of multi. Fun game, pity that no-one online "gets" it. If you want to run around head-shotting All The Time then go back to CoD, your pathetic 25pts per kill are a waste of everybody's time. If you wanna juggle an enemy with some kicks and leash before flinging them into a generator, then hit me up.

Totally agree with Kenshi. Just because we can make games that are all cerebral and such doesn't mean we should only make games like that. Again... shilling my own wares, but Bulletstorm is a prime example (or Duke Nukem if you prefer) over the top, stylised, tongue in cheek shooters are a breath of fresh air amongst the "gritty" and "realistic" shooters that dominate the charts. I'm delighted that there's a place for games like Heavy Rain and FlOwer, but sometimes I do just want to play something a bit "dumb" for lack of a better word.

So what about people who buy WoW expansion packs? There's what 11 million of them? They spend money for something that they can't use unless they constantly pay. I think you hit it on the head when you said: "people are hardwired to think that whatever is on the disk or download is what you paid for." Maybe once upon a time that was the case, it isn't any more. If you buy TF2 you expect regular updates, for free. If you buy wow you expect to pay to play. It's difficult to know what to expect now from EA, they've flirted with a lot of business models, trying to see what works. Preorder PDLC works well, so expect more in the future.

Like I said before. It's more like stay in a hotel and pay for the minibar.

People who misspell "clique".

I actually feel the complete opposite about this. Normally, I'll buy a game on day one, buy the extra content when it releases and then the GotY edition is released and someone gets all of that for less than I paid for the game. As gamers we constantly get shafted for being early adopters, we pay the most for hardware and software, and usually get buggy unfinished products for our trouble, while late adopters come along and pick up the newer, slimmer, faster, better version at a lower price. Pre-Order DLC Redresses that balance. The people who are loyal to a product, who want to gamble on it being good get a nice bonus. The ones who wait and see have to pay for the extras. Also, Pre-Orders are hugely important to publishers as it is what retailers base their orders on. A massive pre-order number can mean the difference between missing your target, and smashing it into tiny little pieces.