Thursday Next

I don't know the details, but, the guy did something stupid. Think we can all agree on that. The terms of service are pretty clear and EA haven't done anything outside of their (admittedly broad) powers. Chances are, the guy caught a Moderator on a bad day and is eating a ban because of it. Another day, another mod and it may have passed without incident. The guy can still play his other games, he just can't activate his new ones or play online. EDIT: I am loving that RPS is in the middle of a DAII marketing takeover by the way.

Flatland is amazing. It was one of the inspirations for the guy who wrote the novels which provided my user name.

A minor oversight. I think there's a difference between "Banter" and "Trash Talk". For example, someone on Hot Pursuit said that my Bee Yellow Camero was a piece of crap car and that he was gonna bust me first. I told him he was going to feel rather silly once I was done kicking his arse in a piece of crap Bee Yellow Camero (I've never been so glad to win a race). It was all good humoured and inoffensive.

Piracy. Hate it. Can't stand it. Don't agree with any of the justifications for it. To the point where my opinion of a person drops the when they say they do it. Take for example, Dean and Ethan, both good guys, get on well enough with them on the forum, but I actually flinch any time either of them mentions their piracy habits (mostly because I respect them both and I always feel a little disappointed in them), and Johnny, who I don't particularly know or like, probably due to the frequency with which he refers to his copyright infringing ways. Other than that, manners, in all forms. From forums to in-game, trash talk to griefing. But that doesn't really count because it applies to the world in general not just gamers. There's a huge deficit in people generally being decent to one another, to the point where people are actually surprised when you thank a waiter for bringing over your food, or hold a door open for someone. NOTE: Dean, Ethan, Johnny, I'm not going to patronise any of you by claiming no offence was intended, I'm well aware that you may be offended by my comments. I'm just being honest so let me add here that I do respect all three of you for being honest, not just about the piracy, but of your opinions in all things on the forum, I just don't agree with you on some points.

PC is not inherently a buggy platform and I can't believe you even implied such a thing. Sorry, but plenty of PC devs deliver games with minimal bugs. It is not the fault of the platform. How on Earth did you get from "It is impossible to test all the near infinite combinations of hardware and software inherent to the PC platform." to "PC is buggy by nature."?

Not sure how these count as insightful commentary on gaming tropes rather than just being gaming tropes. To avoid the trope the character would have to acknowledge that they are doing so. For example, if you are going to subvert the trope of arbitrary or artificial time limits then you would need to draw attention to that specifically. As in: "We've only got 10 seconds to kill the bad guy." "Why 10 Seconds? He's driving the car we're following, what's gonna happen in 10 seconds that a rocket launcher can't fix?" It sounds to me more like the game follows obvious gaming tropes and that the developers are not sure how to cover it up. Superman's antagonist was a balding weakling and that was never painted as absurd.

I don't know the maths well enough to make a determination, my gut says nothing is truly random, I get the distinct feeling I need to read up on this more. Overall, I have the same attitude as you, I'll follow the weight of evidence. If someone wants to take some time to explain a proof for randomness, I'll gladly listen. I'm a believer in Higgs Bosons, but, much like yourself, I'm not gonna continue to believe in them if the evidence tilts against them. Like you said though, it's gonna take a lot to shake the SM.

No probs.

Either? Where else is it not coming?

The industry has adapted. Consumers changed their habits from buying a game and keeping it, to buying a game and trading it or pirating a game. The industry adapted its model to supplying post launch content, subscription services, free to play games, ad served titles and microtransactions. It's up to consumers now to adapt to these changes by adopting their preferred one, this will then guide the industry's next move.

Woo! Yeah! Bring it! My wallet is ready. please be true.

Cheers Deano! Also thanks WTF for the comments Agreed there is a lot of uncertainty, it's part of why I find the subject so interesting. Part of me wishes I'd carried on with physics rather than going in to Law (I do love the law though so I'm happy with the decision). Would like to hear more on your thoughts on life as a projection, if you have an opinion on it.

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.*