BTGBullseye

On 10/7/2019 at 1:54 AM, Psychotic Ninja said:

 

I thought it might make me laugh a little, but no... It was just to lame...

On 10/6/2019 at 4:21 PM, Blightmare said:

Except that's not every scientist ever. Scientists have to go into great detail about what they did to conduct the experiments, talk about whether or not what they observed supports the hypothesis, explain the processes they used to reach those conclusions, AND have it reviewed by other members of the scientific community to make sure everything is in order.

And you still have to trust all that, despite the fact that there have been people that did all that for a hoax, just to prove that that is not infallible.

13 hours ago, Annie said:

If you think I'm taking what you're saying out of context then you can bother to explain what you actually meant.

No. This isn't the first, second, or even as low as tenth time you've done it. I'm not clarifying for you just because you're unwilling to ever try and understand.

13 hours ago, Annie said:

Scientists have the credit and qualification to speak on such matters, not to mention their findings have to be reviewed by OTHER people who are accredited and qualified to speak on such matters before they're published and accepted as fact. Sorta comes off as you equating scientific research with something some dude said on a forum with no credit, no qualification, no sources, only personal anecdote.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn15012-eleven-of-the-greatest-scientific-hoaxes/

It's not infallible, don't act like it is.

1975/2019

4 hours ago, Annie said:

"I agree that global warming is happening, just not that it's mostly man made" is a common and thinly veiled form of climate change denial, and "we need to get off this planet" is a denial of responsibility to take action.

"I hate you, so I will intentionally take anything you say in the worst possible context, not the one it's obviously intended to be." - Annie

4 hours ago, Annie said:

That's every scientist ever, whether they publish a paper or not. It's not like you're going to go out and do all the science yourself just to confirm or disprove anything.

Yes/Maybe?

No you don't.

4 minutes ago, Eshanas said:

I've long looked for this browser game. It was a space  game mmo. You played as a ship. Dark UI. You could jump to points via a X-Y-Z system. Top-down view.  We're talking 2006-2007-2008. I think I found it via wikipedia but I could never find the list again even in history. I wonder if anyone else here played it?

Gonna need a bit more to go on, unless it was Solarfleet. (by Hunted Cow Studios)

Quote

 

Signature Restrictions

Please ensure your signature complies with the following restrictions:

 

✖ Images are not allowed      ✔ Images up to 600 x 100 pixels

 

This is directly from the signature edit page... Is it yes to images, or no to images?

Meh.

Yes it is.

The first one sounds like Rise of Nations: Rise of Legends, dunno about the second.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rise_of_Nations:_Rise_of_Legends

Another very important message:

That's at lower resolution and lower graphics quality than I ran the game at in 2007 with a PC from 2004! (similar framerate though)

Yes, those are the same alarms as they had in Black Mesa.

I hate having some money, but not enough to buy what I want... I'm always just so close to being able to afford things.

5 hours ago, Bilateralrope said:

Could you cite the specific law or judicial precedent which makes it illegal ?

4 hours ago, Delicieuxz said:

Do you have a source for that?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_Fraud_and_Abuse_Act

It's been abused for similar prosecutions previously, and I can guarantee that it will be abused again, especially with this ruling.

15 hours ago, Bilateralrope said:

Even if the owner of the account gives you permission to access it ?

 

Because giving permission for the new owner to access the account is an implicit part of any sale.

Yes, even then. Selling accounts is not currently legal in the USA.

3 hours ago, Bilateralrope said:

If the ruling is only that the TOS must change, then we will only get to buy and sell Steam (or other store) accounts.

Unfortunately, that will run exactly opposite existing USA law. You can actually get federal jail time for "sharing" an account like that. (if the federal government so chooses to target you thus)

I thought I was right that DosBox emulated the MT-32... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roland_MT-32#Emulation It's in both ScummVM and DosBox.

8 hours ago, RogerRoger said:

I think Ross hits the nail on the head though that this ruling swings too far to the opposite end. Yes, I want to keep my games but I also want MORE games. And let's be honest a lot of issues have to do with publishers, not devs so anything that empowers them should also be a goal here.

That's pretty much my views as well. I'll gladly give up the resell to have it digitally distributed, and once the game is left by the wayside by the devs, still playable.

7 hours ago, Delicieuxz said:

Regarding subscription services, we already have them coming out of every corner of the industry with there being no signs of that practice slowing down. So, they're here already. But it's unlikely that gamers will be willing or able to pay $50 every month to be on every subscription service that has a game they like. And subscription services cannot accommodate all games and all developers, anyway. That business model will only go so far - and it could be pretty far, but there will continue to be a for-sale game market.

The problem with this is, there will most likely be a significant increase in games being marketed in this way, (subscription model) despite the market limitations. Don't underestimate the greed of these corporations, or their shortsightedness. (businesses are notorious for going after short-term profits to the detriment of long-term stability, their shareholders and board of directors usually mandate it)

7 hours ago, Delicieuxz said:

Regarding the always-online part of your post, I don't see how online / offline changes anything about the Paris court ruling or game ownership. And so I don't expect any changes there.

The always online component allows publishers to control (to some extent) how long a game lasts. Once they shut down the server, regardless of what sort of licence they sold you, it becomes unusable. This has already happened to many games, so don't discount the publishers moving to that model. The way I hear it from some insiders is that there is already a few attempts underway to relegate several small but critical pieces of files to a login server, similar to Battlefield 3, except with smaller pieces, and more critical data that is less easily repaired without the original source. (making it effectively impossible to either pirate, play offline, or play after the company wants the game to end)

7 hours ago, Delicieuxz said:

Regarding games getting made, I don't think publishers will decide they don't want to make any money anymore just because people can resell their games. With proper fee systems in place, I think they should have their current revenue streams pretty much stable in an environment where 2nd-hand sales are enabled. Smaller developers will be protected in a 2nd-hand market situation if there are 2nd-hand game activation fees on platforms that ensure that 2nd-hand games are not cheaper than buying new from a "grey market" reseller.

There are a few problems with this.

1. I doubt publishers will be hurt significantly by this, for a while... If they start losing too much money, they'll either scale back by liquidating devs, or by switching to the subscription model. The number of perpetual licence digitally distributed games will DEFINITELY be reduced, most likely by a lot.

2. These "proper fee systems" you talk about are most likely not legal at this point. You can't legally charge someone to sell their couch on cragslist, so why should it be possible to charge people to transfer digital software? (this IS the argument that will be used) Right now, there is literally no legal framework in place to support this type of market, and introducing it with minimal or no regulation like this WILL be very detrimental to every aspect of the digital market.

All that said, most devs are likely not going to notice many changes, apart from a significantly reduced income for games that have minimal or no replayability value. (like Frostpunk)

A lot of people are looking at this as optimistically as possible... That is a mistake. Publishers and devs WILL fight this. Hard.

If you look at this with that in mind, and with regards to how well those same companies have done in the past regarding the same sort of thing, you will see that this is not going to turn out well for ANYONE. Either you'll get everything going to subscription services, or they'll be always online, or they just won't get made. (the latter is most likely what will happen to smaller devs) There is little or no chance that being able to resell digital games will help anything in any way. (except to line the pockets of a few who will game the system)

Stellaris

Trying to finish the game. but so far every time I finish all the research and rule the entire galaxy more than 800 years before the victory year.

42 minutes ago, RogerRoger said:

Since we're on the damn INTERNET just make a portion of the re-sell go back to the dev/publisher. Allow us to re-sell but insure the dev is getting part of that sale.

About as easy to enforce as laws that restrict what sex acts you can do in your home, or laws regarding private sales of firearms.