User information for m00t

Real Name
m00t
Nickname
None given.
Email
Concealed by request
Description
m00t
Homepage
None given.

Supporter

Signed On
March 4, 2003
Total Posts
418 (Amateur)
User ID
16358
Search For:
Sort Results:
Ascending
Descending
Limit Results:
 
418 Comments. 21 pages. Viewing page 5.
Newer [  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16    21  ] Older
27.
 
Re: Quote of the Day
Mar 2, 2011, 23:50
27.
Re: Quote of the Day Mar 2, 2011, 23:50
Mar 2, 2011, 23:50
 
It seems like a lot of people are missing the point he's trying to make. Yes, it is ridiculous to compare piracy to a bad review. That IS the point he's trying to make. Companies make such a massive deal about how 1 pirated copy is directly equal to lost money (actually, each pirated copy is worth about 150 times more than a copy costs judging by the numbers thrown out). Yet bad reviews also cost publishers sales, so if The Lost Sale is the big deal to them, why aren't they going after bad reviews with similar zeal? Because the concept of a Lost Sale is ridiculous. At least in the context of how DRM peddlers use it.
39.
 
Re: Gaikai Live
Feb 28, 2011, 16:39
39.
Re: Gaikai Live Feb 28, 2011, 16:39
Feb 28, 2011, 16:39
 
Verno wrote on Feb 28, 2011, 15:36:
People often believe that they should get the savings passed onto them because often times thats how the industry persuades them to adopt these services. I've heard everyone from Valve to EA claim that digital sales would lower prices and that hasn't happened.

At least as far as Valve is concerned, I'd say you're wrong. I've never seen a brick and mortar store do the kinds of sales that Steam has. Lots of stuff (even new games and pre-orders) goes on sale pretty frequently and for significant discounts. If that's not a lower price, what is? Of my 152 games, probably 90% were at or below 75% of retail price.

As for EA, well, it's EA, what do you expect?
14.
 
Re: Magicka #1 on Steam, Bug Hunt Continues
Jan 26, 2011, 13:26
14.
Re: Magicka #1 on Steam, Bug Hunt Continues Jan 26, 2011, 13:26
Jan 26, 2011, 13:26
 
I changed the port I was hosting on and then I had to use the 'invite to game' feature on my Steam friend list for people to get in (even on LAN). Lots of work to be done for this one, but the gameplay is pretty fun and for $10 it's a decent deal. I do hope they release and endless type mode similar to Torchlight. And a PvP mode with a large map (so it's not just a spawn-camp fest).
9.
 
Re: Magicka #1 on Steam, Bug Hunt Continues
Jan 26, 2011, 12:12
9.
Re: Magicka #1 on Steam, Bug Hunt Continues Jan 26, 2011, 12:12
Jan 26, 2011, 12:12
 
I had a few issues getting a multiplayer game started and the perf wasn't great. But once I opened a port (yeah, I know.) in the router I was able to play through 6 chapters with my wife and a friend. It's a lot of fun once you get in, so I assume once they sort out the general issues it'll be really popular.
2.
 
Re: Minecraft Sales Milestone, Interview
Dec 5, 2010, 15:11
2.
Re: Minecraft Sales Milestone, Interview Dec 5, 2010, 15:11
Dec 5, 2010, 15:11
 
Classic mode is a bit different from Survival (the paid version). In survival the blocks don't disappear instantly and there is a day/night cycle. You start with an empty inventory and have to work your way up to better tools. It's a bit more engaging than the Classic mode.
9.
 
Re: StarCraft II Bans
Nov 30, 2010, 23:34
9.
Re: StarCraft II Bans Nov 30, 2010, 23:34
Nov 30, 2010, 23:34
 
Icewind wrote on Nov 30, 2010, 22:41:
gilly775 wrote on Nov 30, 2010, 21:19:
StingingVelvet wrote on Nov 30, 2010, 21:12:
Yay for banning idiots from multiplayer.

Boo for that meaning they lose all access to the game after 30 days.

I don't think it's just MP. They were banning people for cheating in SP too.

That's just pathetic. You can't even run a few cheats in singleplayer? I had heard about that last time they banned people but couldn't believe it.

It's like ID banning you for using "idkfa".

Blizzard sure has changed since Activision dug their claws into them.


No, they're banning people who used hacks in single-player to circumvent the fact that using cheats would not grant them achievements. Honestly, I think they should just be stripped of their achievements and not be allowed to play online or exist on battle.net at all. If they want to hack in single player, I don't care, but Blizzard is entirely within their rights to prevent the outcome of those hacks from appearing on their service.

If you use the built-in cheats it prevents you from gaining achievements during the game you used them but you won't be banned.
8.
 
Re: Sid Meier's Civilization V Patched
Oct 22, 2010, 23:03
8.
Re: Sid Meier's Civilization V Patched Oct 22, 2010, 23:03
Oct 22, 2010, 23:03
 
Sigh, still crashes just the exact same way.
3.
 
Re: Sid Meier's Civilization V Patched
Oct 22, 2010, 13:49
3.
Re: Sid Meier's Civilization V Patched Oct 22, 2010, 13:49
Oct 22, 2010, 13:49
 
Nooooo I'm so close to the end. It crashes at the start of the same turn every time. Hopefully it'll last until I finish. We'll see though.
1.
 
Re: Sid Meier's Civilization V Patched
Oct 22, 2010, 13:24
1.
Re: Sid Meier's Civilization V Patched Oct 22, 2010, 13:24
Oct 22, 2010, 13:24
 
FINALLY I CAN FINISH MY GAME (I hope!)
3.
 
Re: Plants vs Zombies Steam Patch
Sep 12, 2010, 00:33
3.
Re: Plants vs Zombies Steam Patch Sep 12, 2010, 00:33
Sep 12, 2010, 00:33
 
I have the steam version and I have a Zombie Creator in my game. Zombatar, to be specific. I don't think the zombie shows up in game, it just saves a picture of it that you can use as an avatar on message boards.


Also, I had no problem using the steam cloud storage. My save came through just fine.
36.
 
Re: Blizzard's PC Stance
Aug 11, 2010, 14:32
36.
Re: Blizzard's PC Stance Aug 11, 2010, 14:32
Aug 11, 2010, 14:32
 
I agree with what you're saying, m00t. But it's not what I meant exactly.

GPUs should indeed still have different features and all, and be different from eachother as a whole, but wouldn't it be a good thing if they all had this same... well, let's say basic technology. PC game developers can then build their games on that basis. In this way, I think (but my logic may be flawed since I'm no expert) games shouldn't have to crash anymore on one GPU and work fine on another. Same with CPUs.

Well, you would think. But even within a single company this isn't the case. nVidia, AMD, Intel, and other chip mfgs revise their core technologies from time to time. Even Intel chips only implement the x86 interface in microcode and run a somewhat more RISC like architecture at it's core. OpenGL and DirectX are an attempt to insulate developers from the differences in hardware implementation, but even then some hardware bugs creep through. Drivers are filled with per-game / per-card combinations of fixes for one problem or another.

Also I think the technology is still evolving too fast to settle down. Backwards compatibility, while useful, is also a huge bottle-neck in terms of growing the capabilities of a design. Look at Windows. Many of the backwards compatibility features are really just preserving the behavior of bugs that people started to rely on. This adds complexity and leaves potential vulnerabilities.
4.
 
Re: Blizzard's PC Stance
Aug 10, 2010, 21:07
4.
Re: Blizzard's PC Stance Aug 10, 2010, 21:07
Aug 10, 2010, 21:07
 
No. It would harm computing significantly and would likely incur anti-trust lawsuits from the government. The competition (what there is of it) is good and, theoretically, helps keep the prices lower.

Also, a lot of the compatibility issues often stem from board makers like Asus (not saying Asus is a culprit, just an example of a separate board maker) and not necessarily from the graphics chip itself.

That said, it's not like consoles are immune to hardware issues. The original XBox had problems with it's DVD drive, and the 360, well, let's just say we invented a new phrase to encompass the scope of fail.
14.
 
Re: Natural Selection 2 Alpha Tonight
Jul 27, 2010, 13:18
14.
Re: Natural Selection 2 Alpha Tonight Jul 27, 2010, 13:18
Jul 27, 2010, 13:18
 
Sepharo wrote on Jul 27, 2010, 01:40:
I fail to see any wisdom in releasing an alpha quality client to paying customers. 1% will recognize what an alpha is, and the rest will just be upset that the game isn't running good at all.

Anyone that would be aware of NS2, pre-orders the special edition, and is interested in playing an alpha, knows what an alpha is.

Stardock releases its game like this too. Let's the fans be a part of polishing and balancing the game to something great. They plan on doing nearly weekly updates from here on out.


Sadly I've already seen a handful of people complaining "how dare they release the game in this state. We're paying customers!!!!!11" and demanding refunds. It's almost like they think that devs finish the game months/years ahead of time for some reason.
1.
 
Re: Time of Deviance Ending
Jul 21, 2010, 13:12
1.
Re: Time of Deviance Ending Jul 21, 2010, 13:12
Jul 21, 2010, 13:12
 
Blue, it's "Time of Defiance" according to their web page.
8.
 
Re: Blizzard Relents on Real ID
Jul 9, 2010, 20:55
8.
Re: Blizzard Relents on Real ID Jul 9, 2010, 20:55
Jul 9, 2010, 20:55
 
My bet is that Activision (Er, not the Blizzard unit) saw things this way:
1) Real names are needed to "Social Media" integration
2) They were spending a fair amount of time(=$$) on forum moderation.

And the best plan they could come up with is to force people to use real names on the forums in the hopes that no one would troll under their real name (hint: they will, but regular users likely won't post at all because anyone could attack them outside the forums with near impunity).

Most Blizzard unit folks immediately said "no, this is a bad idea". If you read their responses, they're not exactly glowing with praise for the new system. But since they're part of Activision they had to do it because they didn't have enough leverage they were willing to put on the table to block it out right, so they announced the plan on the forums hoping there would be enough user backlash to show Activision what a terrible idea it was without having to burn bridges internally.

Or I can hope anyway. If Blizzard unit folks were genuinely in favor of this then it's only a matter of time before it comes to pass in spite of the current rage against it. For me, the original spirit and integrity of Blizzard will be finally dead at that point.
2.
 
Re: Dawn of War II Patch Plans
Jun 9, 2010, 20:49
2.
Re: Dawn of War II Patch Plans Jun 9, 2010, 20:49
Jun 9, 2010, 20:49
 
I'm fond of Base building in general (or SimCity as some call it), but the fact that it's not a factor in DOW2 makes it easy to play with my wife as we can just focus our attention on our units and not have to jump around the map a lot.
4.
 
Re: Blizzard on DRM
May 26, 2010, 22:20
4.
Re: Blizzard on DRM May 26, 2010, 22:20
May 26, 2010, 22:20
 
It's almost never been a question of whether we WANT to be connected, but one of what happens when we simply CAN'T be but still want to LAN or even play single player.

That said, I'd at least like the option of not showing up online when I play.
10.
 
Re: Warner Sued for Antipiracy Piracy
May 26, 2010, 16:48
10.
Re: Warner Sued for Antipiracy Piracy May 26, 2010, 16:48
May 26, 2010, 16:48
 
Seriously? Someone has a patent on that? It's so obvious it hurts, nevermind the fact that schemes like this have been used for CENTURIES.
10.
 
Re: Battle.net Real ID Details
May 7, 2010, 13:30
10.
Re: Battle.net Real ID Details May 7, 2010, 13:30
May 7, 2010, 13:30
 
Do all of your friends have authenticators? Do you trust everyone that they give their password to?
4.
 
Re: Battle.net Real ID Details
May 6, 2010, 16:35
4.
Re: Battle.net Real ID Details May 6, 2010, 16:35
May 6, 2010, 16:35
 
I think it's funny because it basically does away with any sort of privacy on battle.net

Sometimes you just want to play in peace and not be bothered by people.
418 Comments. 21 pages. Viewing page 5.
Newer [  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16    21  ] Older