Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
The Almighty Buck

EA Flip-Flops On Battlefield: Heroes Pricing, Fans Angry 221

An anonymous reader writes "Ben Kuchera from Ars Technica is reporting that EA/DICE has substantially changed the game model of Battlefield: Heroes, increasing the cost of weapons in Valor Points (the in-game currency that you earn by playing) to levels that even hardcore players cannot afford, and making them available in BattleFunds (the in-game currency that you buy with real money). Other consumables in the game, such as bandages to heal the players, suffered the same fate, turning the game into a subscription or pay-to-play model if players want to remain competitive. This goes against the creators' earlier stated objectives of not providing combat advantage to paying customers. Ben Cousins, from EA/DICE, argued, 'We also frankly wanted to make buying Battlefunds more appealing. We have wages to pay here in the Heroes team and in order to keep a team large enough to make new free content like maps and other game features we need to increase the amount of BF that people buy. Battlefield Heroes is a business at the end of the day and for a company like EA who recently laid off 16% of their workforce, we need to keep an eye on the accounts and make sure we are doing our bit for the company.' The official forums discussion thread is full of angry responses from upset users, who feel this change is a betrayal of the original stated objectives of the game."

Comment Re:So what? Freedom of choice is good. (Score 1) 251

Everything in the app I mentioned is compatible under mono except for the browser integration (at least it was at that point, wouldn't swear to it now). We went with IE because the full API did what was required. I appreciate that we could have created our own API to Gecko, but from what we saw, the crucial bits were missing. More to the point our goal was to create an application that happened to have some browser functionality - not to create a rich API to a platform when a ready to use alternative was already at our disposal.

Some may not like mono, but in my experience it is a pretty decent platform.

As far as the quality of the app, I'm glad you won't be using it. You sound like someone I'd give their money back to if I ever had the pleasure of taking a support call from you. You must be a super genius to know all about it based on the presence of a single component.

Comment So what? Freedom of choice is good. (Score 2, Informative) 251

It has the ability to support older API's that aren't available on all platforms. Developers who care about maximum cross-platform reach just won't use them. On the flip-side, if it didn't allow interop with the old stuff, the current adopters would be pissed for obvious reasons.

This way the people creating Silverlight apps have freedom of choice and choice is good.

As far as IE goes, I have a product that integrates with IE. I looked closely at Webkit and Gecko. Neither one is very friendly to program against with .NET and the API's don't expose nearly as much automation capability as IE. If the maintainers of those browsers want developers to embed them in desktop apps as an alternative, they need to make an investment.

Why should Microsoft do it? As far as I know, anyone can create and distribute Silverlight components. If you want a good API for WPF/Silverlight for Gecko, talk to the Mozilla Foundation. I'd be glad to have it, but I'm not mad at Microsoft because it doesn't exist. (BTW, I am aware of GeckoFx and XulRunner. The API is very shallow compared to the IE COM interfaces.)

Comment Re:Is 7 really that different from Vista? (Score 1) 627

Speaking for myself, the things that I didn't like about Vista were lots of little things related to the shell and 7 addressed those for me. The new window manager and taskbar are huge improvements and make me a lot more productive. The multi-monitor support is also better. So, as a 'regular user' I think you'll find that it really is very different from Vista and you will like it more.

As a software developer it is really compelling. I use virtualization extensively and there are many improvements here assuming you have hardware to support it. VMWare is still the technology I use the most, but I find myself drifting toward the MS technology more and more. The OS allows you to mount a VHD as a disk. More impressively, the boot manager allows you to boot from a VHD giving it direct access to all of the hardware - even the video card.

Comment Re:This is great news if (Score 1) 275

The APIs used by all of those are public and their are plenty of third party products that use them. And, you can always use the Web services API.
I can see why you posted as AC, because the idea that someone would see using Microsoft SharePoint as a downside because the easiest way get their stuff out with Windows Explorer is just silly. If they are running Windows Servers I doubt they have an issue with using a Windows client to get the files out if they want to move them elsewhere... Not much of a lock in.

Comment Re:This is great news if (Score 2, Informative) 275

Bottom line is: avoid proprietary lock-in.

So then why are you using Google's proprietary products then?

Google makes it easy to extract your data and put it somewhere else. Sharepoint does not.

The only problem I can see with your statement is that it is completely wrong.

Getting data or files out of SharePoint is dead simple. Aside from a large number of client choices including Windows Explorer, Outlook, Excel, Access, and SharePoint Designer you can create custom interfaces. If you want to create your own interfaces, there is a well documented Web Services API, a well documented RPC API, and over course a set of components if the custom code is running on the server.

The Office apps cost money, but Windows Explorer is Windows, SharePoint Designer is free, and the only things that would stop you from using the programmatic interfaces would be a decision to them to harden security or a lack of knowledge.

Comment Re:The usual Gartner nonsense (Score 2, Interesting) 154

It wouldn't surprise me if he's right about this. I have a lot of friends who work for Microsoft in various divisions and I can say without a doubt that the rank and file of Microsoft considers Windows Mobile to be an embarrassment. They've done a piss-poor job with the platform for years now and everyone knows it.

Handhelds

First Look At Palm's Mojo SDK 128

snydeq writes "Peter Wayner puts Palm's Mojo SDK through its paces and finds the general outline of the system solid and usable despite 'numerous rough edges and dark, undocumented corners.' The main draw, of course, is the reliance on HTML, CSS, and JavaScript, which lower the barriers to entry, though with Mojo, HTML and JavaScript do at times work against each other, with JavaScript occasionally 'wiping out anything you do with HTML.' But more than anything, Wayner sees the current version of Mojo as 'merely the start of access to a very fertile platform. 'Developers are actively digging into the Linux foundations of the Pre and finding they can build tools that work with the raw guts of the machine. Some are talking about writing Java services underneath,' Wayner writes, pointing to sites such as PalmOpenSource.com and PreCentral.net that are cataloging dozens of apps that come complete with the source code. 'I know people are doing similar things with the iPhone — such as selling the source to people who must install it themselves — but the entire scene emerging around Palm has a much more organic and creative vibe. It's not getting hung up on parsing and reparsing the App Store rules.'"

Comment FTC Advertising Guidelines (Score 2, Interesting) 524

I think Microsoft is over the line with this campaign from a legal standpoint and will get the smackdown from the FTC.
Fromt the STATEMENT OF POLICY REGARDING COMPARATIVE ADVERTISING http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/policystmt/ad-compare.htm.

"The Commission has supported the use of brand comparisons where the bases of comparison are clearly identified. Comparative advertising, when truthful and non-deceptive, is a source of important information to consumers and assists them in making rational purchase decisions."

If the page "Clearly Identifies" the basis of the comparison, I don't see it.

And

"Some industry codes which prohibit practices such as "disparagement," "disparagement of competitors," "improper disparagement," "unfairly attacking," "discrediting," may operate as a restriction on comparative advertising. The Commission has previously held that disparaging advertising is permissible so long as it is truthful and not deceptive."

As many others have pointed out, several of the claims are, to put it generously, a stretch.

Slashdot Top Deals

UNIX is hot. It's more than hot. It's steaming. It's quicksilver lightning with a laserbeam kicker. -- Michael Jay Tucker

Working...