Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Brand un-value (Score 1) 137

by fuzzyfuzzyfungus (#48478611) Attached to: Ubisoft Apologizes For Assassin's Creed
It doesn't help now that 'brands' aren't just a sticker on the box. They increasingly (getting to the 'alarmingly frequently' and likely heading toward the dystopian future of 'forever, across every platform!') also tell you what (terrible) online 'service' you'll have to create an account for and what god-awful launcher/store/spyware/'social' clusterfuck you'll be forced to install.

If it were just about the label on the box, I'd be cautious about EA, and really cautious about Ubisoft; but hey, if the reviews end up actually being good, or a friend recommends it, or even if it initially sucked but was patched back to health, I'd be willing to agree that they've done better than usual and give it a try.

Now that everyone wants to have their own distribution platform and monetize the social friendscape and so on, though, that's less of an option. Ubisoft game that looks interesting? Well, "U-Play" sure as hell doesn't. No sale.

Comment: Re:Bugs are DRM (Score 1) 137

by fuzzyfuzzyfungus (#48478573) Attached to: Ubisoft Apologizes For Assassin's Creed
I'd certainly only want the ones who appear to have grown out of illicitly releasing games into the underground(or, at very least, agreeing only to release other people's games, not the one that they are working on); but aside from that little issue, "Voluntarily grovelled through game binaries and assets stripping out DRM and poking various things in exchange for nothing more than amusement and possible recognition" sounds like a pretty promising set of qualifications.

Comment: Re:Fix it? (Score 1) 137

by fuzzyfuzzyfungus (#48478233) Attached to: Ubisoft Apologizes For Assassin's Creed
The ghastly plague of pre-orders certainly feeds the cynical pump 'n dump of lousy, unfinished, games; but I'd be interested to know how the incentives for fixing work out:

Can you reverse the plunge of a really buggy launch by fixing it? If so, how quickly and how completely do you have to have a fix in place?

Is a bad launch effectively irreversible; but a solid patching effort can make a substantial difference in 'second-run' sales in the $20-$30 versions and 'Gold' re-release-with-DLC versions?

Is the game effectively tainted permanently; but 'they fucked up; but then they eventually fixed it' a memory more likely to get you to pre-order the sequel than 'they fucked up, then did nothing'?

Ideally, of course, they'd fix it because it's the right thing to do (and some of the humans involved in the game's production might even feel that way); but I doubt that the publisher, as a corporate colony organism, gives a damn about that, so it'd be interesting to know where the money is when it comes to fixing or not fixing a game.

Comment: Re:Bugs are DRM (Score 1) 137

by fuzzyfuzzyfungus (#48478193) Attached to: Ubisoft Apologizes For Assassin's Creed
I'd still be annoyed at having to re-buy it because the CD and all the patches didn't work correctly; but (as someone who lost their CD fair and square, by good old fashioned incompetence and disorganization on my part rather than theirs) I think it's fair to note that GoG thankfully has this one, and it was worth my $6.

Comment: Re:Unexpected technical issues (Score 4, Insightful) 137

by fuzzyfuzzyfungus (#48478127) Attached to: Ubisoft Apologizes For Assassin's Creed
Let's put it this way: When a game doesn't suck publishers generally don't embargo reviews until 12 hours after release...

Even games that end up releasing in pretty dubious shape often manage to score fairly positive pre-launch press through some combination of assurances that 'those little issues won't be in the final version, just see the promise!' and the degree to which the reviewer depends on the goodwill of the publisher for future access, so if reviewers aren't allowed to talk about it even after it is on the shelves, you might want to run away. Maybe pick it up for $20 a year from now, if they actually do fix it.

Comment: Re:Bugs are DRM (Score 1) 137

by fuzzyfuzzyfungus (#48478075) Attached to: Ubisoft Apologizes For Assassin's Creed
The difference is obviously academic if nobody actually does it; but do the various auto-updaters of today attempt to resist, by some DRMish means, archiving of updates as they are received, such that you could either do an offline 'replay' of each update against a retail copy, or preserve a final working version(depending on whether updates are delivered as replacements or as deltas)?

I assume that consoles do, if only because consoles are extremely touchy by nature about anything going in or out(aside from maybe DLNA streaming and such) without being explicitly blessed; but I don't know about the PC side. Have updaters been sucked in to the wonderful world of DRM, or are they still mostly an honest-if-sometimes-incompetent download and patch utility?

Comment: Re:Unexpected technical issues (Score 4, Insightful) 137

by fuzzyfuzzyfungus (#48478041) Attached to: Ubisoft Apologizes For Assassin's Creed
I suspect that this was not the cause of the failure to find the raging pile of bugs in the PS4 and XBox One versions, since there isn't much hardware variation among released models.

Much more plausible (if still an example of terrible testing practice) with any bugs in the PC version that can be linked to a specific GPU driver version or the like. Even there, though, PC gamers(of the type interested in new-release action games) may not have the newest hardware; but tend to be fairly good about updating GPU drivers and DirectX runtimes.

Comment: Re:All or nothing (Score 1) 72

by fuzzyfuzzyfungus (#48477767) Attached to: Researchers Discover an "Off Switch" For Pain In the Brain
It might not work in young children (see also 'congenital insensitivity to pain' and the unpleasant self-inflicted/accidental injuries that children with it wrack up); but as a now more or less mentally competent adult I'd really be in favor of replacing pain with something more informative and less painful. Maybe SNMP.

Comment: Re:Egg subst battery farm "free range" (Score 1) 43

by jensend (#48477399) Attached to: Interviews: The Hampton Creek Team Answers Your Questions

I'm not saying "let's stop calling free range meat 'free range' and start applying that label to plants." If you seriously thought I was then your reading comprehension skills need a lot of work.

Most people who buy "free range" or "organic" food feel a moral passion about it because they think they're doing something positive for the environment, animal welfare, or both. They are dead wrong. The organic and free range food craze is not an environmental benefit but an environmental menace. That's what I was saying.

If your purchases of free range or organic food are only motivated by taste, then my earlier post doesn't really address you at all. But "tastes more like I think it's supposed to" is a lousy gluttonous excuse for taking actions that lead to ecological disaster.

Comment: Re:People eat grass? (Score 1) 43

by jensend (#48477143) Attached to: Interviews: The Hampton Creek Team Answers Your Questions

You don't need to. Livestock require 8-20x more land per gram of protein produced than plant based protein sources. Switching entirely to plant based foods would allow returning >90% of that land to its natural state and growing crops only on the most suitable 10%.

(Of course, the shift in land use need not be entirely restricted to those lands; if livestock were abandoned the protein crops needed to replace them could be grown anywhere, not just on land formerly used for livestock. And your 80% figure is wrong anyways- it could be close to the total percent of that used for grazing, but most certainly not for the portion of that which is "unsuitable for growing anything except grass.")

Comment: Re:Egg subst battery farm "free range" (Score 1) 43

by jensend (#48477115) Attached to: Interviews: The Hampton Creek Team Answers Your Questions

Diabetes is actually less common in vegetarians than the general population, and diabetes has a strong positive correlation with overall meat intake.

The insistence that the type of carbohydrate doesn't matter to diabetes risk is absolutely false. Plenty of plant based foods contain sufficient calories without causing problems with blood sugar.

Protein intake in many first world countries, especially the US, is hugely higher than it has been in any other era of the world. People subsisted just fine off grains and beans for millennia, without the high incidence of diabetes that exists in today's age of high meat intake and high refined sugar intake.

There is no royal road to geometry. -- Euclid

Working...