Well if you weren't to busy trying to be clever for a first post, you would have understood that its not about JUST RealDVD, but rather the fact that the hollywood studios managed to kill RealDVD on potential piracy grounds.

Over Half of Software Fails First Security Tests. Well that good, now i want the second half to be tested to.

I actually liked Episode 1-3. No trolling. I did !
I liked the new style, even tho it's not "Star Wars", but i still liked it.
He painted an epic world with an infinite amount of possible side stories and spin-offs.

He described a world more then actual characters.

You combo-broke 4 troll mods with a +3 funny. I'd say that's quite a skill you have there.

Well, The Simpsons is ~21 years old. That makes the kids at least 30 years old.

I go and take a smoke every 1-2h, and walk up and down 3 stories of stairs every time. Am i in risk ?
I KNEW there were good sides of smoking !!

Im all for this idea. Some problems do still exist.

1. It's kind of future tech. The majority of all major browsers do support all this cool stuff. The minority that do NOT, still hogs most users.
2. What Adobe is selling is the Flash IDE. I hate it, but most flash "programmers" use it, and is quite unwilling to actually learn to program. JavaScript/Canvas do not have such an IDE.

When IE6, IE7 and IE8 is gone, then we can start thinking of actually use this stuff.
When there is a proper IDE for this stuff, we can start seeing the flash "programmers" migrating.

As an extra bonus, 3. Most people that do flash aint very open source-y in nature. Most bigger flash studios use obfuscators "to protect their product".

Security cards SHOULD only be one part of a key and should never be used as a primary means of authentication.
You have your card to initialise the authentication, then you use something else as the second key, like something as simple as a PIN code.

A security card is ALOT simpler to snatch then trying to figure our your PIN code. And together, it's a shit load of work, even for the most experienced intruder.

I think sopssa (the first guy who replied to me) actually had a good point.

Its a bit depending on what publisher it is, some of them do the best of it and actually integrates the games style into the presentation.

This is almost the always case with movies (shown at the cinema). You rarely see "game-style" introduction to a movie. It's most of the time part of the ACTUAL movie, and the majority of the time elegantly presented, and part of the build up.

(i am aware that there is alot of movies that has both the "game-style" presentation and the more cinematic way)

But now your putting a bit to much blame on EA. DICE is the studio that made it. Even though EA is renowned for putting shit loads of pressure on there studios, DICE are still the once that made an extremely buggy game.
Specially when DICE is the LEAST affected of all EA studios. Fuck DICE is even listed as its own "country" on jobs.ea.com, because of there freedom to move and produce.

The problem with EA (for the studios) is that EA screams louder.

What is the first thing you see in a EA game ? That damn EA logo, then for a slip second, you see some random no name company (the studio).

The game publishing industry is trying to mimic the movie publishing industry by doing the classic " presents... a movie"-introduction.

By sad part is. The avarage gamer is a lot less intrested in who made the game, then the avarage movie enthusiast. So they only notice the EA logo and get reminded to turn off all brain activity for 5sec because, well, every one hates waiting for the game to start.

The movie industry can do this because its more or less part of the build up, and for the enthusiast, its just another reminder that this movie is made by the awesome studio, .

Back in the old days. A game would open with the studio logo, and if the publisher is lucky enought, they get there very own screen to present there name, else they would just have to do with a "published by" in the end credits.

HOW the fuck did Captain Obvious get +4 Insightful?
Ofcourse we are all going to die sooner or later. There's a differences in seeing death around the corner and hearing mythical stories of an inevitable end.

The article mentioned something about open ended worlds, score grindeing, and top scores.
This has nothing to do with an ending. If a game has a story (MMOs excepted), it will most likely have a clear cut end of the story, but if you get a chance to continue after the end is a completely different thing. Its called replay value. Take Fallout 3 as an example, it has a clear cut end, but is has a DLC that unlocks gameplay after your done. This is not to continue the story, but rather give you the opportunity to extend and fill the gaps you miss if you don't do every side quest there is in the game. I would call it a rich story with the unfortunate side effect of having to much detail for the average gamer joe to be playable if mandatory.

Most open ended games are like this.

From T-Mobile's Market to be correct.

"we'll do what we want and carriers can't stop us... at least not on other carriers networks".

Woossshhh