meh, to correct myself again... I forgot to mention the Wizkids MechWarrior line which does actually blur the lines between the two non-video game systems..

so yeah.. BattleTech/MechWarrior is just as much MechAssault as it is MPBT3025. The only thing that really matters is which form of gameplay on that scale the developers had in mind...though that apparently can change on a whim too :-)

You're right. I had remembered them when I wrote the reply, but did not think to mention them as an exception, which I should have.

Thanks for driving my point home with that.

With those included now, I guess the video game versions of BattleTech and MechWarrior could probably include everything from turn-based strategy, first person simulation, to arcade action robot fighting.

With video games concerned, the basic definition of a MechWarrior or Battletech game nowadays across the board is something with big robots fighting each other, which could include the playstyles of games like Armored Core, Robotech (that one's obvious since they shared IP previously), or even Virtual-On (see MechAssault), but with the BattleTech/MechWarrior IP (either the current or the Harmony Gold stuff they borrowed back in the day).

The only sense of separation between MechWarrior and Battletech has to be with the tabletop/pen and paper versions. As for video games, well, I guess anything goes.

I'm just nitpicking here, but I think you mistakenly said Battletech when I figure you meant MechWarrior.

Specifically, BattleTech has ALWAYS been some sort of 3rd person tactics game, whether tabletop or the old Crescent Hawk games.

MechWarrior, on the other hand, has been anything from a Mech Simulator ( which , funnily enough, was Multi-Player BattleTech 3025), semi-casual simulators such as the MechWarrior games, or arcade shooters such as the MechAssault games - as well as the original pen and paper MechWarrior..

These developers originally said it would follow the mold of something like Multi-Player BattleTech 3025, which was more mech combat simulator, and in effect may be turning it into something in between that and MechWarrior 4 (a more arcade/casual MechWarrior).

The problem with the franchise itself is that over the years the lines have been blurred between what was BattleTech (turn-based strategy) and what was MechWarrior.

For BattleTech, you have the old Crescent Hawk and Mech Commander games.

For MechWarrior, though, there was never just one type of digital game. It kinda went all over the grid, from the original MechWarrior, to the more casual MW2-MW4 to the very arcadish MechAssault games. MPBT3025 was really close to THE online mech combat simulator game before it got canceled. MechWarrior Tactics (another current online game) blurs the name in the other direction - it really should have been call Battletech.

tldr; You are right about the fanbase and the developers. The developers are indeed changing the game into something different than originally projected, however the MechWarrior and BattleTech franchises have really lost most of their meaning over the decades since their original conception, with lines very blurry between the two 'different' aspects of the same game universe.

I have been a fan of both BattleTech and MechWarror over the years. I enjoyed the pen and paper/miniatures versions of the games and various incarnations of the video games. I love the Crescent Hawk series as good BattleTech play.. I loved the origina MechWarrior and settled for the MechWarrior 2 -4 games (not a really big fan of 4, too fast-paced and arcady for me) and my favorite was probably MultiPlayerBattleTech3025 (which was canceled).

heh, after I made this comment...
http://developers.slashdot.org/story/13/01/16/236215/another-java-exploit-for-sale

Well, obviously there are at least two directions one can approach this question.

From the malicious user's standpoint, Java has been outperforming C# by a very large margin and will probably continue to do so.

Well, nothing out there consumer broadband that I'm familiar with is truly unlimited in the first place. They usually have 3 characteristics that are limited: time available for use, speed available for use, amount of data available to download.

In this case, 1 of those items is truly unlimited while the other 2 are not. You have an unlimited amount of data available to download during your plan. The speed and the length of time that data is available is up to the company. An alternative mentioned previously is the ipad plan. It is not unlimited (nor called that) because they changed the way it worked soon after release. It is limited in all 3 senses: their speed, maximum amount of time you can use it, and the amount of data is limited because when you use it up they either cut you off or you buy another plan. Compared to that, this plan has an unlimited characteristic. They do not cut you off early, no matter how much you use it or how often you use it. They merely adjust the speed at which you can use it.

Realistically, I guess none of these are unlimited. I have multiple internet connections, all at 15+mbps down and load balanced. I would consider anything less to be limited.

The real question is what criteria do you use to determine if something is unlimited? I don't believe anyone uses speed as a criteria nowadays as that's a variable spot to hit. B2B's normal 3mbps not unlimited but the slowdown of the new ToS is? Nah, 3mbps is pretty limited when you're used to faster. Obviously they do not cut you off so the access is not limited, whereas others cut you off completely. The time is obviously limited as it is in most cases where you pay for broadband - the lifetime of the plan, at which point you have to pay again.

So, how does this change the service from unlimited to limited when it was previously time limited, you do not get cut off early for downloading x amount of data, and only the speed has changed (but still something above 0)?

SPECIFICALLY, this question is directed towards those crying foul about it changing and 'no longer being unlimited'. NOT towards those that do not feel it should have been called unlimited in the first place. This is to cut off people arguing the other question about whether ANY broadband service should be called unlimited so long as it has any (time, speed, amount available to download) limits. I really hope there are mod points available for people that skim this response and reply that it should not have been limited in the first place.

So, why does changing the speed, not changing the length of time of the plan, and not removing the ability to access the internet at all, change it in some folks eyes from unlimited to limited - people that thought it was ok to previously call it unlimited and not now?

Several people mentioned things like downloading linux distros, or SDKs. Yeah, I download both, and more, and I can't even imagine doing those (simultaneously as I frequently do) on a 3mbps connection, so that really becomes relative to what the user is used to. Some people still download stuff like Runes of Magic (many, many GBs of data) on 128kbps connections and are perfectly fine with it. You, from the release, may still be able to do these things, just at a slower speed than you were used to.

I may have read the post wrong. It just sounded like it was ok to call it unlimited previously, but now it is not. To be clear, it ALWAYS had caps. The only cap that changed was speed, and that change is triggered based upon how much is downloaded.

LAST SECOND EDIT:
As someone else mentioned, this is closer to a true "Unlimited Data Plan" than most others. Many others actually will cut you off cold-turkey. This one still gives you access to the data, but alters the already existing speed cap to a slower rate. The time cap is not altered at all (unlike other plans) and it remains the same - however long the plan was to begin with. No new caps are introduced. The speed cap was altered. Unlike other companies the time cap is not altered and the data access is not cut off.

That's a trick question because those two snippets of code you posted do two different things.

Scenario 1
    typical user will blame the software not knowing any better and hearing about other crashes from others with the software

Scenario 2
    the type of user that would not realize he needs to clean his computer or puts his computer into that kind of situation will blame the software, obviously not realizing he did wrong.

Congratulations, you are definitely not someone that needs to market a product. You should be a lawyer. Your points are logical, yet any company you market for will spend more money via customer service 'educating' these clueless customers than would have been spent by setting a 'modifiable for future hardware' frame cap in the config file.

It's not always about blame. Most of the time in the business it is about perception of blame. It looks like Blizz is taking action as they probably realize this.

Something that is not their fault has put a blemish on their fabulous release, yet it could have been prevented by realizing a large chunk of its customer-base does not know any better.

So really, how much is an image worth...

no, it's not up to them, but it would be prudent for them to take that into account. It won't hurt anything by doing so, and it will probably prevent much unwarranted blame by not doing so. After all, the world doesn't work around who's right or wrong, it works around perception. If hundreds of thousands of people don't know enough about their computers to blame anything but the new game they just installed, then that new game is going to take the flak, whether it is deserved or not.

basically they have to either suck it up and cap the framerate or educate their pissed off customers (the ones having problems). One definitely seems easier than the other.

It looks like Blizz has responded with the temp fix, and possibly will patch the game to default to the frame cap.

When dealing with customers it's not usually about convincing them they are stupid. It's about making them forget there's a problem so they'll buy more of your product and be happy. Offering a config file patch will probably cost less money overall than the amount wasted on customer support trying to educate the customer to the problem. It will also divert blame away from Blizzard (which is obviously not to blame).

Each thing like this that hits the news detracts from the overall release of any game or product. If you know most of your players are going to be running on work computers, laptops, or old family computers, then take that into account so as not to detract from an otherwise fabulous release.

By the way, I wanted to thank T-Murder78 on the playstation boards for discovering this fact and writing up the post for everyone. I did not mention him in the summary, hence this post.

even with the link you got it wrong.. 1 kB/s is definied as 1024 bytes per second (capitalization matters)..

Just because computers always did it another way doesn't make it right or wrong. What Ubuntu wants to do it reconcile computer measurements back into SI units, which are base 10. It does not make it wrong, it just makes it different. It doesn't mean that it was always that way, it just mean in the future it WILL be that way, at least with regards to Ubuntu.

Heh, I remember when Pluto was a planet.

That's a traditional case of society vs individual.. Allow the person to 'fix' or change themselves and you put the individual over the society. Prevent them from doing so in order to minimize society's loss and you put the society over the individual.

Basically it's about whether that individual has the choice or the society has the choice.

That leads down another road of course of putting society before the individual.

forgot to login.