Well AFAIK The Dragon Age engine is based on the same engine used for KOTOR and many other Bioware games, just updated for the modern era.

Actually, it doesn't.

Mass Effect uses the Eclipse engine. This is considered a wholly new engine (although it doubtlessly shares some code from earlier projects, just because it is the same development house and performs similar functions).

Knights of the Old Republic 1 & 2 and Jade Empire used the Odyssey engine. This in turn was based on the Aurora engine, first used in the Neverwinter Nights games (as well as a number of third-party titles).

Prior to that, of course, Bioware used the venerable Infinity engine, which powered Planescape Torment, the Baldur's Gate and the Icewind Dale games.

Actually, that may not be as bad an argument as one might first think. For a long time Apple suffered from the commonly held belief that Apple computers were "toys" and therefore not intended for use in the workplace. It's one reason that IBM PC Compatibles dominated the marketplace for years.

I don't know if the claim that "iPhones are toys" would have the same effect, but it doubtlessly would be a painful reminder to Apple.

Apple already had an AOL-like online service. It was called AppleLink Personal Edition. It was run by Quantum Computer Services, who later fell out with Apple and renamed themselves... America Online.

Apple also had an older online service called AppleLink (different in all but name) and later EWorld. None of the three services were particularly successful.

Although the nature of "online services" has significantly changed since the hey-day of AOL, given this history I'm not sure Apple is all that interested in starting a fourth time.

I can. It's called the radio.

I'm working, really!

I'm working, really!

I'm glad somebody said this. Usenet may be long past its heyday (at least as a source of information; it still has more nefarious uses) but at its height it was both a valuable resource and an entertaining community.

Google shouldn't have a monopoly on this information; if the LoC considers tweets worth saving, then (non-binary) Usenet should definitely be included in their archives.

I've always preferred jozxyqk myself. Erm, I mean, I prefer to use it in Scrabble. I'd hate to have to use it in real life.

It's a perfectly valid word. It's the sound you get when you get your sexual organs trapped in something. I saw it used on TV so it must be real!

It's not my blog but I think it is a nice counterpoint to the assertion that PC gaming is dying:

Games of 2010

It lists over 150 games exclusives to the PC platform, spanning a variety of genres and game-styles. Admittedly, not all of these are big-budget commercial titles (most are) but most of them look very good. And this doesn't include any of the multi-platform titles, of which there are a great number.

Many games which are multi-platform are designed that way from the beginning; it's not as if the PC's are getting scraps grudingly scraped off the overfull plate of console gaming. Games are designed to be multiplatform from the start because they are so expensive and publishers need to target gamers regardless of what hardware they play on to recoup the costs. Fewer PC exclusives is less an indictment of the PC platform as it is of the skyrocketing costs of game development. But as evidenced by the link above, PC gaming is still going very strong.

Ultimately, you may be correct in that some publishers are more interested in killing the PC gaming market rather than finding a solution to the piracy issue. You may also be correct that publishers may further try to circumvent the market through legislation rather than actually providing a product the customer wants.

Nonetheless, my argument still stands. The grand-parent made the claim that onerous DRM justified piracy. It does not. Piracy in this case may be emotionally satisfying but legally and ethically it in no way helps solve the problem.

The only thing that will convince them to drop DRM is to hurt them enough financially so that the expense of the copy-protection no longer is worth it, but at the same time still offer them a way to make a profit (e.g., support non-DRM protected games). Pirating does the former; it does nothing for the latter.

Look, I am not lecturing against piracy. If that's what a person chooses to do, so be it; that's on their own conscious. They are probably aware of the risks they run and should be aware of the consequences not only to themselves but to the software industry. But I can't stand these false justifications people make in support of their piracy habit. If a person is going to steal, just admit you are stealing and stop trying to make it sound as they are part of some noble cause.

As far as the updating goes... Every game I've got has an option to control how the game is updated. I can tell it to only update manually if I want to. Yes, the default is to update automatically.

Except when you first install (or reinstall) the game, the update is mandatory before you play. You can turn off updates AFTER that is completed, but you have to endure that initial download.

Since there are some mods that only worked with certain versions (and were never updated) this feature has been a continuous annoyance. Furthermore, you can't chose which version you want; if you want to upgrade from version 1.0 to version 1.4, but the latest version is v1.5, you are getting v1.5.

I have no objection automatic updates for those who want it, but they need to make it so you can completely opt out and stick with the original release version if you want, or manually select the patch version you specify.

But who am I kidding? Giving customers control of the product they paid for? That'll never fly.

As funny as it may be, EA got burnt early and hard (see: Spore) and thus slowly, but surely starts to wise up regarding DRM, and it's just a matter of time until other publishers follow. The DRM war is over. We've won.

Then again, maybe not.

Using just EA as an example, all you have to do is look at the next Command & Conquer 4 game; it will require an always-on internet connection to play, even with the single-player game. Although they tout this as a benefit to the customer (it will prevent cheating) it is still DRM.

Meanwhile, Ubisoft is moving in the same direction, although at least they aren't trying to pretend it's anything but an onerous copy-protection mechanism. Valve has been using this tactic for years (their "offline mode" notwithstanding as it still requires initial authentication and then occassional access to the net to reverify) and I expect the other publishers to follow suit.

Furthermore, online DRM offers publishers so many other advantages beyond preventing piracy that it is unlikely that it will ever be dropped. It kills those pesky sales of used copies, may require users to buy additional copies for extra machines (not so much an issue with games yet, but already taking effect in operating systems), can provide a channel to gather valuable demographic information and force advertisements down the throat of customers, and ultimately may reduce the publisher's dependence on the retail channel for delivering the product.

Short of a major community uprising against DRM (which does not include a three-month gripe-fest and then buying it anyway, or pirating the game in some vain hope this will convince the publisher's of the error of their ways), I don't see a victory for the consumer in the future.

Which is a completely bullshit argument to make.

You aren't *fighting* DRM that way; you are completely justifying the need for it. The way to fight DRM is to a) not buy the game and b) let the publisher know why you are boycotting the product.

You don't have a right to play the games just because you do not like the copy-protection.

Simply stealing the product will only encourage publishers to either: a) add more DRM (either in some vain hope it will actually stymie the pirates or in an attempt to do prove to their shareholders that they are trying to do SOMETHING to protect their investment) or, b) convince them to drop the PC platform entirely.

If you want to encouraging publishers to use no or consumer-friendly forms of DRM then only buy products that meet your requirements. Stop trying to justify piracy with the fallacious argument that it will somehow teach the publishers a lesson if you pirate the game.

Another issue with adverts that seems not to be covered here is the idea that advertisers can (and are) using internet advertisments to build profiles on users. For instance, if I were a visitor to Ars Technica, they might know I have an interest in nvidia video cards and open source software based on the articles I read. However, they wouldn't know that my other interests might include doggie porn (does that exist?) or sewing frilly pink dresses as a hobby*, because I go to other websites to fulfilll those needs.

Unfortunately, advertisers can do this very thing. It is quite likely that the same advertiser who sells impressions on Ars Technica may also sell impressions on NaughtyPooch.Com or PrettyInPink.Org. All of a sudden, simply by visiting sites I might enjoy, a single company can build up a detailed picture of me.

Of course, nothing you do on the Internet is truly private; just by browsing the web I am leaving a trail of information behind me. But I've no desire to help companies compile this information into a big profile about me. Thus, I block all advertisements in order to help reduce this likelihood. Maybe this is all wasted effort. Perhaps, as they say, privacy may be dead, but I've no inclination to shovel dirt onto its corpse.

* disclaimer for the humor impaired: no, I'm really not interested in any of these things. Please do not forward me interesting links to raunchy mutts in pink dresses

This reminds of when Salon decided to put all their content behind a paywall; it seemed to make economic sense to them at the time. Unfortunately when the users hit the paywall, many of them decided the content wasn't worth their money and left for greener (and freer pastures). Not only did they stop visiting the website directly, but whenever they saw a Salon link, they did not click it because they knew there was an intervening paywall.

Some time later, Salon decided to revist the issue of paywalls and decided making their content only available to paying customers was not the best way of doing things after all. Down came the paywall. But the people they lost *still* avoided the site because -as far as they knew- the content was still only available for a fee and therefore they continued to avoid Salon entirely.

Although the paywall arguably was necessary for Salon to survive an economic rough spot, it took them years to recover (in terms of numbers of readership) from that decision. I wonder if Ars Technica may suffer the same fate; users with ad-blockers will not be able to see the content, and decide to write off the site entirely. Should Ars Technica revisit their policy, those users will have no way of knowing, since they aren't going to the website and won't hear about the change.

And let's face it: most readers of Ars Technica are more technically-inclined than the rest of the Internet, and are thus more likely to be using ad-blockers. If they follow through with this policy, this could have some severe blowback.