I think you are all right (if that makes sense
I think you are all right (if that makes sense
Valve has done more damage to first-sale doctrine than everyone else combined (with regards to games). The EU has taken notice of that and has been taking action. What Valve has done with Steam will probably bring down legislation upon everyone, including Microsoft to make the point moot.
Also it does kind of suck that the option to convert from disc-to-digital was removed as part of the backtrack. All games are installed to the hard drive prior to being playable whether from disc or digital. I don't sell my games back to places like GameStop so obviously I have a different take than those that do.
This is kind of in support of what you're saying (innovative stuff) so don't take it as a counter post, but a supportive post clarifying part of what they were trying to do for anyone reading it.
Steam Library Sharing, while progressive, is not nearly as good as what Microsoft was trying to do (and to a limited point actually did) with the family sharing.
Owning two XBOX One machines, I do not have to buy every game twice for me and my wife. She can play on my Home Xbox and I can use my Roaming License on the other Xbox so that we can both play the same game at the same time.
With steam only one user can access the library at a time.
If Microsoft could have expanded the licensing to the entire family (instead of just giving one home xbox license and one roaming license) then a family would only need to buy a single license for a game and the entire family could play it at home on separate xboxes. Steam does not do this. In fact, almost nobody does this aside from GOG. You typically need to buy the game for each family member (whether disc or digital) or play one at a time.
Single people and people with only one xbox are not affected by this as much as those with multiple machines. Blizzard used to do something similar with their games (spawns).
tldr; Microsoft gives users two (2) licenses for each digital game that they purchase on Xbox One.
Xbox Home Gold Sharing (digital game and xbox live gold sharing) > Steam Library Sharing, assuming you have more than one person in your family that games.
This is misleading. Once you have at least 128GB of ram then most of Chrome's features are able to be loaded and then it becomes the safest browser. Edge may only be safer in situations where users have less than 128GB of ram...
Microsoft believes they know what's best for their services and/or products. Whether that is true or not is moot. You the freedom of using different services/products. Who are you to tell them what they can and can't do with their products and/or services? Speak with your money if you disagree with it.
I haven't looked at all of the OPs linked articles, but are quality or accuracy pretty bad in them?
The headline didn't seem too sensationalist and the summary actually listed the best and worst from the article.
There doesn't seem to be an over abundance of ads on the page, though there are some links to the right.
Clickbait makes me thing of posts/articles that weigh revenue over content (though that's my opinion). Just because a person only links to one site (maybe it's a site employee) doesn't necessarily mean there's not interesting/relevant information in those articles.
It may be clickbait, or it may not be based upon more criteria than ''Every article posted by submitter has a link to news.sciencemag.org."
Clickbait is a pejorative term describing web content that is aimed at generating online advertising revenue, especially at the expense of quality or accuracy, relying on sensationalist headlines to attract click-throughs and to encourage forwarding of the material over online social networks. Clickbait headlines typically aim to exploit the "curiosity gap", providing just enough information to make the reader curious, but not enough to satisfy their curiosity without clicking through to the linked content.
I'd say that A decent size monitor, full sized keyboard, and mouse is the current dominant form factor for getting work done. Whether they are connected to a desktop or mobile device is irrelevant to our physiology.
That said, performance of the device connected to the monitor, keyboard, and mouse is what should be considered for productivity.
source: See computing history from mainframes to minicomputers to microcomputers to mobile devices for their form factor relevance..
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...
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.
Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man -- who has no gills. -- Ambrose Bierce