Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! ×

Comment Not seeing a problem here. (Score 2) 126

Doubtless there will be volumous FUD in relation to this technology, however I don't see there being a problem here. Consider a book shop. This technology could be utilised to provide the book shop with verifiable information regarding what the most popular categories of books are and thus enable them to make informed decisions about which departments / shelves / sections to expand and which they could safely contract. The end effect being that customers gain access to a greater variety of books concerning their favourite subject and the store is empowered to make the most efficient use of the space available to them. If it were possible to track and more significantly identify people via this technology then I'd agree that there would be privacy issues that ought to be dealt with prior to the system being used, however the linked article quite specifically mentions that scenario as being deliberately impossible.

Comment Unsurprised (Score 1) 313

I wish I could say I'm amazed / outraged by this. As it is I'm barely surprised. As others have commented the pay-per-play revenue model seems to be the chosen policy towards which certain publishers appear to be incrementally heading. When I say 'certain publishers', EA and Ubisoft - I'm looking at you. Now we could argue endlessly about the merits of the "piracy is destroying the industry" argument that most such publishers put forwards as the sole defence of their actions, however I have the following observations: 1) This is the upper boundary of the sophistication of the publisher's argument. It isn't a sophisticated dialectic. 2) Most reasonably intelligent gamers are more than able to clearly see through this argument and identify the PPP model as a barely concealed attempt at revenue maximisation. 3) Does everyone remember a few years ago when the average price of a PC game increased from £30 to £35? It hurt a bit, but most players (and thus customers) ultimately accepted it because they were still being treated with a modicum of respect by the publishers. No attempt was made to masquerade the price increase as anything else. 4) My personal view is that the efforts to which developers go to create the games that we love requires renumeration. Games do and should cost money. OK, I think the price for games is a little too high, but I do not and will not pirate games. However 5) I think that what disgusts most players is being treated like thieves by publishing houses who's cynical view appears to be that their customers are insuficiently intelligent to recognise when they're being fleeced by an unsophisticated but greedy revenue model and are simmultaneously subject to arbitrary and draconian restrictions on the use of software that they legitimately purchased. I'd like to single out Stardock as an exemplary publisher. No DRM, not even disk checks. Which is why I've happily and enthusiastically purchased ALL the DLC for Sins of a Solar Empire. Isn't this exactly how we want developers / publishers to behave? They should be enthusiastically supported...

Slashdot Top Deals

Stinginess with privileges is kindness in disguise. -- Guide to VAX/VMS Security, Sep. 1984