Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


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 F2P CEO Thinks everybody should do it his way (Score 1) 435

Forgetting that while last generation games were much cheaper ($40 - $50 for AAA titles), the generations before that were much more expensive. There were $60-$75 N64 games, $60-$75 Genesis games. $60 is not a bad price. Do I even need to bring up Neo Geo AES when that was released?

All that is, is a F2P CEO trying to say how other methods are not working and how his method is working, which means we should go ahead and go to the Nexon website so we can game the way he wants us to.

At least when I pay $60 for a game, I know that if I lose to somebody online, it is not because that person dropped $100 for a set of armor, but because they are more skilled than me.

Yeah, after awhile when trying to play Gunbound, it is near impossible to do even any damage of dudes who are all modded out from spending money on their characters while they can take you out in a single hit or 2.

F2P = whoever drops the most money on that game wins.

$60 = whoever is more skilled wins.

Comment Not Sure about this one (Score 1) 309

Call of Duty STILL breaking pre-order records for each iteration would beg to differ about this. I consider myself a huge gamer and know far too many people who are also into games, and only 1 of them plays smartphone/tablet/Apple games. Maybe if all you do is hang around people who play games on occasion or are very casual gamers, then sure, it would make sense. Just because that is all you are around does not mean that your conclusion should be that everybody is like you or everybody around you sums up everybody on the planet. Way to stereotype there based only on what is around you

Comment Re:At least I know why I'm paying for on Live now (Score 1) 162

The only really big shutdowns aside from a very, VERY slim few games (with how many games have been out, I would say many of the launch titles getting taken offline few), the only time when taking games offline ever comes into play is when EA does it (EA, as far as I know, is the only company that uses their own servers instead of the M$ servers).

Comment Uh... (Score -1, Flamebait) 256

They are cows. We are raising them to eat them. We are not raising them as pets. Some people are slightly more rough on the food, but it is just food. What's next, Africa picking up on this and outlawing lions from playing with the gazelles? No, we are a dominate species and are going to eat these. Hitting them only tenderizes the meat a little more. My meal just happens to still be partially alive when it is tenderized

Comment Damnit America (Score 2) 340

Deal with your problems and stop trying to deal with other countries problems. You guys have poverty and unemployment rates through the roof, but you are wasting federal resources to try and get some young kid over there to prosecute him. Just an example, last night I was bored and found an Obama interview where he was asked about making Medical Marijuana a Federal Law so that the Feds can stop doing what they do. He said he supported it, but had much bigger issues to use federal resources on. Apparently one of those bigger issues is shipping kids here from the UK who pirate stuff. Seriously America, let us handle our own people breaking laws. We have it taken care of. You don't need to ship our boy over there to punish him when we can do that just fine.

Comment Lots of stuff would be effected (Score 1) 239

Cover bands would be no more (since it would be illegal to perform the copywritten work). Karaoke would be no more (you are performing copywritten work again). It would be cool in a way since you would not have weird looking midget people getting famous and lip synching with 50 cent and other famous people (the dude got internet famous and performed with 50 cent for lip synching for Pete's Sake). There are upsides like no more of that kid, but there are also very bad downsides. I have heard many bands that ended up getting signed that started as cover bands. Being a cover bands when you start is just a good way to get to know song structure better and performing better. I also have a friend that got a record contract from singing karaoke. These people who are not lip synching, even though they are not using their own work, but still have talent to do other people's work, will be no more since it will be illegal. Some of these people have amazing skill and use it like porn. You know a very slim few can transition to the real industry, but still some are transitioning to the real industry. I am hoping this fails or else it may be the start of the "no more happiness" initiative where the government slowly takes away our happiness since big corporations do not get paid when we are happy. Those dirty, money grubbing bastards

Comment Well.. (Score 1) 404

Hmm, going after all of these sites (including government sites), might not be a good idea. They may be in it for the lulz, but if they get found, they are kinda fucked. I will say though, that what they did with the phone bombing is kinda funny though. The DDoS attacks were not all that funny, but when you redirect your phones to other places creating a little bit of chaos, then it gets amusing. I know that they are not affiliated with Anon, but I do personally find it odd that they started getting in the headlines after all of the Anon stuff. Were they around before Anon and just got headlines because Anon did a bunch of crap, or did they form after Anon? I know they are not affiliated, I am just saying that it is fishy that I have not heard much from Anon since the WBC was hit (I think they did another attack after that as well) and then they just kinda dropped from the headlines and LulSec hopped up.

Comment Re:How This Happens: (Score 1) 159

Here is another quote from that article "Mark really does believe very much in transparency and the vision of an open society and open world, and so he wants to push people that way. I think he also understands that the way to get there is to give people granular control and comfort. He hopes you'll get more open, and he's kind of happy to help you get there. So for him, it's more of a means to an end. For me, I'm not as sure." See, I would not mind everything being open, but the issue here is that Zuck has openly admitted to selling off personal information. What we need is a Mark Zuckerberg site out there somewhere that says everything about him. I am talking full name (which we know anyway), work number, cell number, home phone number, address, license plate numbers, everything. He wants an "open world" so we need to start with the person that wants it so bad.

Comment I hate to throw out an "I told you so" but... (Score 1) 191

The moment that they started getting better organized is when they actually formed a small, internal group. I am sure that people will be pissed and tell me I am wrong, but think about it. They have spokespeople saying they did not do the PSN attack and they even posted something on their FaceBook page that was a video that stated it while they showed their logo. Think about that sentence for a little bit. Really, seriously think about it. The PSN attack is a perfect example of what Anon truly is, compared to what people think they are. According to the rules and way Anon works, if even one single person does something in the name of Anon, Anon did it. The other people who do stuff with this every once in awhile will just simply not partake, like how Anon works, but that does not mean that since many people did not participate, that it was not the hand of Anon doing it. It is impossible to say that Anon did not do something when there is even a slight bit of proof that they did. Who is to say they did not do it? According to what Anon is, you can't say Anon was not involved. If Anon was not involved even though there is proof, even if minimal, that Anon was involved and they were "framed", that means that Anon can decide who is working for Anon. If you know who is working for Anon, then it turns into less of a collective, and more of a group of people who will bring in a bunch of people to do stuff. Also, who are the ops in the IRC channel of AnonOps (one of the meeting points for Anon)? Who decides who is an op there? Why are there even ops in AnonOps? According to what Anon is, there are no ops. There are no leaders. Groups are formed per scenario. That would mean no spokesperson, no catchphrases, no logos, no way of knowing if Anon is behind something or not. What I can see happening is that the base group of Anon is starting to feel heat under them, so they are trying to get away. A place like AnonOps, which is supposed to be a huge meeting place for Anon is just a small subsection of Anon. A smaller group of people that go there, even if alot of people go there. The people that started this idea probably forgot about the fact that if you get thousands of people together in a crowded area, a few of them are not going to go along with the "collective" and do what they want even if everybody else does not approve. They still do it though. Hop onto the web and see some of the attacks Anon has done to see that not every attack has been "for justice and good" or something like that

Slashdot Top Deals

No man is an island if he's on at least one mailing list.