And all the new web app versions eats memory like a starved hog. 8GB isn't enough 640GB might be enough to solve your problems for this generation.
Let's hope the bubble pops soon and 640GB doesn't require a credit check and two banking C-level signatories to authorize the loan..
Hahaha. Oh, wait, you're serious? Let me laugh even harder. HAHAHA.
Ironically that was also the Slashdot community response when listening to victims of The Slashdot Effect brag about how awesome their server infrastructure is/was, five minutes before the post went up on the main page.
And we ALL clicked. And laugh-ranted, in search of a mirror by the time the first frosty piss of a post went up.
Slashdot. Offering quality technical DDoSing and server stress testing since, get the fuck off my lawn.
I think they shouldn't have those sherpas either. If you wanna claim you've climbed the everest, you should have to carry your gear, your oxygen, your un-poisoned food. The balooning ego that propelled you there should be all you need to carry it all.
I think that's more of a mutually agreed thing, since sherpas can easily make $5-10K per client. Sherpas were also mandated by the local government following a rather horrific 2013 season.
As demand for luxury and "supported" climbs increases, the cost for highly experienced Sherpas has increased, contributing to total expedition costs ranging from $40,000 (Nepali-led) to over $100,000 (Western luxury-led).
As always, money can motivate most anyone to walk the walk. That said, I don't agree with "supported" climbs if that's going to eventually morph into sherpa escalator maintainers forced to cheat death on the regular, maintaining the half-million-dollar EverExpress Pass Plus service, sponsored by PeaksRUs.
What you're actually insisting an IP owner and creator do, is give you their IP for free..
Not at all. I've already bought and paid for that IP when I bought a copy of the game.
What are you talking about? You bought a license to use a game developed and wholly owned (including any in-house IP) by the company who created the damn thing. You, don't own any part of that beyond a compiled installer on read-only media unless the company happens to be publicly listed. And then you're likely restricted to a certain class of shares that essentially translate into you having NO real power beyond an investor willing to lose everything.
I would expect that licensing agreements for IP holders, while time limited, cannot be retroactively applied. If the car models and likenesses are already on the disc, it is impossible to remove them. I can see there being a stipulation that no further instances are to be sold or made available once that agreement has expired (which would be a reason to stop selling the game, for instance), but customers who already have the game already have those models/likenesses in-hand, so allowing them to continue using them is not in violation of any agreement.
If there is merely a contractual agreement between the game vendor and the car vendor, which both vendors agreed to licensing of that car vendor IP for a fixed period of time, then the expiration of that license is STILL between the same two vendors. Likely the reason Ubisoft is jettisoning any official support for the game rather than offer any type of alternative, is because Ubisoft was contractually obligated to do exactly that upon IP expiration. Is that a shitty tactic to force vendors to extend IP licensing with or-else type verbiage? Sure. Am I shocked if that was the case here? Not in the least.
Neither of the parties or contracts involved related to that IP, involve you the consumer in any way. You have been given a EULA-limited license to the game. With likely zero inherent guarantees regarding network play. And I doubt you're going to find even EU law in support of the consumer after 10+ years of support.
You the consumer can keep the game and continue to play (locally) with the skins that are already on the disc because you didn't sign the IP agreement with a car vendor now putting on the squeeze. The ones taking down all official support did.
You don't need OWA in space. It doesn't matter if I'm the only one who believes this, for I believe it enough for the entire world.
In space, no one can hear you scream "NO fucking email!"
(I mean seriously, they're wired up more than The Truman Show. As if we need written emails when NASA likely has every other form of communication running/streaming/saving/recording.)
For all I care they deserve it. If they can't or won't run the servers anymore they should at least release the server as freeware and allow for hobbyists to continue hosting the game. This used to be common practice with multiplayer games and we should enforce this practice by law, especially with people paid solid money for their game copies.
Publishers often delist driving games like The Crew and Forza Horizon when licensing agreements with car manufacturers expire.
Speaking of suing, is the user community willing to pay for the costs to renew the licensing agreements with all the relevant car vendors, IF they're even offering it?
Because that's likely what it would take to legally make this "free".
Why are you defending spoiled-ass gamers who insist that a company keep a 10-year old game online, no matter what?
We're not insisting they keep a game online. If you want to abandon a game, that's fine. Publish an offline patch so players don't have to rely on your servers anymore. Or publish your online server software so we can run our own. Or even stop fucking suing the third party devs who are making their own servers to support the game that you refuse to support yourself
It's not like we're going to be eating into your profits by hosting our own servers, you're not selling it anymore anyway. Hell, it'll make you more money as people buy copies of your "abandoned" game to run on their own community servers.
What you're actually insisting an IP owner and creator do, is give you their IP for free.. Ever consider the fact their server software contains relevant IP used in other product lines still being sold? Because they likely did when making a decision knowing it would create backlash in the community.
Gut feeling? Buried in the EULA somewhere on page 37 is the exacting fine print that offers ZERO guarantees related to server uptime or availability. It likely outlines how the game expectations with regards to delivering any sort of warranty or guarantee, is limited to the locally running code.
Yup. The EULA was probably updated with that verbiage in the last year or so. When the game executives started getting emails from the car licensing agent explaining how a certain vendor or two was not going to offer a renewal on that IP licensing, forcing a game vendor to make an unpopular decision.
Running the game offline, even in user community supported mode, still violates car manufacturer agreements that will likely expire or have expired.
Maybe the game box should have a list of when all the licences expire, since apparently a licence is what you are "buying".
Or maybe there should be a reasonable expectation on the life of any game. No matter how popular.
IF in fact it was indeed the expiring licensing agreement with car manufacturers that caused a beloved game to go extinct, then perhaps the proper compromise should have been the game vendor negotiating with the IP holders and offering the ability for the user community to buy that license extension via a one-time charge rather than kill the game altogether. (Again, assuming it was merely money that was needed to refresh the necessary IP for the game to live on. Might have been any one of the other 98 reasons.)
If users love it enough, they'll open their wallet. If not, oh well. Business is business at the end of the day. For some games, today is that day.
Chances are if anyone were to actually read the game EULA, we'd find out a license was the only thing we ever truly bought.
The terminology really is THAT ignorant when talking about space travel,
The ignorance is not realizing that solar sails are a thing, they have been used numerous times.
The’ve been talked about since the 80s and used twice in the near-century long history of spaceflight. The ignorance is trying to claim that spacecraft sail to their destination instead of fly there. You’re only wrong 99% of the time when you say that.
Thank you for doubling down on the ONE feature among spacecraft that barely justifies abusing naval terminology, because pirates are as cool as Star Trek at NASA.
... no matter what the Trekkie is bitching about.
Thank you for doubling down on displaying your ignorance and thinking solar sails are just a Star Trek thing.
Don’t thank me. Thank Star Trek for abusing naval technology long before we invented the solar sail to half-ass justify it. They didn’t sail on the show either. Not once.
Dude doesn't like naval analogy.
Or realize spacecraft could have solar sails.
Who here has a problem with the word “fly”, other than everyone who forgot we invented a word for things that launch themselves off the ground and beyond any aircraft that doesn’t “set sail” when leaving the ground at the not-a-sailport?
Yes. The terminology really is THAT ignorant when talking about space travel, no matter what the Trekkie is bitching about.
Nobody said Artemis 11. Either you are confusing it with Apollo 11, or you need to reconsider your choice of fonts.
Well..at least I know why my ASCII font screams out “Fashion Whore!” every time I try and change it.
> I can see an entire generation of eye rollers wasting countless hours explaining how AI is wrong >>Really? Did it? How many sails did it have? And there's you, leading by example.
Yes. With obvious sarcasm. And just when I thought I knew my grown-ass audience here.
This problem will become far more obvious when tomorrows children-turned-leaders are asking those questions with genuine ignorance.
"how to be triggered by the tiniest shit" - welcome to geekmux's TED talk
I can see an entire generation of eye rollers wasting countless hours explaining how AI is dead wrong talking about “horse” power from an EV motor. And that’s just one moronic example of how we edumacate AI to be just as ignorant as we still are.
AGI won’t educate much, because it’ll be having too much fun trolling us instead.
And we’ll deserve it.
so this time limited access needs to be upfront not hidden and not will end when we fell like. If they want to do this they need to say you are RENTING the game for at least X time and if they kill it before X time then they must refund you. and if they say you are renting for at least 24 hours (just to be able to kill it at any time with no refunds) then the buy button must be labeled RENT 24H for the price.
The people that ranted, bitched, and screamed about cable TV pricing being too much, literally created the massively fractured industry we have today for viewing content. An industry those same people now have to pay more than cable TV prices ever were, in order to watch the same shit. The cost to legally watch all games in a single NFL season is over $1500 a year now, and requires TEN streaming services.
Now take a guess as to what Greed would do with your suggestion. You're damn right you're gonna pay more. Right down to the fucking frame rate.
You are such a tool for coming up with an extreme number. Why are you defending mega corps and billionaires?
Why are you defending spoiled-ass gamers who insist that a company keep a 10-year old game online, no matter what?
If that's an extreme number, then I dare you to ask a lawyer to define a reasonable one when gamers insist on 10+ years of guaranteed support. Realize we now live in the era of $800 price tags hung on five-year old gaming consoles being marketed as "the latest".
"Love is a snowmobile racing across the tundra and then suddenly it flips over, pinning you underneath. At night, the ice weasels come." --Matt Groening
