Re: Homebrew with strings
Then don't buy one.
You're happy and the lack of you complaining about a console you don't own will make everyone else happy too.
3760 posts • joined 16 Nov 2009
Then don't buy one.
You're happy and the lack of you complaining about a console you don't own will make everyone else happy too.
Not really. Your local Temple Of Apple Genius Bar Design Holiness is the obvious vector.
Put it on a Mac that you're having the non-replaceable SSD replaced on. Boom. Suddenly every "genius" is infected and every cultist pleasured by that "genius" is probably infected too.
Assuming the kit phones home (via at least seven proxies!) you just sit back and collect your nicked data, safe in the knowledge that all the machines you infected are owned by people who are not only wealthy but also too stupid to fix their own computers.
I found that an interesting phrase.
One could charitably assume that they meant it to be parsed as follows -
"the film is an attempt to profit by glorifying international espionage" since Snowden himself has certainly not profited.
But if so, one wonders when dear Horace will sue Sony, current owners of the James Bond franchise.
The Lumia 520 is the single lowest spec WP8 phone and from GSMArena -
Card slot microSD, up to 64 GB
Internal 8 GB, 512 MB RAM
And from your article -
Windows Phone 8.1 is now accounting for 65 per cent of Windows Phone app downloads, with Windows Phone 7 at under five per cent.
The most popular Windows Phone device is the low-end Lumia 520, which accounts for more than a quarter of all app downloads. Devices with fewer than 256MB of RAM dominate downloads with 71 per cent of the total, suggesting Windows Phone's most active users are using cheaper handsets.
Now, I am merely a programmer so obviously the "industry analyst" who supplied your figures knows more than me (quiet at the back), but since the only Windows Phones with 256MB of RAM (and there are exactly zero Windows Phones with "fewer than 256MB" as you state) are WP7 phones*,the statements are wholly contradictory.
I find this remarkable, if true.
It's not true though, is it?
*the only one I can think of is the Dell Venue Pro with the slide-out keyboard. Good idea, canned early because Dell only sold about 25 of them.
> But Braben going bankrupt from apparently negligently mishandling his business is a reasonable outcome, and part of the creative destruction that capitalism thrives on.
Can't tell if sarcasm, presuming not.
Well, quite. There's nothing to stop him going bankrupt due to this in the same way that backers (not "buyers", let's maintain the paradigm) have no guarantee that their investment will get them what they wanted.
> When companies screw things up royally with their only product they often go tits up. Or is Braben too big to fail?
Only his ego.
A little bored Googling indicates that kickstarter contributions are regarded as taxable in the US (the potato salad guy may have a problem in the region of $2,100 or so) and that VAT is levied at source in the UK.
Therefore, I am quite probably wrong although we'd have to await a test case to set a precedent.
And I agree, when - probably not "if" - it happens, it'll certainly be interesting.
> I don't know if you played at a friends
error - assumes friend(s).
That was self-mockery. I did have friends, I just didn't see them often because farm workers tend to live miles from anywhere and our nearest neighbour was nearly two miles away.
There was a school computer club but it met after school and those of us who bussed in couldn't go because, er, bus. Looking back, it seems like it must have been really hard being a country kid. I wonder if it still is? Perhaps this is something that the government's stupid "Year of Code" could address instead of teaching MPs how to write <blink>Hello world</blink>
> That's an interesting assertion. I'm not saying you're wrong - but I wouldn't like to bet either way. It would be interesting to see it tested.
I'm pretty certain Kickstarter donations are regarded as exactly that, donations. Offerings are "rewards" based on contribution, not a contract and not a sale. If it was done any other way, Kickstarter contributions would be taxable (and probably liable for VAT) which I don't think they are although you might want to check with HMRC.
So, yeah, I think Kickstarter is regarded as investing in a business and you can quite legally lose your shirt on any investment. Hard to see how the Sale of Goods Act would apply to it.
"dogged" because it means two different but entirely appropriate things. And I like dogs.
They could have got funding for Elite if Dave Braben was prepared to commit to publisher standards (ie, timeframes and specimen of requirements up front). He isn't. He never was. The only reason nobody else has done an Elite game is because Braben has a habit of suing if they try.
Kickstarter was basically so he could avoid "compromising [his] vision", not because there was no funding anywhere else.
The irony appears to be that he compromised his vision almost immediately by agreeing to an offline campaign and has now failed to deliver it.
I just wanted to comment on the quote you've provided (regardless of attribution)
There has been a lot of uproar about this but the bottom line is that they have moved so much stuff to the servers they physically cannot produce an offline version now. All of the commodity prices, background simulation, module upgrade availability, bulletin board missions, injected events and I suspect even the NPC AI are run from the servers. *
"Background simulation" is probably an in-house term so I can't really talk about it, and "injected events" is another. On the rest though....
If commodity prices are kept on a local machine, they will be hacked. Somebody will tweak the hex values - in memory if necessary - to buy low and sell high. In a single-player game, that's irrelevant but where multiplayer is even a possibility, it's a nightmare. NPC AI and upgrades would be the same. To go offline, you'd need a complete local copy and a means of switching to online sources from context. Along with a scripted campaign and set of missions. As I understand it, much of the game is procedurally generated which complicates this.
I'm not saying it can't be done or even that it's hard. I am saying it's a whole lot of work that somebody has to pay for.
I understand all of that and that's fine, downvote away in any post where I imply that by all means.
However, this is not explanation for downvoting the mindboggling over committing to produce two games when you have budget and time for one game.
It's not a stretch goal, right? They didn't attempt to raise extra funding for this?
I apologize for the lack of tantrum but this is almost as bewildering as the act of committing to developing an offline campaign. It's like you're not allowed to say that insanity is insane.
I'm interested in who's downvoting my comments on the insanity of committing to deliver an offline game as well as an online game.
Is that just somebody who knows dick about game development but REALLY WANTS IT TO BE EASY SO THAT THEY CAN HAVE WHAT THEY WANT WANT WANT SO MUCH?
Or has somebody actually got a valid objection?
Upvote for reminiscences...
Ours was a relatively unusual situation, I guess. My dad was a farm worker. He earned £28/week in 1983. We did get free milk though.
(Although I contributed to Star Citizen because I like Chris Roberts whereas Dave Braben was always an unlikeable bastard. That doesn't mean I'm expecting anything. It was a Kickstarter. It does not come with a guarantee. The Sale of Goods Act does not apply).
> I can't see how you can defend the way they have handled it.
I'm not, the whole thing seems like some kind of crazy fiasco. I can't quite get my head around the idea of any seasoned game dev agreeing to produce two games for one budget in the time allotted for one game.
I still think refunding backers would simply destroy the chances of the existing game, though. So those who complained get their money back (minus depreciation!) and nothing at all to show for it and all those who are happy get Frontier going bankrupt from paying refunds and no money to keep the online servers going. Not exactly a happy ending.
> PS. Their budget was provided by the backers.
Yeah, but that doesn't mean backers get to change the proposal. James Dyson doesn't go to the bank for a loan to develop a new hovercraft-lawnmower and then because the bank manager likes ice-cream promise to have it make Mr Whippy at the same time.
If the bank manager tries, Dyson goes to another bank. And Braben should have refused point blank. Any attempt to actually fulfil this requirement would mean - given the constraints - two late, bad games.
Do these backers know about "good, fast, cheap, pick any two"?
> Not sure why you mention the second hand TV. You could connect a BC Micro to a second hand B&W TV (we did) and there weren't many houses without either.
Way to miss the point, AC. Back then a 2ndhand TV could cost anything up to about £100. A BBC Micro model B came in at £400. You could quite literally buy a new car for that at the time.
This comment won't make me any friends but this whole story reads like those appalling teenagers on Twitter who complain because the iPad Air 64GB they got for Christmas was the wrong colour and now they're going to kill themselves. I guess that's what you can expect from people with parents who gave them BBC Micros as kids.
> The off-line promise was only added because it was explicitly requested by so many backers. Which to my mind makes it probably one of the most important requirements of the project.
Jesus fucking christ, are you serious? And Braben agreed to this madness?
That is literally insane. That's like proposing an idea for a summer blockbuster movie and having the studio talk you into doing a vaguely-related tie-in 24 episode TV show at the same time and inside the existing budget. It's lunacy. It should have been rejected immediately.
As some have said, Frontier claim an offline mode is "too hard". That's not really the truth.
It's much the same as the fuss about Ubisoft not having having a female lead in AC::Unity and the complaints we saw about that from nutters (the complaints about the game not being any good are a whole different matter) and Ubisoft claiming it would take too long. It wouldn't, not just for mo-cap.
It almost certainly would take too long to add a rewritten version of the whole story so that it works with a female protagonist and Ubisoft have (EA-led) deadlines and probably penalty clauses for failing to deliver on schedule. That doesn't matter to the professional complainers, of course, but it should matter to gamers who just want to play the damn game.
By the same token, Braben & Co have to deliver Elite to a timeframe and they've dropped a single-player campaign to do so. Why couldn't they release the single-player campaign later? Well, it's a fairly integral part of an initial release. People play single-player before hitting multiplayer. Adding it in later would be weird and contradictory and almost certainly raise just as many complaints as dropping it entirely. Kickstarter backers - let us not forget - are not known for their quiet, understanding patience. They are internet fucktards like all the other internet fucktards, so quite the reverse.
I think Frontier were in an impossible situation. They could go way over timeframe (eliciting calls for refunds everywhere from everyone), they could patch in offline mode later (eliciting exactly what we're seeing here but with added development cost and no added funding) or they could pull offline mode completely which still causes internet fucktards to throw all their toys out of the pram but at least it doesn't actually cost them yet more money and time.
On balance, they made the sensible choice. Backers don't like it? Meh. Kickstarter is not buying from a shop. Backers should be thinking themselves lucky Frontier delivered at all.
> Then people like you come along, claiming that gravel driveways are off-road enough for your liking
Disclaimer - I have no horse in this race. We couldn't afford a second-hand colour TV in 1983, let alone a BBC Micro so I have no Elite nostalgia and have not preordered or even ordered this game. However...
That was a really fucking stupid analogy. The whole point of an off-road vehicle is to go off-road. The whole point of a space trading simulator is to trade things in space. This change has not gutted the entire game and made it worthless as your on-road off-roader would be.
I can understand people getting annoyed - the poster above you makes several valid points although not enough for all this ridiculous fuss, in my opinion - but you've gone batshit with it. Calm down.
Two things to remember -
1. It's only a game.
2. It's only a kickstarter.
and your bonus number -
3. Get over it.
XNA is canned, yes. I forgot XNA. You are absolutely correct. It was kind of fun, too.
> You've decided that the abandoned MS tech debate is limited to .Net only, nobody else has (oh, and you've also decided that Silverlight, VB6 and FoxPro can't be mentioned).
No, I've decided that if you're going to claim that MS keep changing their minds and fucking over .NET developers, you should actually have some basis in fact for saying so.
Silverlight is (must we say this yet again?) still supported for another 6 years. VB6 and FoxPro do not affect .NET developers in the slightest. What part of this is too hard to understand?
> we, as people who solve problems with logic for our very livelihoods, should be better than that.
Except that little bell-end who just downvoted without reason or explanation. He's clearly no better than that.
> Pathetic, why would you bring the Germans into this? You're starting to sound like a shill.
I (currently, having walked out of the law firm) work for a small precision engineering firm in Gloucestershire.
Why bring the Germans into this? As an example of the fact that you cannot judge anything, not a country, not a company, not an individual, by what it was 20 years ago. Most MS hate around here is irrational and seems to stem from the mid 90s (ActiveX, bundling IE, calling the GPL a cancer were all around '94-'96). The "bullyboy" thing pretty much went with Gates. Ballmer may have been bombastic and isolationist (and his competence is often questioned despite his clear financial results) but he wasn't Larry Ellison by any stretch. Nadella is a whole different ballgame again - his record is one of opening APIs, releasing free tools and and co-operation with other companies.
I see very little reasoning behind the blanket condemnations (of what are in the main, pretty good tools which would get better if more people didn't just dismiss them out of hand) and a whole lot of seemingly deliberate ignorance and prejudice. It's like they like having an enemy, regardless of what that enemy actually does.
It's not rational behaviour, just stupid Stone Age tribalism and we, as people who solve problems with logic for our very livelihoods, should be better than that.
Okay, for a start we were talking about .NET tools and frameworks so MFC and VB6 are hardly the unit under test.
VS macros.. granted. Although I doubt there were many full-time developers writing software specifically to run inside the IDE, especially at the macro level rather than the plugin level. Setup/Deployment projects deserved to die far more than MFC and, also, were not exclusive to .NET so again out of scope As are VS macros too. I still think you're seriously reaching with those anyway, did you Google this list?.
Seriously, you can push this as hard as you like but the only valid complaint would be Visual J++ which nobody used anyway.
> Do you remember all the platforms NT3.5 used to support? (MIPS, Alpha...) The disk formats (including HFS), the non-MS authentication GUI (Novell)?
I don't see the relevance. People may joke about "wintel" but MS do not own Intel and do not even own any stock in Intel (see corporate report). They gain nothing by withdrawing support except a reduced support load on what were - even then - failing platforms.
> MS may look as though its all love and peace to linux. It isn't. They are moving up the linux stack to get the apps. If they can get the apps, the marriage between MS and linux will be formalised with a red wedding.
I bet you got that straight from David Icke via telepathy.
Yes, because everything should be exactly the same as it was 13 years ago. Spin that D-Ream album again, would you?
> Thanks for pushing me into Java or Python and the LAMP stack.
That explains why you're so bitter.
Try posting with a username, AC. Then you can use the Black Helicopters icon.
They removed Visual J++ because (I think it was still Sun at the time) threatened legal action over the non-standard JVM implementation.
Nobody missed it.
I honestly can't think of anything else.
I see no benefit in attempting to converse civilly with tinfoil hat wearers.
> Just as you get tooled up to develop on .net core MS will shift the goalposts.
Okay, I'm seeing this a lot. So answer me one question - WHY?
Why would they change the goalposts? Why would they piss off all the developers they're supporting by keeping the Framework as a subset of Core? Why do all that work on keeping people productive and then fuck 'em in the ear? For money? They'd lose money because that's less applications running on their systems and incentive to code for somebody else's.
And yes, linux implementations are still "their" systems because (as a previous commenter stated) they're aiming for linux on Azure. Nadella comes out of MS's "Server & Tools" business. He's the one who's department has been open-sourcing stuff and enabling linux on Azure, even before he got the CEO job. His department made record profits year after year by providing platforms and development tools. Nobody knows more about how to make money by keeping devs happy than Nadella (and his evil svengali, Scott Guthrie).
So again, WHY do you think MS would commit corporate self-harm by changing the goalposts? It makes no sense.
And don't even bother with the "past history" line. Nadella has exactly zero past history of fucking with developers.
> Not with their reputation and past actions.
So what they do doesn't matter. Nothing they do matters. Nothing they ever do in the future matters. Only what they did in the past that cannot be changed.
Tell me, how do you feel about Germans?
and I note that you haven't in fact named any other frameworks MS has axed.
Because there aren't any.
People like you make me ashamed of the F/OSS movement (and yes, I contribute).
OXML is indeed debatable but Nokia?
What the hell are you blaming Microsoft for with Nokia?
Oh, wait, no, let me guess - it's the usual tinfoil hat stupidity about Elop being a trojan horse who deliberately ruined Nokia so MS could buy their phone division, right? And presumably they also made that possible by using giant space-lizard mind control rays on the Nokia board of directors and they didn't really give Nokia any money at all, they actually STOLE all the money and Bill Gates is actually in the business of selling medical supplies.
You're one of those.
Okay. In that case, do us all a favour and fuck off.
GPL or nothing?
Is the Apache 2 variant they've used not good enough for you?
after past disappointments such as Silverlight
Name three others. Hell, name one other. Silverlight - supported through 2020 according to MS so hardly defunct - has become something of a meme for writers on the Register but assuming without knowledge that a myriad other frameworks have been dumped and then implying it in every damn article is... well, it's the kind of reporting I expect from the Daily Mail, not the Register.
You might as well ignore the story altogether and just parrot Eadon's endless lies about .NET being deprecated and dead if you're going to do that.
I expect it from commentards. Those that aren't simply hating on Microsoft for fashion reasons while reading their support scripts and claiming love for linux distros they have never used and wouldn't recognize if you installed it for them and painted the name on the monitor glass have very clear agendas (oh look, Hans 1 commented! calling it all lies, what a fucking shock) and great steaming biases they can't see past. I expect it from Gavin Clarke on the grounds that he's a cretin.
But proper tech journalists, one hopes, should know better.
(Some idiot will now go on about VB6 and somebody else will make a half-joke about FoxPro, neither of which are part of the .NET framework and are therefore irrelevant).
Maybe they've just vanished in the Brentford Triangle.
No you don't because the shopkeeper can simply refuse to trade with you, quite legally.
He can't refuse your noddy money but he CAN just kick you out for any reason at all, or none, which amounts to the same.
Guardian Soulmates isn't actually a thing. It's just Page 3 for middle-class people.
I see somebody here works for EE. Or O2. Or Vodafone.
(Three aren't usually so bad. And for the record, I'm on O2 who are exactly as bad).
Nah, just the usual thieving bastardy.
See, you can flog a 4G sub to a punter who can barely get 2G in his house and most of them won't even complain. On the rare occassion they notice their phone say "4G" (visiting London, probably) they'll be surprised but not angry because everyone is used to all telecommunications in the UK being a big bag of shit.
In the meantime, you make money. You could spend it on actually giving the customer what they paid for or you could just have your PR department make up some shit about lack of demand and keep on pocketing it. Guess which happens?
Same guy so just "Banks" covers all the bases.
The Single Market means your wife cannot refuse to trade with the EU.
> Might that not make you liable under the EU free trade/market regulations?
It appears it would indeed under the terms of the Single Market.
> If "micro" business has slept till now, and discover two weeks before there's a law they don't like, well, they deserve it.
The "becoming a data processor/holder" is pretty scary stuff for a small business, though. Especially if you sell through somebody like Amazon because they'll be holding all that information electronically and in a cloud which you cannot control.
I didn't get much in the way of presents so approximately none.
(And no, having a birthday close to Christmas doesn't mean you get more stuff. You just get more writing on the label).
If it's as untested as he says, a) the number of false positives will be scary and b) a decent lawyer should be able to have any evidence based on it struck from evidence (barring Theresa May going even more She-Wolf of the SS and passing some bullshit law forbidding judges from striking shitty evidence).
Add in a reprise of that little wheeze where they can bang you up for 40 days without charge and it's a brilliant tool for teaching people with dissenting opinions a harsh lesson - how many students and protestors have been arrested, DNA-swabbed, photographed, fingerprinted and released without charge? Probably millions by now. Even better if you mutter "terrorism" and D-Notice the whole thing.
Actually BT Cellnet became mmO2 became O2.
Hutchison created Orange and sold it to France Telecom who then joined up with Deutsche Telekom (owners of T Mobile) to make EE.
So basically, your SIM won't work.