Pros:
<w:sdt sdtdocpart="t" docparttype="Bibliographies" docpartunique="t" id="658094550">Appearance: </w:sdt>[indent]<w:sdt sdtdocpart="t" docparttype="Bibliographies" docpartunique="t" id="658094550">Google chrome shines in its slick new look, it’s probably understandable why there’s already a Firefox theme out for it. Its efficient organization of space means more webpage and less browser which I like.</w:sdt>
<w:sdt sdtdocpart="t" docparttype="Bibliographies" docpartunique="t" id="658094550"></w:sdt>[/indent]<w:sdt sdtdocpart="t" docparttype="Bibliographies" docpartunique="t" id="658094550"> Speed: </w:sdt>[indent]<w:sdt sdtdocpart="t" docparttype="Bibliographies" docpartunique="t" id="658094550">Google chrome runs every tab in a separate process, and the resulting speed and stability is impressive. Pages load twice as fast as Firefox and a bazillion times faster than IE. Also if an add-in causes the browser to crash, you only loose that tab because is running in its own process. (Google)</w:sdt>
<w:sdt sdtdocpart="t" docparttype="Bibliographies" docpartunique="t" id="658094550"></w:sdt>[/indent]<w:sdt sdtdocpart="t" docparttype="Bibliographies" docpartunique="t" id="658094550"> Incognito mode: </w:sdt>[indent]<w:sdt sdtdocpart="t" docparttype="Bibliographies" docpartunique="t" id="658094550">There’s a new feature that allows for completely traceless surfing on the web. Upon activating this mode Chrome leaves no trace of the pages you’ve visited on your computer. (Google)</w:sdt>
<w:sdt sdtdocpart="t" docparttype="Bibliographies" docpartunique="t" id="658094550"></w:sdt>[/indent]<w:sdt sdtdocpart="t" docparttype="Bibliographies" docpartunique="t" id="658094550"> Quick and easy setup: </w:sdt>[indent]<w:sdt sdtdocpart="t" docparttype="Bibliographies" docpartunique="t" id="658094550">Setup was a breeze, and uninstalling took all but 3 seconds. Although I was a little upset win Google updater was installed as a startup service.</w:sdt>
<w:sdt sdtdocpart="t" docparttype="Bibliographies" docpartunique="t" id="658094550"></w:sdt>[/indent]<w:sdt sdtdocpart="t" docparttype="Bibliographies" docpartunique="t" id="658094550">
Cons: Confusing layout: </w:sdt>[indent]<w:sdt sdtdocpart="t" docparttype="Bibliographies" docpartunique="t" id="658094550">Google chromes simplified layout can be confusing at times. I found it difficult to find features I was looking for. In my opinion if you have to hunt more than 30 seconds for your bookmarks that’s too long.</w:sdt>
<w:sdt sdtdocpart="t" docparttype="Bibliographies" docpartunique="t" id="658094550"></w:sdt>[/indent]<w:sdt sdtdocpart="t" docparttype="Bibliographies" docpartunique="t" id="658094550"> Compatibility: </w:sdt>[indent]<w:sdt sdtdocpart="t" docparttype="Bibliographies" docpartunique="t" id="658094550">Google chrome has a new rendering engine which apparently has some issues. ‘Chrone doesn't works with Hotmail. Try to write a email and U can't see the tools. It's Suck.. I still Firefox 3 is better =D and Firefox is Netscape!’ (Views google.es on Google Chrome Google Chrome How To Use The New Google Chrome Browser).</w:sdt>
<w:sdt sdtdocpart="t" docparttype="Bibliographies" docpartunique="t" id="658094550"></w:sdt>[/indent]<w:sdt sdtdocpart="t" docparttype="Bibliographies" docpartunique="t" id="658094550"> Summary: In all I give Google chrome a 7.5 out of 10. For now I’m uninstalling it, and sticking with Firefox. I’ll give it another shot when it’s no longer in beta.
I certainly admit that I'm not very good at understanding economic issues, but even so, I don't quite see how doing nothing will help... "government is the problem, not the answer" is just something I completely disagree with. Government is sometimes a problem, but not always. And there doesn't seem to be much of an alternative to doing this... things are going to be really bad either way, but it'll be even worse without this deal. The record 777-plus (the number just keeps going up...) point DOW loss (and even worse losses in credit markets, evidently) is a sign of that.
Hopefully the bill will eventually pass, I think... it is an incredibly large amount of money at stake, but what alternative do we have?
Once he gets over griping over the "junction system and taking a fit over having to draw magic constantly out of monsters which to me is an exaggeration of what the game really is like , Skip over part2 I think?Its pure gold after that.
I got to admit , He points out things I didn't even notice myself, FF8 was a bit more tedious then most FF games that followed.
I liked FF8 , That being said I never really got deep into FF7 and it had allot to do with the fact I got into the PSX when it was already on its last leg with the Next generation consoles at the door. What turned me off from trying FF7 was the fact it was a pre dual shock game, During the year 2000 there was talk of making a "remasterd" FFVII with Ps2 era graphics so I thought I would wait for that to come out unfortunately square ditched the idea later on :shake: and has produced bullshit spin off PSP games instead .
The unique thing about FFVIII that spoony overlooks is that its the last time they created characters named Biggs & Wedge in their games, Whose names were lifted from the starwars rogue squadron pilots.B&W were the villains bumbling henchmen but in a Oscar and felix comical fashion.
While they continue making new incarnations of Cid ,The tradition of creating minor characters named Wedge and Biggs has been dropped.
FFVIII I found to be the most challenging and lengthy of the series, It has a much higher learning curve which is why some were frustrated with it.
As for the "devil" in a bottle , Yeah I did fall for that trap and had to reload the game as you only get one try at beating "diablo" and making him a GF, I used the same technique he did.
My favorite was FFIX, It didn't take itself so seriously like all the new games they make now, It was simple and uncomplicated,Very old school in its art style and gameplay with attempted to emulate the old 2d Snes games.
Quote:Daniel James has a presence which extends somewhat beyond the borders of his person, so that when you meet him it seems like you are having a Very Real Experience. As a game designer and a CEO (in that order), his company Three Rings is known for putting out incredibly quirky shit. I asked him to write a piece because I knew it would be interesting, but also because (as the purveyor of several digital worlds) he's in a unique position to discuss it. - (CW)TB
The business model of putting bits in a box and charging to experience said tasty bits is forever broken. Furthermore, to prevent the copying of bits is futile and ultimately destructive to the goal of any modern digital business, which is to conscript enthusiastic 'users', and from them, customers.
Our mission at Three Rings is to create an emotional connection with players. We want to become one of the ten places you go on the interwebs. We want to be on your Chrome start page. We want you to dream of puzzley pieces and Pirates (or Zombies). If some folks would like to give us some money, that'd be great too.
Money can't buy you love, but love can bring you money. In software the only sustainable way to earn money is by first creating love, and then hoping that some folks want to demonstrate that love with their dollars.
The cheddary 'Free to Play' is not just a cheesy marketing slogan, but a shift in assumptions; it costs approaching nothing to give away some bits, or let people play Puzzle Pirates for free. Every player, free or paid, adds value to the community and excitement for other players. Free players are the content, context and society that encourages a small fraction of the audience to willingly pay more than enough to subsidize the rest.
It's perhaps easy to stand in the server-side tower, printing coin of the realm and lording it over a bit-mountain. One of online games' many business model advantages is sidestepping DRM questions by maintaining the canonical database that is highly valued by members of the community.
'Not fair', the vendor of music or packaged software cries. Well, tough shit. Nobody added your business to the list of protected species, despite what your lobbyists and lawyers say. Find a business model that's actually appropriate to the 21st century, and perhaps scale back your expectations of vast profits accordingly (oh, and fire some lawyers and lobbyists, too, please). For example, as some musicians have done by returning to live performance as their main source of revenue.
We all know folks who collect music, movies or software, thrilled by all the notional value acquired, but rarely look at any of it. To me, it seems worthless. I assume that any bits are commonplace and easy to come by, and the value is in their use. Everything should be shareware to be tried and tested until its value is proven and the love-meter swings open the wallet. If I were to pass on some music or a piece of code I become a vector of word of mouth viral marketing, the best kind, the kind that money can't buy. To fight this inexorable trend seems as counter-productive as the cellular operators practice of not distributing game demos in order to fleece people with marketing and crappy games. Way to kill a platform, guys.
DRM takes a big poo on your best customers -- the ones who've given you money -- whilst doing nothing practical to prevent others from 'stealing' your precious content juices. Worse, it makes these renegades feel nice and righteous about sticking it to 'the man'. Stop trying to persuade people to love you more by hitting them a rusty pipe. Put down the pipe, and give up on DRM.
For my part, I was shocked when I read that Spore had been made available, with DRM completely disabled, on the piratey interseas on day frickin' ZERO, the day before the game actually came out. I'm not sure what sort of turbo hackers we're talking about, but considering how quickly PSP firmware gets hacked (a scene I'm actually a part of), I really shouldn't be surprised.
Then I'm reading further about how utterly controlling the DRM on Spore actually is (5 total installs, and a requirement to "deauthorize" a machine with a program, which only helps if all signs of authorization are still present on the machine, so if you happen to have had a catastrophic hard drive failure which requires a reinstall of all of everything, yoi're down an install of that game you "own"). I end up finding out that even when I do buy the game, I'm very likely to download some seedy hack for it anyway JUST to fully unlock it. This is the sort of thing I shouldn't have to do.
The people who steal games already know where to go to find this stuff, due to how they are stealing these games. It's now undisputable fact that they aren't being put out even a day by these methods. What possible justification do they have for sticking it to us legitimate players with this stuff any more? There ARE still DRM methods I agree with. The 'product code', as old fasioned as it is, can now be coupled with a suite of online services. As much as people whined about one-online account-per copy (now increased to a "family sized" box o' cereal), that seems perfectly reasonable to me. Let people use their software as easily as they ever did before (sans code wheels dongles and live snakes), and use that little product code as the key they need if they ever want to take their game online. Most games these days have pretty rich online modes. In the end it'll make the single player modes essentially "shareware" but that's just how it is. There's plenty of legit customers still paying you for games. Try to woo them better and expand that.
Yeah, I'd say I agree with this. Forcing the good behavior out of thieves by hitting everyone else with DRM that won't ever apply to the thieves does nothing. It's like when your parents can't figure out who specifically broke the vase so they just punish the lot of you until someone fesses up. It doesn't really do anything for them because that kid is now doubly not going to fess up.
This guy apparently thinks that the original maker of the game deserves some money from when a game is resold by the person who bought it.
Er, that's not how it works. I gave you money, you gave me the game. End of story. If you get to keep making demands of the game I own after the fact, I can start making demands of the money I gave you after the fact. Obviously that's a retarded scenario, so hey, why not just accept that after you sell something, you DON'T HAVE ANY RIGHTS TO IT ANY MORE!
What if I never sold it? Are those missed sales? In a manner of speaking they are, so should I be forced to pay a yearly fee for the privilage of ownership? If so, how is that different than renting?
