Posts by dan1980

Re: A s*#t storm compared to the s*#t typhoon coming with Star Citizen

@Blarkon

Well, they certainly have the credits for it.

One difference is that Elite actually promised offline play, whereas for SQ it was a 'stretch goal' and was worked up as a separate game, playing out in the same universe, acting as a kind of lead-in to the MMO world. That game has its own team and so is rather unlikely to be cut, especially given its 'stretch goal' status, which essentially is saying: "if you give us more, we will do X and specifically X".

Who knows how SQ will turn out but the number of backers means that it's likely to have a SERIOUS following from day one, which is a big criticism of Elite - they're forced the O but it seems to be missing the MM part.

@PCS

"Ah, the joys of First World Problems."

And by that you mean . . . what, exactly?

Are you trying to say that we should be thankful that we can argue about whether a multi-million dollar video game can be played offline or not?

Fair point, but I am thankful for that. Or, at least, I am cognizant of the fact that, though I am just a middle class person, I am a middle class person in a generally affluent nation and so enjoy a quality of life that is nearly inconceivable to hundreds of millions of people around the world.

But that situation and my acknowledgement of it does not really have anything do do with this topic.

Hell, I should be so lucky as to have electricity and thus am able to type this reply! After all, millions don't. But then David Braben also lives in a decidedly first world country and in decidedly affluent circumstances and is even so lucky that he was able to convince a bunch of strangers to give him £1.5m based on a 'vision', allowing him earn money doing something he loves and wanted to do.

But did you know that many women and children in Sub-Saharan Africa have to walk several miles each day to collect semi-drinkable water for their family and can be at risk of attacks from both animals and people, including rape?

Against that, surely Braben's hand-wringing about a offline mode being too hard is just a "first world problem" and no excuse at all. I mean, what's so bad about having to "re-engineer a separate set [of missions]" for offline play when compared to 10 year old boys being torn from their mothers' arms to become suicide bombers while their fathers are shot to prevent them rebelling?

And how can he keep a straight face when he notes that they would have had to "replicate some of the work locally that was being done on the server" and that, whole they "could" do it, "the amount of work involved increased over time" and so they decided to cut offline play loose? Doesn't he know that there are 70,000 children homeless in his native Britain?

I wonder how they would feel about complaints that having developers code inside a nice, comfortable, heated, office is 'to hard' or wouldn't be true to his 'vision'.

Why is he even doing this at all? I don't know how much he pocketed when Google bought Phonetic but I'm sure he didn't give the whole lot to a charity. Or maybe he did, seeing as he is a trustee of the Raspberry Pi foundation, a registered charity tackling the clearly funadmental human rights issue of low rates of CompSci students in British universities.

i am not having a go at David for any of this - what I am saying is that the 'first world problems' argument is utterly ridiculous.

I presume you won't read this reply as you have already sold your computer, along with all your other first-world belongings to raise money for starving children in Africa, pausing only to book a one-way ticket to India where you will spend the rest of your life working with the dalit residents of the slums in Bangalore, helping to protect the young women being raped - sometimes quite brutally - daily, while also working tirelessly to help end the caste separation that holds them down.

So I suppose I have wasted my first-world time on this post as you are far too busy campaigning for human rights in China and equality in Russia.

Re: 'bait-and-switch'

@...chap

Believe me when I say that I am on board with those who are disappointed/angry with Frontier, but I don't think this qualifies as 'bait and switch'. The simplest reason is that offline play was not part of the original proposal - it was an additional feature that was to be present and it hasn't been 'switch[ed]' with anything.

As I said in another post on the same subject, it's like a (e.g.) rock music festival advertising a line up and some people buy tickets. In response to feedback that the bands are not really 'rock', and with the goal of increasing ticket sales, the organisers announce that they are adding in a third stage (it is a festival after all) where a bunch of more traditional acts will be playing. They sell a bunch more tickets on the the back of this and sell out their show.

A few weeks before the concert, they announce that the third stage has been cancelled and none of the bands that were advertised to be on it are going to play.

No refunds - the ticket says that the line-up may change at any time after all.

Re: Arguing over nothing

@Sampler

There is a good response to this below, as there are in every other story about this saga.

The simple fact is that 'solo mode' is playing alone in a persistent, dynamic universe. This is not the same as 'offline mode' which is (or would have been) playing alone in a static universe.

For a tiny percentage of people yes, it is about connectivity, but to most it is about the difference in experience between the two models. To pick out a few of the most important parts of the numerous ways these are different:

* - Missions, trading and story are changeable on a whim by the developers in response to OTHER players actions, and this happens whether you are connected or not.

* - The game is not repeatable in the same way as an offline, static game is. You can't go through the story siding with (e.g.) the rebels and then start a new character and do the opposite because, well, those story events and battles and options are now gone - the events were created, played out and then "very little data" was sent to the player's PC and the universe was updated with the results, whether you were around to experience it or not.

The issues around connectivity are legitimate but largely a strawman because people are not complaining that they can't play online due to poor connectivity*; they are complaining that they don't want to play online.

When you wave this away with "using very little data to keep the universe details up to date", you fail to identify exactly what gets kept "up to date". Understand that 95% of the people complaining about this don't want their universe changing underneath them, which is exactly what happens when devs curate the world.

What happens when, in your 'solo' mode you see a mission to help a rebel group but don't get a chance to do it before leaving for a work trip. You come back a week alter and start playing but in the meantime other players have flocked to the rebel cause and the mission is no longer available. There was a mission you wanted to do but, because of the actions of other players and the response of the devs, it's now gone.

Or maybe you've got a hold full of lucrative cargo but the system you are going to no longer takes it. Or maybe you have just saved up enough for the ship you were aiming for but don't get a chance to log back in to buy it until the weekend. When you connect in, you find that things have been 'rebalanced' and, as the ship you were aiming for is now considered overpowered and so the price has been raised by 20%, meaning you can no longer afford it.

Like I, and many others have said many times, a connected world - whether in solo or open mode - is a very different beast to an offline world, and this has nothing to do with a player's ability access the Internet.

* - But that is certainly an issue - and a valid one - for some.

Re: You tell me,

@Sir Runcible Spoon

While I am in general agreement, this statement needs addressing:

"Single player first, multiplayer second (imho) is what I think investors were expecting."

The campaign was launched as an online game and offline was added after a short while due to overwhelming feedback and requests.

This is actually a worse state for them (in terms of how it is received), however, as it is kind of how these things can work in everyone's interest. The developer has put forward an idea and asked people to put their money where their mouth is if they want to see it made.

There was a community and a lot of exchange of ideas and a sizable portion of people asked for offline play. This was investigated and duly added to the features, which prompted more backers to sign on. In other words, they didn't want to back the project as it stood but with the promise of offline play, they did.

It is like organising a music festival, then, adding an act, which prompts a lot more ticket sales. Then, once the tickets have been sold (no refunds), the added act is removed. That's also legal but it's also sure to enrage affected customers.

Re: If I'd wanted a connected game I'd play Eve

@Sampler

". . . the game connects back to pick up universe information . . . as player interactions affect the universe, such as cargo value at various ports up to the outcome of various galactic battles depending on which sides the players backed."

But don't you see - this is exactly what (at least some) people are annoyed about. Whether you play in 'solo' mode or not, you are playing in a shared universe.

It is irrelevant to the argument whether you or anyone else thinks this is a good thing because this was always in the game so those who wanted it have it and have no place in this discussion - the finished game contains the features they want and allows them to play the way they want to.

What is relevant is that there are people who do not want this. They want their own universe, isolated from the trades and battles and goings on of every other commander - one that progresses on the same time scale that they play the game, whether it's once a day or once a month.

These people believed they were getting that feature and would be able to play the game that way but they were misled.

Yes, misled. deliberately, I feel. Not at first - I believe they really did intend to implement a true offline mode that was faithful to the way the name they are trading on worked.

But, at some point, the offline mode was de-emphasised as conflicts arose that required preferencing one over the other and they essentially cut offline mode and continued development that took them further away from their representations to backers.

The fact is that Braben several times hyped the great online sharing of ideas in a passionate community but when it came to actually telling that community what was going on and that a feature listed on the site and in their FAQs was out of favour and may be dropped, he curiously decided not to share that.

Again, whatever your personal preferences, a persistent, online world is a very different thing to an offline one - neither is better or worse but someone who wants an evolving online, persistent world would not be happy with a static world and someone who wanted a static, offline world would not be happy with a dynamic one.

If you think it doesn't matter and solo play fixes everything then you clearly haven't even understood the provided reasoning from Braben, which is that they want the story to evolve and change as players interact and, well, at their whim. They are playing a kind of dungeon master role and this is great for people who want it, but you must understand that some - quite a few - people don't.

I'll give you an example that David himself used in an interview, which was around a particular conflict between rebels and the rulers of a system. The devs noticed that players were 'backing' the rebels by running guns for them, and so they decided to make the rebels a bit more powerful and had them basically ruin a trade run (of some item). As Braben said, this had been a profitable trade for players, but then they found they could trade for more on the black market.

Sounds great, huh!?

Well, not for someone who wants to play offline. Taking the freedom of offline to play (really) however you want, maybe a player was using that profitable trade route to save for a new ship. Let us say, further, that this player doesn't play every day and sometimes not even once a week. One day he goes to run the route once again only to find that it doesn't exist or is no longer profitable and this has occurred due to the whims of a developer half way across the world (for you and me) in reaction to a bunch of players he has never met and it all happened while he was interstate for work last week.

Some people love that but there can be no denying that it is a fundamental difference that simply saying "you can play solo" doesn't quite address.

And of course the above scenario is just one of any number that can affect a player. Another one is the missions that are offered, which are, again, governed by the whims and 'hey; this will be cool!' opinions of the devs.

The major thing, however, is that you can't jump back in the story. You can't sign up a year from now and have the same experience as someone who signed up at the start. The missions he played and the developments he saw are lost to you. Whatever plot points or scripted events played out are gone. You have come in partway through a movie and you can't rewind it. You can ask or read a synopsis, but you can't join in.

Now, one might say that playing offline would entail missing these things altogether and that would be partially correct. The important point missing, however, is the fact that the offline mode would still have needed a story that you could interact with and thus you could explore the different facets of that story in multiple play-throughs. Can you take part in an important story battle on both sides in a persistent, online world? No, because it will never happen again.

Even at the more base levels, Braben identifies 'cheating' as a major reason for dropping offline mode. Which is very strange indeed - who cares if some cheats in offline mode? It doesn't impact anyone else because it's OFFLINE. The logic appears to be: "we need to force people online because cheating online is a big problem". What?

This is the kind of thing that people are annoyed about.

There were loads of people asking for an offline mode, so they agreed and said they would do it. They had a look and said that, yeah, that can be done, but warned backers that it wouldn't be as rich as the online play. They accepted that. So it is a big perplexing when it was announced that offline play was scrapped because it wasn't as rich as online play.

Re: "That's a flawed argument if ever I saw one."

@P.Lee

"Er, no it isn't. I think you'd be hard pressed to find find Christians in your local culture who think the Bible provides a mandate for killing prostitutes."

But don't you see - this is exactly my point - that the PREMISE of the original petition's argument would, if true, apply equally (if not more so) the the Bible. This is the function of the 'mock' petition - to bring this into focus.

Now, with the exception of, I believe daughters of priests* (Levites), the Bible does not have a particular problem with prostitution but the point is not the specific case of violence against prostitutes, but the more general assertion that exposure to certain behaviour via a some media or other 'encourages' and 'promotes' that behaviour in the real world.

That is the premise that must be accepted for the argument of original petition to be valid.

The counter-argument of the mock petition to have the Bible removed can be seen as a reductio ad absurdum.

You have essentially argued the same point I am making while missing it entirely. The fact that Christians don't stone adulterers to death, despite it mandated in the Bible is analogous to the fact that young men don't beat up prostitutes because they saw it in GTA V.

Someone well-versed in their Bible or with a grab-bag of stock Christian Apologist counter-points would bring up that most cherished passage in John about 'casting the first stone'. Sidestepping the debate and considerable uncertainty as to this story's providence, one can say that in the same (collected) work, there is an instruction to stone adulterers and a contrasting passage where an adulterer is forgiven.

My point is that it is trivial to find sections of the Bible that depict, condone and even mandate behaviour that is abhorrent to today's morality. It is also trivial to find sections of GTA V that are abhorrent.

If playing a game with violence and misogyny contributes to violence and misogyny in society then reading a book with violence and misogyny likewise contributes to violence and misogyny in society. No special pleading.

* - Who are supposed to be burnt alive if they "profane [themselves] by playing the whore". Because, after all, they have "profane[d] [their] father".

Re: "That's a flawed argument if ever I saw one."

Following on, none of the above is to make any judgements on the Bible (or Koran).

Whatever your religious persuasion, and whatever the arguments one might muster for the quality, holiness, 'goodness' or historicity of the Bible, and whatever one might say about context or allegories, there is no way any person who has actually read the thing could honestly claim that there were not parts that portrayed the protagonists treating women in ways that would be unthinkable to most people today, including sexism, misogyny, scapegoating, violence and through to murder.

My point is not that the Bible should be removed from shelves - and that is not the point of this new petition either - it is that the points and premises used to argue for the removal of a video game result, if taken seriously, in the condemnation of rather more than just GTA V. Including, but not limited to, the world's undisputed all-time best-seller.

And this is what is being said - if you think that playing a game will cause young men to mistreat women then only by the most one-eyed special pleading can you prevent such argument from applying to other works.

Re: Player morality

@John

Indeed. Morality is about choice. If you were somehow prevented from shooting prostitutes in game, in contrast to every other NPC then that is forced morality, which is no morality at all.

Re: "That's a flawed argument if ever I saw one."

@Vociferous is on the money here.

The assertion being levelled is that GTA V, a fictional work, "spreads the idea" that women can or should be treated in a certain way and "shows hatred and contempt", "grooming yet another generation of boys to tolerate violence against women" and "fuelling the epidemic of violence experienced by so many girls and women".

The petition is saying, essentially, that Target's tacit approval of the game, as shown by them selling it, sends a message that the behaviours portrayed in the game are acceptable by mainstream establishments.

In this, the bible can be used as a direct parallel. Indeed if one accepts the premises of the argument it is even more problematic. Why? Because GTA V merely gives you the ability to perform certain actions. The Bible - and other works in similar vein - don't just give an option; in the instances where such violence is committed, it is actually MANDATED. Not only that, it is portrayed as the right, proper and just thing to do.

One can point out that the Bible is (variously) +/-2000 years old and not 'interactive' like a modern video game but that need not affect the central claim - that a work has the effect of promoting an idea of behaviour or even an 'acceptance' of an idea or behaviour.

It is impossible to claim that the Bible - and the Koran - do not have this effect because there are clear instances where mistreatment of women and the acceptance of women as inferior and as scapegoats (women 'bringing it on themselves') has been brought about by an immersion in the teachings of such books. On the other hand, there a no clear instances that I am aware of where it has been shown that someone robbed and killed a prostitute simply because they did it in a video game.

One may point out that the Bible is not focussed on mistreating women and contains many 'good' passages so shouldn't be judged on the questionable portions. One might then respond: "exactly".

I don't believe this petition is seriously asking Target (and presumably Kmart) to take bibles off shelves - I don't even know if they stock them. What it is is showing the premises of the argument to be ridiculous and its application to be unfairly targetted at one very specific work.

In other words, if their premise is sound - that potrayal of behaviour in a work encourages people to commit or accept that behavior- then there is no reason to single out GTA V and their petition should have been far, far broader.

Instead, it is aimed at a convenient scapegoat.

Re: Taxi or pirates?

@AC

'Private hire cars' or 'minicabs' in London (other councils can invoke their own regulations) do need to be licensed and they do have plates and the driver does need to have real insurance. They also have to agree to a fee up-front and cannot be metered.

THIS, at least in London, is the big area of dispute.

Tfl has this to say:

"The rapid pace at which smartphone based technology has been developing in recent years has led to a need for clarity about what is required in order for apps to comply with the regulatory framework in London and to ensure there is a level playing field for all operators."

There is a "need for clarity" because it is not clear. Directly taking the words of Tfl:

"On the issue of taximeters, the law is unclear and we have taken a provisional view. We will be asking the High Court to provide a binding ruling. This is the sensible approach, and we hope that London's taxi drivers and private hire drivers and operators will work with us to bring clarity on this issue."

That was Leon Daniels - Managing Director of Surface Transport at Tfl.

This referral to the High Court has been delayed due to pending legal action but the fact remains that Tfl have admitted that, though they are of the opinion that method of metering trips used by Uber does not fall under the definitions of a taximeter, the law is "unclear'.

That is what one would call a 'grey area'.

Whether any particular person likes/loves/loathes Uber or supports the Black Cabbies or want to see them brought down a peg or just wants cheaper trips - the fact is that the law is not clear and thus it has been referred to the High Court.

Re: Taxi or pirates?

@AC

Well, what they are doing is operating in a kind of grey-area that has not been fully tested.

It is indeed a bit of a 'shake up' of the market but part of that is because of this grey-area and the continuing questions and now lawsuits show that cities have not been quick enough to rule one way or the other.

It should be simple - setup different categories of service (licensed taxis, hire cars, limo services, etc...) and then make clear, unambiguous rulings on exactly what the requirements are for each and when you fall under one classification or another.

It is my opinion that if you have a meter, then you are bound by the taxi regulations. One problem in London - not necessarily for customers - is that it is not clear exactly what constitutes a 'meter'. Uber does meter (v) the fare but do so via a phone app and GPS.

The current thinking is that this is enough of a distinction to exempt them from the normal taxi regulations, though this appears to be far from final.

Set clear, unambiguous regulations using clear, unambiguous and technologically up-to-date definitions (such as what constitutes a meter) and have at their heart - as the primary concern - the protection of customers, both in terms of their rights and their safety.

Re: more misogyny

@Graham 13

At the risk of being rude (you are new here - we're not all as bad as me) - do you actually have any idea what you're talking about?

I mean that seriously - have you ever played GTA V?

If not - and it seems this must be the case - then let me fill you in. It is an 'open world' game, which means that you get a living, vibrant world (in this case an island) and you are let loose. There is a story of course but that is utterly optional beyond the introduction, which has nothing at all to do with prostitutes.

The world contains NPCs (non-player characters) that, in the absence of any interference largely go on with their business. 'People' talk to each other on the street, they drive cars around, they pilot boats and helicopters and planes, they ride up mountain trails and operate trains. They announce stops on tour buses and ride the light rail system and generally just get on with it.

The way games like GTA work is to develop series of classes into which the various objects are assigned and actions which can be taken. They then model the effects of various actions on various objects.

For example, an object 'objCar_banshee' of class 'CCar' will, when interacting with an object of class 'CPerson' by way of action 'collide' with parameter of 'velocity=100mph' have the effects of deforming the sub-object 'objCar_banshee_bonnet', altering the orientation of sub-object 'objCar_wheels' and reducing the quantity of property 'intCar_speed' and 'intCar_stability'. As regards the object of class 'CPerson', the object will gain an increase in property 'velocity' along the vector 'impact_angle', while the several sub-objects of 'objPerson_L_arm', 'objPerson_R_leg', etc... will move according to sub-routine 'subBrace'. When the object of class 'CPerson' is then subject to action 'collision' with an object of class 'CBrick' of parent class 'CWall', while having property 'velocity' of 90mph (due to the object of class 'CPerson' previously interacting with the property 'wind_resistance'), then the object of class 'CPerson' will acquire property 'dead' and sub-object 'objPerson_L_leg' and other objects of class 'CLimbs' will cease to move in accordance with sub-routine 'subBrace' and will instead have trajectories calculated by sub-routine 'subRagdoll', which will be altered by the parameters passed from the objects of classes 'CArms' and 'CLegs' along with the inherited properties from class 'CLimbs'.

Again, I truly don't mean to be rude but READ the above. It's just a very crude example of what I mean and, not being a programmer, I have almost certainly made a meal of it in any number of ways*. BUT, that is the kind of way this works.

In GTA V, there are objects of class "CPerson" and sub-class "CProstitute". This sub-class has some specific actions and triggers associated with it to be sure. BUT - and this is the important part - the interactions between it and 'objBullet' of class 'C50_cal' or 'C12ga_pellet' or between it and 'objMelee' or class 'CKnife' or 'CBaseball_bat' are dependent on the properties of class 'CPerson' and not sub-class 'CProstitute'.

This is CRUCIAL. The game gives you the freedom to apply any action you want to any object you want and the object will be affected accordingly to the intersection of a bunch of properties and rules pertaining to the type of action undertaken and the classes that the object possesses.

In this instance, a prostitute is an object of class 'person' and so when you take action 'shoot' with object 'bullet', the object 'prostitute' will behave in accordance with the rules and properties set forth in class 'person'.

The only way to change this is to make objects of sub-class "prostitute" no longer members the parent class 'person'. I wonder if this is what the petitioners would like . . . ?

* - To any programmer, you have my apologies.

Re: Sigh.

@ Lamont Cranston

It doesn't make you "run around darkened rooms, munching pills and listening to repetitive music".

Re: @dan1980 Sigh.

@VinceH

Upvoted for giving me cause to say, genuinely: "LOL".

I have GTA V and I must confess that spend a good 90% of my time playing golf and tennis and highjacking light planes so I can cruise around peacefully. I have about 80% of the story in front of me but I can't seem to care. Far more fun to take a dirt bike and ride up a mountain or drive along the coast, taking random detours when you see something that looks fun to launch your car/bike over.

Or spending half an hour trying to steal a fighter jet, only to get shot down half a minute after you finally succeed.

@Suricou Raven

Why wouldn't they? We have an R18+ rating now and it is legal and it's not like it won't sell. I think the BIG thing is that Target and K-mart are both sell a lot of stuff for kids and families - i.e. purchased by mums. (And dads, of course, but mostly mums.)

Leading up to Christmas and thinking about all the clothing and toys they will sell, not to mention eskies and cheap outdoor settings and poorly molded wading pools, I suspected they are reasoning that, as the game has been out a while and many people have already bought it, they might stand to lose more from opinionated mums who will buy their poorly-stitched toddler clothing for Best and Less in protest than they will from gamers looking to buy the latest game.

I only set foot inside Target when I have seen a specific, advertised game at an excellent price. With 100% honesty, I can say that it has to be a big saving. If it's just $10, I buy it from my local specialist store. (They are MASSIVE nerds - it's awesome.) But then I never open a Target catalogue so the last time that happened was years ago.

It's a calculated move leading up to a profitable shopping time - are they really going to lose much business from gamers who will refuse to shop there on principle? No. Do they stand to lose a noticeable amount from nosy, opinionated parents buying under-sized and inadequately-braced beach umbrellas from arch-rival Big-W (Woolworths) instead? Yes.

Re: Mainframe zombies?

@Trevor

"IBM refuses to price it reasonably."

The word does not even exist in their corporate culture. They sold their of their presence in the everyday world to Lenovo, I think, just to be rid of any association with rank-and-file.

Hang on, didn't they recently sell their Watson architecture along with their foundry?

@Trevor_Pott

"I calls it like I sees it."

Right, so now you are dividing your time between attending industry events and your side project as a whale biologist.

I have added nothing useful to this conversation.

Re: Dear Stephen

@tnovelli

RE: Vanillin.

Ugh. Chocolate - real chocolate* - has 4-5 ingredients. You can't just replace one with an inferior artificial substitute and pretend you aren't punching your customers in the mouth.

Do you hear that Max, you bald shyster?

* - I.e. dark chocolat, but even milk chocolate should only add. well, milk, and there is still no excuse.