🚀 go-pugleaf

"Andrew Rybenkov" <aryb...@gmail.com> looked up from reading the
entrails of the porn spammer to utter  "The Augury is good, the signs
say:

>Before it was
>"Steam is a place where you buy games you will not play" :))
>But now, with trading cards presentation, it is
>"Steam is a place where they pay you for your gaming" :))
>
>Like I, at last, began to play "Call of Juarez", got 3 cards,
>sold them in no time, and overall got 150% of price I paid for the game.
>
>IMHO, this feature is serious blow to pirates, much more effective than
>all those stupid laws and restrictions.

Pretty much what I've said all along;  You don't treat everyone like a
thief by putting intrusive security schemes on the games that the
pirates defeat in no time anyway, you reward purchasers with a little
extra.

Make them _want_ to buy it.

Really they have only themselves to blame - crap games at very high
retail prices and they long ago stopped including the basic stuff with
the games - REAL MANUALS for one - when all they give you is a
half-assed manual on .pdf, there's no barrier to copying.

When there's a 100+ page manual you need, well that's a bit harder to
copy.  Sure the pirates can scan it (assuming it's not hard to scan) and
make a pdf, but that's actually work.

$60, 100 hour games in Game _boxes_ full of discs, manuals, cloth maps,
posters and other stuff to $60, 10 hour games in dvd cases with a disc
and an install guide.
Give far less at the same price and make it easier to distribute
digitally - gee I wonder why copying increased?

Xocyll

On Mon, 29 Jul 2013 09:38:15 -0400, Xocyll <Xoc...@kingston.net>
wrote:

>"Andrew Rybenkov" <aryb...@gmail.com> looked up from reading the
>entrails of the porn spammer to utter  "The Augury is good, the signs
>say:
>
>>Before it was
>>"Steam is a place where you buy games you will not play" :))
>>But now, with trading cards presentation, it is
>>"Steam is a place where they pay you for your gaming" :))
>>
>>Like I, at last, began to play "Call of Juarez", got 3 cards,
>>sold them in no time, and overall got 150% of price I paid for the game.
>>
>>IMHO, this feature is serious blow to pirates, much more effective than
>>all those stupid laws and restrictions.
>
>Pretty much what I've said all along;  You don't treat everyone like a
>thief by putting intrusive security schemes on the games that the
>pirates defeat in no time anyway, you reward purchasers with a little
>extra.
>
>Make them _want_ to buy it.
>
>Really they have only themselves to blame - crap games at very high
>retail prices and they long ago stopped including the basic stuff with
>the games - REAL MANUALS for one - when all they give you is a
>half-assed manual on .pdf, there's no barrier to copying.
>
>When there's a 100+ page manual you need, well that's a bit harder to
>copy.  Sure the pirates can scan it (assuming it's not hard to scan) and
>make a pdf, but that's actually work.
>
>$60, 100 hour games in Game _boxes_ full of discs, manuals, cloth maps,
>posters and other stuff to $60, 10 hour games in dvd cases with a disc
>and an install guide.
>Give far less at the same price and make it easier to distribute
>digitally - gee I wonder why copying increased?
>
>Xocyll

Games that must be downloaded for days sometimes that cost more than
purchasing the boxed DVD.

PW <emailad...@ifIremember.com> looked up from reading the entrails
of the porn spammer to utter  "The Augury is good, the signs say:

>On Mon, 29 Jul 2013 09:38:15 -0400, Xocyll <Xoc...@kingston.net>
>wrote:
>
>>"Andrew Rybenkov" <aryb...@gmail.com> looked up from reading the
>>entrails of the porn spammer to utter  "The Augury is good, the signs
>>say:
>>
>>>Before it was
>>>"Steam is a place where you buy games you will not play" :))
>>>But now, with trading cards presentation, it is
>>>"Steam is a place where they pay you for your gaming" :))
>>>
>>>Like I, at last, began to play "Call of Juarez", got 3 cards,
>>>sold them in no time, and overall got 150% of price I paid for the game.
>>>
>>>IMHO, this feature is serious blow to pirates, much more effective than
>>>all those stupid laws and restrictions.
>>
>>Pretty much what I've said all along;  You don't treat everyone like a
>>thief by putting intrusive security schemes on the games that the
>>pirates defeat in no time anyway, you reward purchasers with a little
>>extra.
>>
>>Make them _want_ to buy it.
>>
>>Really they have only themselves to blame - crap games at very high
>>retail prices and they long ago stopped including the basic stuff with
>>the games - REAL MANUALS for one - when all they give you is a
>>half-assed manual on .pdf, there's no barrier to copying.
>>
>>When there's a 100+ page manual you need, well that's a bit harder to
>>copy.  Sure the pirates can scan it (assuming it's not hard to scan) and
>>make a pdf, but that's actually work.
>>
>>$60, 100 hour games in Game _boxes_ full of discs, manuals, cloth maps,
>>posters and other stuff to $60, 10 hour games in dvd cases with a disc
>>and an install guide.
>>Give far less at the same price and make it easier to distribute
>>digitally - gee I wonder why copying increased?
>>
>>Xocyll
>
>Games that must be downloaded for days sometimes that cost more than
>purchasing the boxed DVD.

That's the downside to the whole digital download revolution - it
assumes that everyone who wants the game also has ultra broadband and
can download multiple gigabytes in a few minutes.

That's one of the reasons I prefer retail boxed games - My DSL is about
1.4MBit on a good day.
The other reason is if I have the retail box I don't have to back up the
installation or face another multi-day download to play it again - I can
just stick the disc in the drive.

And there's just something about being able to look over at the game
shelf and look at the boxes.  Even games you don't think will load
anymore evoke fond memories.
The Wing Commander box does, but Wing_Commander.rar never would.

Xocyll

On Thu, 01 Aug 2013 10:33:52 -0400, Xocyll <Xoc...@kingston.net>
wrote:

>PW <emailad...@ifIremember.com> looked up from reading the entrails
>of the porn spammer to utter  "The Augury is good, the signs say:
>
>>On Mon, 29 Jul 2013 09:38:15 -0400, Xocyll <Xoc...@kingston.net>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>"Andrew Rybenkov" <aryb...@gmail.com> looked up from reading the
>>>entrails of the porn spammer to utter  "The Augury is good, the signs
>>>say:
>>>
>>>>Before it was
>>>>"Steam is a place where you buy games you will not play" :))
>>>>But now, with trading cards presentation, it is
>>>>"Steam is a place where they pay you for your gaming" :))
>>>>
>>>>Like I, at last, began to play "Call of Juarez", got 3 cards,
>>>>sold them in no time, and overall got 150% of price I paid for the game.
>>>>
>>>>IMHO, this feature is serious blow to pirates, much more effective than
>>>>all those stupid laws and restrictions.
>>>
>>>Pretty much what I've said all along;  You don't treat everyone like a
>>>thief by putting intrusive security schemes on the games that the
>>>pirates defeat in no time anyway, you reward purchasers with a little
>>>extra.
>>>
>>>Make them _want_ to buy it.
>>>
>>>Really they have only themselves to blame - crap games at very high
>>>retail prices and they long ago stopped including the basic stuff with
>>>the games - REAL MANUALS for one - when all they give you is a
>>>half-assed manual on .pdf, there's no barrier to copying.
>>>
>>>When there's a 100+ page manual you need, well that's a bit harder to
>>>copy.  Sure the pirates can scan it (assuming it's not hard to scan) and
>>>make a pdf, but that's actually work.
>>>
>>>$60, 100 hour games in Game _boxes_ full of discs, manuals, cloth maps,
>>>posters and other stuff to $60, 10 hour games in dvd cases with a disc
>>>and an install guide.
>>>Give far less at the same price and make it easier to distribute
>>>digitally - gee I wonder why copying increased?
>>>
>>>Xocyll
>>
>>Games that must be downloaded for days sometimes that cost more than
>>purchasing the boxed DVD.
>
>That's the downside to the whole digital download revolution - it
>assumes that everyone who wants the game also has ultra broadband and
>can download multiple gigabytes in a few minutes.
>
>That's one of the reasons I prefer retail boxed games - My DSL is about
>1.4MBit on a good day.
>The other reason is if I have the retail box I don't have to back up the
>installation or face another multi-day download to play it again - I can
>just stick the disc in the drive.
>

I hear ya X!!

>And there's just something about being able to look over at the game
>shelf and look at the boxes.  Even games you don't think will load
>anymore evoke fond memories.
>The Wing Commander box does, but Wing_Commander.rar never would.
>
>Xocyll

I hear you again loud and clear! :-)

-pw

On Thursday, August 1, 2013 10:33:52 AM UTC-4, Xocyll wrote:
> PW <emailad...@ifIremember.com> looked up from reading the entrails
> 
> of the porn spammer to utter  "The Augury is good, the signs say:
> 
> 
> 
> >On Mon, 29 Jul 2013 09:38:15 -0400, Xocyll <Xoc...@kingston.net>
> 
> >wrote:
> 
> >


> 
> >>"Andrew Rybenkov" <aryb...@gmail.com> looked up from reading the
> 
> >>entrails of the porn spammer to utter  "The Augury is good, the signs
> 
> >>say:
> 
> >>
> 
> >>>Before it was
> 
> >>>"Steam is a place where you buy games you will not play" :))
> 
> >>>But now, with trading cards presentation, it is
> 
> >>>"Steam is a place where they pay you for your gaming" :))
> 
> >>>
> 
> >>>Like I, at last, began to play "Call of Juarez", got 3 cards,
> 
> >>>sold them in no time, and overall got 150% of price I paid for the game.
> 
> >>>
> 
> >>>IMHO, this feature is serious blow to pirates, much more effective than
> 
> >>>all those stupid laws and restrictions.
> 
> >>
> 
> >>Pretty much what I've said all along;  You don't treat everyone like a
> 
> >>thief by putting intrusive security schemes on the games that the
> 
> >>pirates defeat in no time anyway, you reward purchasers with a little
> 
> >>extra.
> 
> >>
> 
> >>Make them _want_ to buy it.
> 
> >>
> 
> >>Really they have only themselves to blame - crap games at very high
> 
> >>retail prices and they long ago stopped including the basic stuff with
> 
> >>the games - REAL MANUALS for one - when all they give you is a
> 
> >>half-assed manual on .pdf, there's no barrier to copying.
> 
> >>
> 
> >>When there's a 100+ page manual you need, well that's a bit harder to
> 
> >>copy.  Sure the pirates can scan it (assuming it's not hard to scan) and
> 
> >>make a pdf, but that's actually work.
> 
> >>
> 
> >>$60, 100 hour games in Game _boxes_ full of discs, manuals, cloth maps,
> 
> >>posters and other stuff to $60, 10 hour games in dvd cases with a disc
> 
> >>and an install guide.
> 
> >>Give far less at the same price and make it easier to distribute
> 
> >>digitally - gee I wonder why copying increased?
> 
> >>
> 
> >>Xocyll
> 
> >
> 
> >Games that must be downloaded for days sometimes that cost more than
> 
> >purchasing the boxed DVD.
> 
> 
> 
> That's the downside to the whole digital download revolution - it
> 
> assumes that everyone who wants the game also has ultra broadband and
> 
> can download multiple gigabytes in a few minutes.
> 
> 
> 
> That's one of the reasons I prefer retail boxed games - My DSL is about
> 
> 1.4MBit on a good day.
> 
> The other reason is if I have the retail box I don't have to back up the
> 
> installation or face another multi-day download to play it again - I can
> 
> just stick the disc in the drive.
> 
> 
> 
> And there's just something about being able to look over at the game
> 
> shelf and look at the boxes.  Even games you don't think will load
> 
> anymore evoke fond memories.
> 
> The Wing Commander box does, but Wing_Commander.rar never would.
> 
> 
> 
> Xocyll


And we used to think that 5600 baud was "fast"... 

Insane Ranter <log...@gmail.com> looked up from reading the entrails of
the porn spammer to utter  "The Augury is good, the signs say:

<snip>

>And we used to think that 5600 baud was "fast"... 

Pretty sure that was never a standard, so no, no one ever did.

You thinking of a 56K modem perhaps?  
Which were fast for their time.

Be thankful you weren't going online earlier in the 2400 days (or
earlier.)  56K was SCREAMINGLY fast compared to that.

Xocyll

Xocyll <Xoc...@kingston.net> writes:
> Be thankful you weren't going online earlier in the 2400 days (or
> earlier.)  56K was SCREAMINGLY fast compared to that.

... and compared to 300 baud, 2400 was _heaven_...

[I've played rogue over a 300 baud dialup ... it was ... well.]

-miles

-- 
Egotist, n. A person of low taste, more interested in himself than in me.

On Sat, 03 Aug 2013 07:39:32 +0900, Miles Bader <mi...@gnu.org> wrote:

>Xocyll <Xoc...@kingston.net> writes:
>> Be thankful you weren't going online earlier in the 2400 days (or
>> earlier.)  56K was SCREAMINGLY fast compared to that.
>
>... and compared to 300 baud, 2400 was _heaven_...
>
>[I've played rogue over a 300 baud dialup ... it was ... well.]
>
>-miles

Ah the joys of 300 baud.  The data rate could not keep pace with my
typing at times (literally).  At least the Hayes Smartmodem was a nice
upgrade over the acoustic coupler, where a sneeze or other ambient
noise could disconnect your connection or at minimum throw a bunch of
garbage characters into the data stream for display on the screen.

On 02/08/2013 6:58 PM, Rin Stowleigh wrote:
> On Sat, 03 Aug 2013 07:39:32 +0900, Miles Bader <mi...@gnu.org> wrote:
>
>> Xocyll <Xoc...@kingston.net> writes:
>>> Be thankful you weren't going online earlier in the 2400 days (or
>>> earlier.)  56K was SCREAMINGLY fast compared to that.
>>
>> ... and compared to 300 baud, 2400 was _heaven_...
>>
>> [I've played rogue over a 300 baud dialup ... it was ... well.]
>>
>> -miles
>
> Ah the joys of 300 baud.  The data rate could not keep pace with my
> typing at times (literally).

Are you sure about that, Rin? 110 baud was 10 characters per second, or 
100 "words" per minute ("word" meaning 5 characters and a space in the 
usual typing speed tests). 300 baud would be around 300 wpm, an inhuman 
typing rate.

On Sat, 03 Aug 2013 17:41:39 -0400, David Lamb <dal...@cs.queensu.ca>
wrote:

>On 02/08/2013 6:58 PM, Rin Stowleigh wrote:
>> On Sat, 03 Aug 2013 07:39:32 +0900, Miles Bader <mi...@gnu.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Xocyll <Xoc...@kingston.net> writes:
>>>> Be thankful you weren't going online earlier in the 2400 days (or
>>>> earlier.)  56K was SCREAMINGLY fast compared to that.
>>>
>>> ... and compared to 300 baud, 2400 was _heaven_...
>>>
>>> [I've played rogue over a 300 baud dialup ... it was ... well.]
>>>
>>> -miles
>>
>> Ah the joys of 300 baud.  The data rate could not keep pace with my
>> typing at times (literally).
>
>Are you sure about that, Rin? 110 baud was 10 characters per second, or 
>100 "words" per minute ("word" meaning 5 characters and a space in the 
>usual typing speed tests). 300 baud would be around 300 wpm, an inhuman 
>typing rate.

Yes I'm sure, but maybe I should clarify.

In those days, when we were typing over "terminal software", it was
normally sending the data one character at a time over the wire. These
days, we are typing into some client software (for example text input
on a web page, or a window object in client software like a
newsreader) and the text is not hit until we hit the submit button
which sends lots of data all at once, usually via HTTP PUT/POST or
GET. 

So if you can imagine a network round trip occuring with each
character typed (well sort of, depending on circumstances), you can
imagine how the max theoretical bandwidth is not even getting close to
being utilized.

Anyone who used 300 baud modems and typed reasonably fast knows what I
mean.  You would sit there and transfer the thought from brain to
fingertips then sit back and watch the screen catch up with your
typing (each backspace to correct typos would get replayed as if
watching a slow motion video).  If you were a hunt-n-peck or otherwise
slow typist, it might never bother you.

Then of course there was the issue that 300 baud was slower than many
folks' normal reading speed.

"Rin Stowleigh"  wrote in message 
news:qr7rv8drd7kilonv8jugqlastk41ml1l37@4ax.com...

On Sat, 03 Aug 2013 17:41:39 -0400, David Lamb <dal...@cs.queensu.ca>
wrote:

>On 02/08/2013 6:58 PM, Rin Stowleigh wrote:
>> On Sat, 03 Aug 2013 07:39:32 +0900, Miles Bader <mi...@gnu.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Xocyll <Xoc...@kingston.net> writes:
>>>> Be thankful you weren't going online earlier in the 2400 days (or
>>>> earlier.)  56K was SCREAMINGLY fast compared to that.
>>>
>>> ... and compared to 300 baud, 2400 was _heaven_...
>>>
>>> [I've played rogue over a 300 baud dialup ... it was ... well.]
>>>
>>> -miles
>>
>> Ah the joys of 300 baud.  The data rate could not keep pace with my
>> typing at times (literally).
>
>Are you sure about that, Rin? 110 baud was 10 characters per second, or
>100 "words" per minute ("word" meaning 5 characters and a space in the
>usual typing speed tests). 300 baud would be around 300 wpm, an inhuman
>typing rate.

Yes I'm sure, but maybe I should clarify.

In those days, when we were typing over "terminal software", it was
normally sending the data one character at a time over the wire. These
days, we are typing into some client software (for example text input
on a web page, or a window object in client software like a
newsreader) and the text is not hit until we hit the submit button
which sends lots of data all at once, usually via HTTP PUT/POST or
GET.

So if you can imagine a network round trip occuring with each
character typed (well sort of, depending on circumstances), you can
imagine how the max theoretical bandwidth is not even getting close to
being utilized.

Anyone who used 300 baud modems and typed reasonably fast knows what I
mean.  You would sit there and transfer the thought from brain to
fingertips then sit back and watch the screen catch up with your
typing (each backspace to correct typos would get replayed as if
watching a slow motion video).  If you were a hunt-n-peck or otherwise
slow typist, it might never bother you.

Then of course there was the issue that 300 baud was slower than many
folks' normal reading speed.

____________________________

I remember those days.

Chuck

On Sun, 4 Aug 2013 06:55:53 -0400, "Chuck" <chuck....@comcast.net>
wrote:

>"Rin Stowleigh"  wrote in message 
>news:qr7rv8drd7kilonv8jugqlastk41ml1l37@4ax.com...

>>Anyone who used 300 baud modems and typed reasonably fast knows what I
>>mean.  You would sit there and transfer the thought from brain to
>>fingertips then sit back and watch the screen catch up with your
>>typing (each backspace to correct typos would get replayed as if
>>watching a slow motion video).  If you were a hunt-n-peck or otherwise
>>slow typist, it might never bother you.

>>Then of course there was the issue that 300 baud was slower than many
>>folks' normal reading speed.

>I remember those days.
>
>Chuck

Some of us take drugs to forget those days. ;-)

I may have a vague nostalgia for the simplicity of those older
machines, where if it broke or if you needed it to do something, you
could probably manage to figure out on your own. 

But the ease-of-use and speed that modern machines provide more than
make up for it. I'm glad no longer required to use those Dark Age
machines...

Miles Bader <mi...@gnu.org> writes:

> Xocyll <Xoc...@kingston.net> writes:
>> Be thankful you weren't going online earlier in the 2400 days (or
>> earlier.)  56K was SCREAMINGLY fast compared to that.
>
> ... and compared to 300 baud, 2400 was _heaven_...
>
> [I've played rogue over a 300 baud dialup ... it was ... well.]

I never did but I guess that's why the game had a terse mode for short
messages...