Hacker Newsnew | comments | show | ask | jobs | submit | _pi's comments login

It's not casual gamers, it's gamers in general. All of my friends who have bought this game ignore issues with it because "IT'S STARCRAFT II!!!!!!!!". Gamers are the weak, and easy to manipulate, they give in, boycotts aren't effective, and for video games you can forget about having any sort of unified front. Back when I still read reddit's /r/pics there'd be a weekly posting of BOYCOTT MWII steam group of some sort and everyon was playing MWII.

-----


I think that's kind of a woeful generalization. The most vocal members of the population certainly have something like that, but plenty of people who play games (myself included) bought SC2 because they were happy enough with the content and not dissuaded enough by the downsides - I'm sure plenty of other people quietly went about their business, passing it up because of the various issues discussed in this thread.

-----


For most gamers the upside of playing the game overrules the downside all the time. Me? I haven't bought SC2, L4D2 or MW2, because all of them disrespect the platform, and it's users. I want more features than I had in 1995, not less, I want companies to stand by their promises, and I don't want some neutered 1:1 console port, respectively. I also don't want Blizzard controlling the upstream of game content. Bobby Kiotik will want to monetize that, I'm not stupid. There's going to be Starcraft 10$ map packs soon. I refuse to relinquish my rights to companies who have proven that they are untrustworthy, even with entertainment.

-----


Another good point about his strategy is that he derives almost everything from the feel good feeling of "You're on the internet, I'm on the internet You can trust me." This is no different than candidates touting their religious affiliation. We're all on the internet, in fact I don't know a person who isn't, and many of those people that I know don't share my politics, let alone my views on life.

And most importantly the people who are in the Tea Party also use the Internet. Here's the problem with his concept of nations, look at the UN. Look at congress, they are all abstracts of general political distributions. All of the deadlock, ALL the time. Why? Because there's going to always be a pro-coffee and an anti-coffee nation/interest group/campaign. Sean Tevis can't fix human nature with any amount of money.

-----


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valerie_Plame

Seriously? You're complaining about Wikileaks doing it (debatable) when Bush & Co make this seem like so 2006.

-----


Hey we're losing 20,000 dollars for each car we sell but don't worry we'll make it up on volume!

-----


Not to mention potential anti-trust implications (US) or dumping (international).

-----


SSL isn't a distribution channel. SSL is a authentication mechanism.

-----


Why is this being downvoted?

-----


>There are few OSS projects that have done anything more than steal ideas from commercial software in terms of innovation. Programming languages are the only place I can think of that OSS is cutting edge.

Surely you're joking? Outlook is a crappy email client. Mutt which is older than I am, handles mail better than Outlook does, I hate using Outlook. It means archiving my mail every month (several accounts over several PST files over an a very high mail volume). Ever since it's beginning outlook was the crappiest mail software. You can't figure out what the hell it's doing and it crashes all the damn time without error or with generic/cryptic ones. The only way to fix it is to wipe your settings from the hard drive, and reset registry keys to defaults. And if that doesn't work reinstall office.

Not to mention compiz/beryl had desktop effects before any other operating system. Linux in the kernel level has removed the need for file polling, replacing it with iwatch. Linux has on demand file system and virtual file system mounting. There are hardly any drivers for file systems or virtual file systems on Windows. Dokan is the only place where you can get FUSE or SSH and the software is crappy.

MS to this day hasn't standardized it's own security structure (EX: runas.exe in XP will have the processes pass on administrator rights to all child processes 7 doesn't neither does Vista). And lets face it on the top of it's game Windows default security could have been over-riden by pressing cancel on the logon screen. On anything but a fickle consumer and ease level Windows and to some extent OSX (although the use of a BSD kernel and the growth of MacPorts mitigates this a bit) don't hold a candle to the features found in Linux.

You seem to equate success and innovation with sales and press releases. In this case you probably think that MS is doing something revolutionary by letting Xboxes read usb drives.

-----


> Surely you're joking? Outlook is a crappy email client.

Surely you're joking. First, Outlook isn't for anyone who'd be comfortable operating mutt. Period. Second, sure, Outlook has stupid design-decisions. But nobody claimed that Outlook is perfect, it was argued that Outlook was better than Lotus Notes which is was competing against when it was launched. And it was (and is), leaps and bounds. Third, Outlook isn't just a mail client, it's an integrated communications suite. It has taken OSS years and years to catch up with this. You may not agree that it's a critical feature, but for millions of business users, it's a deal-breaker.

There's good innovation in the kernel-space, too, but user-facing apps are playing catch-up.

-----


>Third, Outlook isn't just a mail client, it's an integrated communications suite. It has taken OSS years and years to catch up with this. You may not agree that it's a critical feature, but for millions of business users, it's a deal-breaker.

KDE has had very good PIM software for a while now even before KDE4. Kontact has always been a suite for that kind of stuff, and it's possible to do most things in Outlook in Kontact. Also if you're talking about Exchange and groupware servers there are a few for Linux like Zimbra. However I haven't even seen Fortune 500 companies make most of the use of Exchange features.

Also your measure for success is very shallow. Essentially you don't see OSS as competition, which belies your actual position and tells me that there's no point in arguing this with you considering your mind is made up about OSS. As far as I'm concerned all vendor software loses out because it's missing basic features from a IT management standpoint. Also from my experiences millions of business users are too stupid to use Outlook in any shape or form because they lack basic computer proficiency skills.

-----


> Not to mention compiz/beryl had desktop effects before any other operating system.

You’re joking, right? Mac OS X has always had some sort of desktop effects. Hardware accelerated Quartz Extreme was part of 10.2 in 2002. And Exposé was introduced in 2003… All before Compiz/beryl.

-----


You're right OSX did have Quarts and expose before linux did. I was talking about Microsoft Operating systems but I wasn't clear enough.

-----


> Linux in the kernel level has removed the need for file polling, replacing it with iwatch

As long as we're comparing who did what first (as if that's relevant today), ReadDirectoryChangesW came in Windows 2000. inotify came in 2005.

> MS to this day hasn't standardized it's own security structure (EX: runas.exe in XP will have the processes pass on administrator rights to all child processes 7 doesn't neither does Vista)

Given that Vista overall has a rather different security structure from XP, I don't see how this is relevant.

> And lets face it on the top of it's game Windows default security could have been over-riden by pressing cancel on the logon screen

Amusingly, this just displays your own naivete. The only way to get security if someone has physical access is through cryptography. Pressing cancel on a local login screen is equivalent to booting into single user mode or just using a boot disk and wiping out the local administrator's password.

> You seem to equate success and innovation with sales and press releases.

Microsoft Research is the most prolific non-university academic CS research lab in the world. The people that work there are all truly brilliant. (disclosure: I did an internship there this summer)

-----


>As long as we're comparing who did what first (as if that's relevant today), ReadDirectoryChangesW came in Windows 2000. inotify came in 2005.

Inotify was a replacement for dnotify. Which was there since 2.4. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dnotify

Also comparing the two subsystems is entirely wrong. ReadDirectoryChangesW is still a polling mechanism, inotify and dnotify are kernel level events.

>Amusingly, this just displays your own naivete. The only way to get security if someone has physical access is through cryptography. Pressing cancel on a local login screen is equivalent to booting into single user mode or just using a boot disk and wiping out the local administrator's password.

You're just being an obstinate child here. There's a difference when anyone can defeat your security, and when knowledgeable people can defeat your security. Why do company's take people of the premises when they're fired? Because it's easier for them to lash out, and cause damage. Well it's certainly easier for a passerby to break into your system by pressing cancel. Outside physical threats are always there, especially in the form of delivery men. What's the point of even password protecting something when the UPS guy can come and hit cancel cause he has 95 at home? Not only that but you still need a password for single user mode, and it would take a bit longer for him if he had a boot disk.

>Microsoft Research is the most prolific non-university academic CS research lab in the world. The people that work there are all truly brilliant. (disclosure: I did an internship there this summer)

This isn't about Microsoft Research, this is about Microsoft products. This is a completely irrelevant point. MSR is a fine institution which is a great place for academic papers, they don't generally develop products for Microsoft.

-----


This isn't about Microsoft Research, this is about Microsoft products. This is a completely irrelevant point. MSR is a fine institution which is a great place for academic papers, they don't generally develop products for Microsoft.

Don't talk shit about stuff you know nothing about.

-----


dnotify wasn't sensibly designed. inotify/ReadDirectoryChangesW are.

> Also comparing the two subsystems is entirely wrong. ReadDirectoryChangesW is still a polling mechanism, inotify and dnotify are kernel level events.

ReadDirectoryChangesW sleeps while there aren't any changes and only returns once there are some changes. Efficiency-wise there isn't any real difference between kernel-level events and sleeping on a different thread, and I don't see one as clearly better than the other. After all, waking a thread up is also a kernel-level event!

> Not only that but you still need a password for single user mode, and it would take a bit longer for him if he had a boot disk.

Who cares? The difference in the level of security you get is a small epsilon. You either don't care about physical attacks, in which case you don't care whether it takes 5 seconds or 5 minutes to break, or you do care about physical attacks, in which case you encrypt your data.

Of course, your entire point is irrelevant -- calling Windows 9x "on the top of it's [sic] game" in terms of security is lying. Windows 9x was insecure in much more serious ways than a stupid login prompt. Windows NT-based systems, especially Vista onwards, are much more effectively designed.

> This isn't about Microsoft Research, this is about Microsoft products. This is a completely irrelevant point.

You used the words "success" and "innovation". The fact that MSR exists and is as good as it is, is an important part of Microsoft's success as a whole, and there's no lack of innovation on display there (witness Street Slide for a recent example). To consider "success" and "innovation" only in terms of released products is myopic.

-----


I saw him speak, while I agree with some point of his argument, and disagree with others, and think that some points of his argument aren't fully developed and too clear cut. The worst part about it was hearing those stupid names.

-----


You forget existentialism has a clear definition of angst, despair and inauthentic living. That tie into what is "good" in existentialism. Essentially existentialism says yes happiness is good, but happiness supplied by drugs is an external source of happiness and is thus inauthentic. Poking yourself with needles, ie the act of consuming doesn't make you feel good, the drug does. Existentialism is in this respect where Eastern philosophies meet with the West. Read some Camus, or Sartre, but if you feel the need to see what existentialism is like with a higher power read Kierkegaard.

-----


Hmm for some reason my motions don't work with [ { ( or b/B. I can't seem to find a reason for this. " works though.

Edit: seems actual jump selection can be finicky.

-----


>starcraft 2 is a game that values practice is thinking out of the box more than anything else, I know far more starcraft players amongst startups/hackers than settlers of catan, or anything else.

I love it when people say games value thinking out of the box. Yeah! My Zerglings can beat a Yamato Cruiser right? Because they can like jump off of a cliff onto it... or something. Every game has a tiered structure of what works and doesn't SC2 is no different. At competitive levels of play there's only a handful of strategies people use, they'll work them selves out over the next month or so and then be set in stone unless people find glitches in the game that don't get patched like the original SC. SC2 is a game of rock paper scissors at the core. Every strategy game is.

>not only will starcraft 2 reiterate what a big deal video games are, it's going to shape popular culture, it's going to be played by millions of players each and every day for the next decade or so.

You know every other pop music group is listened to by millions of people some for even 3 or 4 decades! Example Led Zeppelin, so how come Led Zeppelin posts aren't on HN? SC2 is entertainment pure and simple, essentially by posting entertainment links it's going against the spirit of the rules. It's essentially cat pictures. And you know those are big on the internet which we're on, and that argument makes as much sense as your "on a computer clause".

-----


You're right about SC2 reducing to a game of rock/paper/scissors, just like chess is a very simple game (not to mention Go). Yes, this unit counters that unit, which counters this other unit.. but there are quite a few units in the game, and adding terrain considerations and building/tech options (and the list of variables goes on) you start to get the situation where you can develop quite intricate strategies.

The classical example from Starcraft 1 is Slayers/Boxer, the Korean player who played as terran when everyone thought it was completely inferior, and developed new strategies that made him world champion.

Sure, you can snicker at it being "just a video game", but it's fundamentally no different from any other game or sport.

Even rock/paper/scissors can become quite interesting with just two more options, see: http://www.samkass.com/theories/RPSSL.html

-----


Rock/paper/scissors/spock/lizard seems to have the same winning strategy as the original game. Nothing interesting there, if you know how to generate random bits.

-----


My point was that it's entertainment. I know it's a video game, but essentially it's no different from any other entertainment. I mean we don't have World Cup or Superbowl Stories on HN, why have the release of Starcraft? I'm sure there are people here who keep up with sports.

-----


Well, personally I think Starcraft is quite an interesting topic (game aside). The whole esports scene in Korea that it's given rise to, the fact that several top ranking starcraft players have gone on to become top ranking poker players. Besides, it's interesting if only as a success story - what is it about it that sets it apart from any other computer strategy game?

I also think Blizzard is interesting from that perspective. It's quite fascinating that they have managed to, on multiple occasions, create franchises so successful that people actually can earn a living playing them, gold farming/selling characters in the case of WoW and esports in the case of starcraft and warcraft. In that sense I think they have something in common with Apple, in that there is something intangible about what they do (quality?) that makes them extremely successful.

-----


> My point was that it's entertainment. I know it's a video game, but essentially it's no different from any other entertainment. I mean we don't have World Cup or Superbowl Stories on HN, why have the release of Starcraft? I'm sure there are people here who keep up with sports.

Sure its entertainment - entertainment created by an large group of developers/hackers/programmers; for me, thats a major delineation from other sports and entertainment.

The discussion can turn towards the high technical aptitude needed to create games (which, IMHO, is one of the areas of development pushing the bounds of computing...AI, physics, the shit-ton of math involved, balancing...etc etc.), but thats a different topic.

-----


> My point was that it's entertainment.

So? Why is the topic of entertainment a bad thing for HN?

> I know it's a video game, but essentially it's no different from any other entertainment.

The only thing I can see that it shares with other forms of entertainment is that it entertains. And if we are wondering why we post things that entertain us on HN, HN itself would probably not exist.

> I mean we don't have World Cup or Superbowl Stories on HN, why have the release of Starcraft?

If you honestly can't see a difference between the release of SC2 and the Superbowl, you're purposefully being obtuse, and if you are, your comments are hurting HN much more than a post about SC2.

However, I'll assume your just ignorant, and I'll explain the difference.

First, SC2 is a game that the users of HN have a higher chance of playing than they would have of playing in the Superbowl. Indeed, I'll go so far as to suggest that no registered user, yet, has ever played in any Superbowl.

Secondly, rather than simply be passive entertainment like the Superbowl, SC2 is a game we can actually play.

Next, their is a large following, and that following essentially evolved e-sports. People can laugh at e-sports all they want, but it's no different then watching real sports. Continuing on, the launch of SC2 today means the e-sports arena is essentially being revitalized. A sizable number of individuals are looking at how to capitalize on e-sports. Indeed, their are individuals actually making money casting esport games, or startups using esports to easily market via sponsorships of tournaments.

You see, the launch of SC2 isn't just a game. Why? Mostly because of the success of SC:BW in e-sports. So, unlike just another game being release, SC2 is different. It will present more opportunities for people to explore, and see how they can capitalize on the SC2.

In short, no. SC2 isn't just like every other game, and it is different from other entertainment. Indeed, it has more relevance on HN then your comments complaining about it's inclusion.

-----


> Indeed, I'll go so far as to suggest that no registered user, yet, has ever played in any Superbowl.

What about Peter Norvig?

http://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=pnorvig

-----


I upvoted you for your explanation of videogame tactics, and then wish I hadn't wasted it after your pop music explanations.

-----


Care to explain your vague statement?

-----

More

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Lists | Bookmarklet | DMCA | Y Combinator | Apply | Contact

Search: