metadigital

Yah!

Not necessarily; it would break the current EULA model, which I don't particularly like or agree with. It would require a modification, say, have the developers (who now own their IP and therefore its copyright) allocate the individual end-user identification according to however they want, e.g. act as a broker between seller and purchaser ...

No. Strictly speaking it is illegal to re-sell your software licence, as it contravenes the EULA. (Interesting constitutional Supreme Court battle-in-waiting, there.) If your DD fails you might stil be able to buy a mint condition copy off eBay, too. The biggest point, and also the most ignored in this thread, is that the Developers retain control of their IP, rather than the publishers. That is no different from pooling together with your friends and buying a single copy of a game, retail. Same problems: you can only install it on one PC at once. And I'm sure you aren't advocating piracy on the Obsidian fora.

It took me about six months of extensive training of my palette to acclimatize it to the taste of beer.

I'm sure Karl von Sherman would have endorsed it!

Grizzly Man: Herzog perfectly captures the frailty of the human condition evident in the 100 hours of footage taken by a man (with obvious bipolar mental problems) who could not maintain his health. Very well made film. Excellent commentary on the human condition.

The British government's estimate is four meals ... once order is disrupted for longer than that, the society begins to break down ...

Caught plagiarizing Monopoly, miss a turn.

Computers... they predate that particular war. The internet, it came after it, although it has it's roots in the cold war, but wouldn't that be more of a political conflict than a military one ? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Computers were advanced for deciphering Enigma; the internet was a distributed paradigm developed to survive a nuclear (Mutually Assured Destructive) exchange. I'm only pointing out that all the European participants of WW1 were equally bad, none of the nations were fighting for 'freedom' like they did in WW2, for instance. (as in freeing Europe from Germany). The impression I gained from studying WW1 was that sending all those millions of men to their deaths was, to put it very very brief as I'm short on time; utterly pointless. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Britain declared war on Germany in 1914 after they invaded neutral Belgium, to protect their independence. And it wasn't a pointless waste of life: it was the unavoidable result of the countries of Europe playing empire-building: greed kills.

My father's one clause summary of war was that it was simply a "huge waste" (he was fond of citing a variation of Patton's battle-decision-philosophy, where the leaders would fight, according to whatever ruleset, between themselves, alone). Certainly the WW1 Germans believed they were fighting for their survival (witnesses remarked), as they tried to rally against the Franco-British duopoly geoplotical hegemony. And if all those millions of soldiers hadn't died fighting in the mud, and even more people died immediately afterwards of influenza, and even more people suffered in the second world war,the world we have today would not exist (for better or worse). Jonathan Swift had an interesting take on making the process more efficient, with a test case for the people of Ireland. Is this what you were thinking of? [quote name='Karl von Clausewitz (Prussian soldier and military theorist)' date=' 1780

I know that alcohol is a particularly and peculiarly powerful drug. Effects of Alcohol on the body Not only does it readily cross the blood-brain barrier, it actually acts as a super-conduit for anything concurrently in the blood: making it more a blood-brain open doorway. Another point of interest is that even young humans (and other animals) instinctively "get out of their head": little children, for example, spin themselves rapidly until they become so dizzy that they fall down; giggling uncontrollably. Whether this is constructive or destructive game-play, is unproven (AFAIK), though I would tend to think that a behaviour so pervasive is constructive

... And floored!

(you don't actually think I read most of the garbage that people type on the forum, do you?)

DirectX 10 ... "

You all can notice the names in italics, below? That means I am editing.

BW, are you suggesting that the retailers don't take approximately 20% of the RRP as revenue (n.b. not profit)? I would challenge you to run any (non-virtual) business with margins of less than 20% on products. You will be very successful, should you be able to pull that off. Trust me. Or don't: go out and try it. No, but they SHOULD compensate a part of the profit they make. -10% for 20% retailer profit seems nice to me; but even that is NOT given... no wonder alot of people buy it rather in the story then, with the added stuff for the same price... <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Do you understand the limits of retail selling for wholesalers? (Hint: no. Okay, read on and I'll give you another hint.) Also, you are VERY PREMATURE in your adjudication of the direct-download market: it is definitely still in the VERY EARLY stages; make no mistake that this chief aspect (cost) of the marketing WILL be used to highlight the differentiation. Mmm. Good, solid figures. Excellent research. Of course! There are NO OTHER COSTS! The company doesn't have any expenses, liabilities, and no equity to repay. They just turned up and had a brand new game with 35 GotY awards. Your wet finger-in-the-air figures are as rubbery as a super-ball. Mods? Are you talking about episodic content? Certainly this content wouldn't exist if it was necessary to rely on the established publisher-retailer chain, alone. (Read this bit slowly.) This is too expensive for high-risk, art enterprises, like game development. No, it doesn't. Your perspective is ... unusual, and not shared by the vast majority of free- and right-thinking people. Because otherwise the retailers won't sell their product. (That's right: another hint there for you.) Listen to the prevalent opinion RIGHT HERE on this forum: most people want a little shiny circular piece of plastic and colourful paper and cardboard with squiggles on it, despite the cheaper and easier option (apart from you and your peculiar country: most (>60%) of Britain, for example, are already broadband greater than 2Mbps); which makes sense, because changing the habit of a marketplace is non-trivial. Just to clarify why your points sound like the rabid rantings of a hospital inmate: Half-Life 2:Episode 1 is available for pre-load (i.e. pull the download off-peak at the end-users' convenience) and pre-purchase for 10% discount. Further, you seem to be claiming intimate knowledge of the financial statements of developers in general and VALVe in particular: as if you can make blunt statements about their liquidity, even (in the case of VALVe) after they have been developing a game for OVER FIVE YEARS and have had to make a settlement with their former publishers ... yet, despite all this, games provided on the Steam distribution mechanism have the 10% discount you think is acceptable. You are sounding more confused than anything ...

Depends if one walks through the end of the game ... "

Two words: Anjelina Jolie. Two more: Tomb Raider. Ok, maybe it's not Citizen Kane or Gone With the Wind, but it's certainly better than the Resident Evil films ...

Both need some sort of account and password: Authorization Required This server could not verify that you are authorized to access the document requested. Either you supplied the wrong credentials (e.g., bad password), or your browser doesn't understand how to supply the credentials required.

This is first-person, that was third person. " Ssssshh!

+1

How do you know it isn't in-game footage ...? "

<{POST_SNAPBACK}> Typical. The bully picks on a minority that cannot defend itself, in order to make them look "big". Pandering to bigotry for the cheap, quick win. If successful, these morons will start their own agrarian commune, like Pol Pot did in "Democratic" Kampuchea. Put all the knowledge workers, like doctors, into the fields to till the soil for an honest living. And women will take their place in soceity, as chattel. Something as abhorent as Taliban, for example.

She's a hypocrite. Whether she knows it or not (or whether she wants to know it, or not). The only decision you need to make is whether to make her aware of it, or not. Crude, but effective.