DocGerbil100 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (194) comment rss

  • On the post: CIA Director's Personal Email Account Breached By Hackers… Who Find Official Documents Stored In It

    DocGerbil100 ( profile ), 20 Oct, 2015 @ 01:21pm

    Americans...

    Bah...

  • On the post: Train Simulator 2016 And How We've Reached The Crest Of The Dumb DLC Wave

    DocGerbil100 ( profile ), 06 Oct, 2015 @ 07:59pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Deja Vu

    From the article:

    "Whatever costs and effort might go into making a game, the end result shouldn't be the cost of a used car in payment for the full content."
    You're right, the article doesn't "suggest" anything, it says it explicitly.

  • On the post: Train Simulator 2016 And How We've Reached The Crest Of The Dumb DLC Wave

    DocGerbil100 ( profile ), 06 Oct, 2015 @ 06:01am

    Re: Re: Deja Vu

    "If people are coming to this from the side of being gamers, then everything in the article is a very valid and a just concern. We're already being nickel and dimed or forced to buy premium content that 10 years ago would have been included in the standard game. We certainly don't want this kind of model to become standard."
    I am responding here as a gamer. Players here aren't being nickel & dimed or forced to buy anything to make the main game playable: this is a library of proper DLC for specialist fans that the developer's been building up over the last six years. It doesn't seem to be horse-armour at all.

    Casual players aren't supposed to buy any of it and no-one is expected to buy all of it.

    We could argue that they could have included earlier DLC as free content in later games, but that's not the business model - and if some or all of this has been licensed from third parties, they may not have the rights to do that anyway.

    This is the standard way to release new content for this game and has been for over half a decade. The developers and the market all seem happy enough to continue. Any complaints on this front seem untimely and unreasonable.

  • On the post: Train Simulator 2016 And How We've Reached The Crest Of The Dumb DLC Wave

    DocGerbil100 ( profile ), 06 Oct, 2015 @ 05:23am

    Deja Vu

    This article is linked to Kotakus article of a week ago, but it could also have linked to Kotakus similar article of 2013, when Kotaku bitched about exactly the same thing with the earlier version of the same game.

    Back in 2013, Train Simulator developer RailSimulator.com (Dovetail Games, under its previous name) had this to say:

    "We are very proud of the breadth and depth of DLC we offer to customers, but we don’t expect people to buy everything we make. We give players the opportunity to customise their digital collection in a way that best suits their interests.

    "For example, we know that some of our players will only collect ultra-modern high speed trains from around the world, others will want to specialise in American diesel locomotives, while some specialise in heritage steam engines. And so on.

    "Our comprehensive range allows players to pick and choose the locomotives and routes they are most passionate about. We make it very clear that buying all our DLC is not essential to enjoy the game and that players do not receive a competitive advantage from owning it all."

    I don't own the game (I'm not a train fan), but some commenters on Kotaku have indicated that the DLC are more substantial than just a minor reskin, but are properly modelled to each trains characteristics and control requirements and have their own specialised missions.

    The DLC library has apparently been building up over successive releases for years, which is why there's so much of it. Judging by the games Steam discussions, the DLC apparently carries over from the previous versions - if a player bought some for the 2013 game, it can be used with this years release.

    I think the DLC could probably be cheaper, but it is extremely niche DLC for a very niche game - and the playerbase seems to have voted positively with their wallets, or the developer presumably wouldn't still be releasing it this way.

    If the business model works for them and it works for their customers, then I don't see a problem. Both Techdirt and Kotaku seem to me to be engaging in what I can only describe as nothing more than nerd-shaming, which is frankly cheap, lazy and unjust.

    Techdirt and Tim Geigner, it might be a slow news day, but surely you can do better than this.


    Kotakus 2013 article: http://kotaku.com/to-buy-all-of-this-games-dlc-youll-need-over-2-000-1412153921

  • On the post: Army Officials Withheld FOIA Documents To Push Out Its Spin On Head Injuries

    DocGerbil100 ( profile ), 01 Oct, 2015 @ 08:31pm

    What, them again?

    What is it with the Wall Street Journal? It's beginning to seem like organisations such as the US government, Comcast and the MPAA all spend more time writing for the paper than their own employees.

    At this point, they might as well lay off most of their writers and outsource every article directly as paid advertisements. It's not as if anyone would notice the difference.

    Why they expect anyone to pay to read it is beyond me.

  • On the post: Amazon Bans Sale Of Competing Apple TV, Chromecast Devices To 'Avoid Customer Confusion'

    DocGerbil100 ( profile ), 01 Oct, 2015 @ 04:00pm

    FireTV

    I used to use Amazon's streaming service. They recently stopped supporting my smart TV, despite the frankly-negligible cost of doing so, but "helpfully" offered me a discount on one of their worthless and unwanted FireTV sticks.

    It doesn't take a genius to realise they're just trying to sell me crap I don't want, so I cancelled my subscription. I know when I'm being sold shite and Amazon can fuck right off.

    This appears to be more of the same. All it does is prove beyond a doubt that FireTV is unmarketable bollocks that nobody wants.

    Fuck off, Amazon, we're not that stupid.

  • On the post: Nintendo Hates You: Massive Takedowns Of YouTube Videos Featuring Mario Bros. Fan-Created Levels

    DocGerbil100 ( profile ), 15 Sep, 2015 @ 06:13pm

    Re: wii U

    Your clothes are red!

    Stupidest movie ever. Highly recommended. :)

  • On the post: One Man Troll Army Arrested For Supporting Terrorists: Where's The Line Between Trolling And Terrorism?

    DocGerbil100 ( profile ), 14 Sep, 2015 @ 10:23am

    This is a momentous day: the first and only time in history that a troll has actually made somebody else laugh.

    What a complete, twenty-four carat dick.

    I won't miss him. :D

  • On the post: DailyDirt: Our Crazy Drone-Filled World

    DocGerbil100 ( profile ), 08 Sep, 2015 @ 05:39pm

    Re: the laser cannon

    Good lord above. Looks like a triumph - a huge success, in fact. Does Boeing have cake, do you think?

  • On the post: West Point Prof Who Called For Killing Of Academics Opposed To US Terror War Resigns

    DocGerbil100 ( profile ), 01 Sep, 2015 @ 04:04pm

    To paraphrase Grant Naylor, we know what to get him for Christmas: a double lobotomy and ten rolls of rubber wallpaper.

    How did anyone, anywhere think this man was fit to teach the next generation of servicemen?

  • On the post: New Malware Attack Tries To Trick People By Pretending To Be EFF

    DocGerbil100 ( profile ), 28 Aug, 2015 @ 05:21am

    Re: Re:

    Oh, for fuck's sake.

    Hello, Sheogorath. In the absence of anything else to do about it, I've hit Report. I suggest you and everyone else do the same.

    Dear Techdirt, this page is now permanently serving Russian government malware, until you manually remove or alter the link. Well done.

    As a strategy for dealing with this kind of issue in the longer term, I suggest you learn to FUCKING EDIT BUTTON, already. >:/

  • On the post: Matchstick, The More Open Chromecast, Destroyed By DRM, Announces Plans To Return All Funds

    DocGerbil100 ( profile ), 07 Aug, 2015 @ 03:51pm

    Re: Re: Copyrights origin, in May 4, 1557

    Oops. Lost a sentence edit, sorry:

    "For all that it shares the same name, what came into being as a result of the Licensing of the Press Act 1662 bares little resemblance to modern copyright."

    should read

    "For all that they share similar names and terms, what came into being as a result of Mary's Stationers Monopoly and the subsequent Licensing of the Press Act 1662, bare little resemblance to modern copyright."

    Techdirt and the edit button. When will they ever meet?

  • On the post: Matchstick, The More Open Chromecast, Destroyed By DRM, Announces Plans To Return All Funds

    DocGerbil100 ( profile ), 07 Aug, 2015 @ 03:42pm

    Re: Copyrights origin, in May 4, 1557

    I wasn't referring to Bloody Mary. For all that it shares the same name, what came into being as a result of the Licensing of the Press Act 1662 bares little resemblance to modern copyright.

    The legal right of a single company - literally just one - to determine, censor and publish all of Britain's printed works is a far cry from what came into being later.

    Copyright - more-or-less as we know it today - came into being with the Statute of Anne, which was a lot more civilised than its predecessor.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute_of_Anne

  • On the post: RIAA Asks BitTorrent Inc. To Block Infringing Content With A Hash Filter

    DocGerbil100 ( profile ), 05 Aug, 2015 @ 03:35pm

    It's the same move repeated over and over again by the industry: rather than figure out how to make use of the technology that fans like in order to do more, they attack the technology and then don't understand why people get pissed off and no longer want to give them any money any more.
    This interpretation is far too kind. The RIAA - as with all the big media associations - has a single, unified strategy which has been very clear to all for a very long time now:

    • target and accuse anything or anyone that might have a competitive impact in the same medium, but isn't affiliated to the RIAA;
    • pay for lots of basically-fake evidence to "prove" massive damages against their affiliates;
    • take vast amounts of money off the victims in ratcheting license agreements until they can't pay any more;
    • when they can't or won't pay, sue them;
    • make sure the lawsuits last as close to forever as makes no odds - the victim will always run out of cash first;
    • generously allow the victim to fold, in return for everything they possess;
    • if they can induce a law-enforcement agency into shutting the victim down for them, it's a cheap and easy victory.

    The RIAA aren't confused, they're fraudsters - and obvious fraudsters, at that. The only reason the RIAA and MPAA's senior management aren't in prison cells is because the DoJ is directly accountable to the politicians - who are all on the fraudsters payroll, often quite openly.

    The big lawsuits aren't designed to stop piracy, they're designed to stop competition.
    They attack fair use and the public domain at every turn, despite being perfectly lawful, by definition.
    They wrecked Megaupload not because of piracy, but to stop Kim Dotcom from continuing the legal music creation and distribution side of his business.
    Now it seems they're getting ready to hit BitTorrent, Inc in the exact same way - and once again, it's the authorised, legal distribution of music they're really aiming for.

    This will not end well.

  • On the post: Matchstick, The More Open Chromecast, Destroyed By DRM, Announces Plans To Return All Funds

    DocGerbil100 ( profile ), 04 Aug, 2015 @ 04:11pm

    Re: Let's cut deeper.

    As I understand it, in earlier times, it allowed legitimate publishers - the ones who had proper legal agreements and paid royalties to authors - to prevent the commercial book pirates of the day from completely hammering the market with unlicensed copies.

    Back then, this meant the difference between authors benefiting financially from their work and authors - in some cases - dying in poverty.

    It's debatable - and I doubt anyone can honestly put figures to it - but I'm reasonably certain it incentivised the creation and publication of new work, provided a legal framework for the creators to be identified as such and provided creators with the chance to make a living from doing so, just as it was supposed to do.

    These days, of course, the same middleman companies are now aggressive multinational corporations, synonymous with rampant abuse of copyright, with actual content creators and the general public being screwed over at every turn.

    But that abuse doesn't take away from copyrights ancient past, where it served as a positive force for the public good - and it's a damn shame that corporate greed has so thoroughly destroyed both copyrights credibility and it's ability to serve for the good of us all.

  • On the post: Donald Trump's Clueless Lawyer Threatens Press, Says It's Ok To Rape Your Spouse

    DocGerbil100 ( profile ), 28 Jul, 2015 @ 05:55pm

    Okay, It's Donald Trump, nobody outside the US cares, I wasn't going to comment at all, I really was going to just pass this one by, but...

    Jesus H Christ, where in God's name did Trump find this man? Couldn't he have hired someone less horrifying, like a war-criminal or a freshly-released serial-killer?

    I can't help but feel sorry for Cohen's wife and family. From this time forward, every single person they know is going to look at Mrs Cohen like she's being raped on a daily basis. Surely she can do better than this appalling, mindless thug.

    Lawyers are the very definition of people who need to think before they open their mouths, regardless of the provocation.

    It speaks directly to Mr Cohen's credibility - on every possible level - that he could not do so, before causing such damage to himself, his business and his family in this manner.

    I don't imagine Mr Cohen has much of a future anywhere - and I don't imagine anyone who knows him now will miss him very much.

  • On the post: UK High Court Goes Even Further In Emphasizing That You Cannot Rip Your Own CDs

    DocGerbil100 ( profile ), 18 Jul, 2015 @ 04:10am

    Interesting. Enlightening.

    For anyone confused, this article is related to the previous ruling, on whether the government had basically done all its legally-required paperwork before changing the law. The government hadn't, so the judge invalidated those changes, as the law requires.

    At this point, it's safe to assume that the right to private copying was deliberately implemented in a way that breaks other law precisely so that the labels could shoot it down in court.

    The promised right can now safely be forgotten as the meaningless pre-election public relations nonsense it always was.

    When the right to private copying was originally announced, I wondered why the government were suddenly so intent on fighting a recording industry that gives them so much money, especially on something so trivial. Most out of character, I thought.

    Well, now we know: the entire law change and subsequent debate was meaningless - if immensely expensive - PR fluff, fully intended to ultimately fail, but in the meantime convince the more gullible voters that the Conservatives and Lib-Dems are our friends.

    If you voted for either party, you have now reaped exactly what you deserve. If only the rest of us didn't have to pay such a steep price as well, this would almost be a victory. :/

  • On the post: Amnesty International Told That GCHQ Spied On Its Communications

    DocGerbil100 ( profile ), 02 Jul, 2015 @ 05:59pm

    I've had a thought...

    ... treat it gently, it's in a strange place.

    It's not precisely on point (it's rather tangential, in fact), but considering this issue, it occurs to me that perhaps we - either directly or via our representatives - should think again about the questions we ask of intelligence agencies.

    It seems to me that we tend to ask questions like "has [persons or entities [of xyz nationality]] ever been subject to surveillance by [whatever agency] under [whatever programme]".

    This gives answers (when it doesn't result in boilerplate, which is the normal response for GCHQ), but not always meaningful answers, or answers which might serve as a metric of the surveillance state, or answers which might provide a basis for further action.

    Perhaps more appropriate questions to focus on these days might be "are there any [persons or entities] within [whatever agency]'s reach which are not subject to surveillance", "what percentage of [the UK's companies, etc] are under surveillance" and "are there, in practise, any analytic criteria that would not result in [persons or entities] not being subject to further monitoring".

    Very conceivably, this being the intelligence community, they might try to redefine "surveillance" to mean inserting cameras into the subject's nostrils, or some other sleazy truth-avoidance tactic, but it's a place to start that shouldn't result in vast imponderables, if and when we do get a coherent answer.

  • On the post: EU Moves To Create Internet Fast Lanes, Pretends It's Net Neutrality By Redefining Basic Words

    DocGerbil100 ( profile ), 30 Jun, 2015 @ 01:39pm

    Re: Way to go everyone!

    The best way for trolls and trolling organisations to win an argument is to control both sides, usually by posting something emotive and inflamatory that shuts down critical thought.

    Failing that, crapflooding the page with nonsense also seems to be a win for them - if the "argument" happens at the top of the thread, all the reasoned debate gets knocked out of view, minimising the number of people who will see it and maximising the number who see only semi-literate idiocy.

    While there will always be a few genuine commenters who respond to troll posts, it's quite likely that some, most or even all of these replies are themselves by paid shills, who will post reasonable comments some of the time to look legit, but are really only there to reply to trolls when it counts.

    They don't need lecturing, they need to be banned forever.

  • On the post: Google Fiber Says It's Passing On Rightscorp Settlement-O-Matic Demands For 'Transparency'

    DocGerbil100 ( profile ), 28 May, 2015 @ 12:50pm

    Re:

    Guh. Should read "unresponsive defendants" near the end there. Damn you, Techdirt! Damn you and your total lack of an edit button! Raaah!

Next >>