Your "argument" doesn't really do anything to address the fact that there is advertising in the game that I (hypothetically) paid for. This is just as obtrusive as all the other anti-features that are included. It doesn't matter that it's optional, the fact is I (didn't) pay for a game to be a advertising platform. Those resources could have been spent on making the game more stable. That is true whether I choose to use the feature or not.
> Your "argument" doesn't really do anything to address the fact that there is advertising in the game that I (hypothetically) paid for.
Actually it completely addresses that point.
The advertising is OPTIONAL. If you don't want it in the game you "paid for" then don't install it.
What part of that don't you understand? Don't want it? Don't install it.
> This is just as obtrusive as all the other anti-features that are included.
Something you have to manually go to EA's web-site, download, and then manually build in your city is "intrusive?" What?
> It doesn't matter that it's optional, the fact is I (didn't) pay for a game to be a advertising platform.
But you do pay for the internet, cable TV, Netflix, Hulu Plus, going to the movie theatre, buying DVDs/BluRays, and many MANY other things which essentially open you up to be advertised to.
The fact that it is opt-in actually makes it less invasive than many of the things I listed. Most of those aren't opt-in and aren't avoidable without piracy.
>But you do pay for the internet, cable TV, Netflix, Hulu Plus, going to the movie theatre, buying DVDs/BluRays, and many MANY other things which essentially open you up to be advertised to.
That is not true in the slightest, even if it were, it has nothing to do with this topic. besides you still really haven't addressed the issue directly. Instead you're just attacking those who are complaining.
The fact remains that the money spent on entertainment was diverted into fund raising, diluting the product. This is a breach of the trust I place (hahaha) in EA. It shows me that my interests are not their interests and I should avoid doing business with them. They aren't spending money on making new entertaining experiences (obviously).
I don't see how this isn't true. Care to back up your statement of fact with evidence.
> The fact remains that the money spent on entertainment was diverted into fund raising, diluting the product.
Or, none of the money you spent on the game was placed into the development of this DLC, because it was entirely sponsored by Nissan. Hell, for all we know, this DLC was Nissan's idea to begin with.
> It shows me that my interests are not their interests and I should avoid doing business with them.
Of all the recent EA drama over the years, this is one of the few things which is probably the least indicative of such a thing.
> They aren't spending money on making new entertaining experiences (obviously).
This isn't obvious. They spent millions of dollars building a game which, other than the DRM drama, has been fairly well-received, and is considered by many to be entertaining.
> That is not true in the slightest, even if it were, it has nothing to do with this topic.
Sure it does.
You said:
> It doesn't matter that it's optional, the fact is I (didn't) pay for a game to be a advertising platform.
So I raised other examples where you would be "paying to be advertised to." If you're paying for any one of them or any other example which I'll name as needed, your point is incorrect since you would, in fact, pay to see adverts.
> besides you still really haven't addressed the issue directly
I directly addressed your issue head on twice. I pointed out that it is free, and opt-in. That addresses your issue. Your issue is you don't want to pay money and then get advertised to, so "fine," I say and then point out that that isn't what is going on here - twice.
> Instead you're just attacking those who are complaining.
I haven't attacked anyone in this thread. I have brought up facts that counter people's points. I might be attacking their argument but I am not attacking people on a personal level.
That's what you do in a discussion or debate. One person makes a statement, either the other person agrees with that statement and consensus has been reached, or they disagree and then that person needs to make a statement which counters the original statement.
That is what is going on here. You said some things, I said some things which counter your points, and now you counter my points until consensus has been reached.
> The fact remains that the money spent on entertainment was diverted into fund raising, diluting the product.
You'll need to cite something to show that that occurred.
Secure end to end encryption doesn't mean government agencies can't snoop on the coms. First of all, the CIA owns own one of the largest, if not the largest supercomputer. Also, the encryption could be using CIA's own root key. Example: http://www.cypherspace.org/adam/hacks/lotus-nsa-key.html
Created after 2000 and has hack or related terms in the url? no thanks. I also dislike that it hijacks my browser middle mouse button; I can't open up the links in new tabs.
If you think it is not a counter to his argument, you're missing the point, that low scores are not indicative of low traffic, and high scores are not indicative of high traffic (except among a very specific demographic.)
If this was happening on a 56k modem over a phone line it would clearly be wire tapping. I encouraged the op in another post, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5484850, to contact the FBI. If you see a downside to this let me know, but until I realize one, or have one pointed out I encourage you to do so.
I was just blocking 1.2.3.4, which the inserted js used to download the rest of the "features". I have no reason not to report this to the FBI accept I don't really understand whats going on here so I wouldn't be a good contact.
If you would like to see the content of the script, I can show it to you, it's bit different than the one posted here.
or to rephrase, If your application a valuable is a labor saving or time saving advancement, what is the best model to make sure you can benefit the most from that?
How do you effectively distribute that advancement so that it "rises the tide"? Is a price a valid indicator of value? No, we see these days that free services are much more quickly adopted. Most people judge value by practicality and word of mouth.
If you start extracting value from that service by charging for it, aren't you effectively negating the benefit to society?
Imagine you invented a murder App. (lets call it iMurder) This app replaced the need to murder people, through a complex spanning tree alogirthm that combines social network data and communication and travel restriction protocols (commonly known as SAML) and a fully immersive augmented reality overlay. (compatible with Google Glass)
My badly (un)explained point is that you benefit from free software indirectly, through cheaper software built on top that you later buy or use, or in my extreme example, not being killed because the guy who killed you couldn't run your iMurder app, so you can no longer make money.
