5. Guide
4. Build
3. Carebear
2. 1337
1. Next-generation

If the router is a full computer in terms of a standard HDD, motherboard, CPU, and RAM, then yes it's very easy for it to 'catch' a virus. But if it's one of the more specialized homebased solutions (the 'blackbox' routers), then no it's hard as hell to infect it with a virus, other than to spoof yourself as a reliable firmware source (which you implant a virus or backdoor on the firmware to change the settings at will). Viruses themselves require you as a user to accept them in some form or another (either by clicking OK/YES/AFFIRMATIVE) to activate the payload, they themselves cannot inherently activate without that initial acceptance. That doesn't mean there's no flaws in OS or firmware, but it means that it's harder for a virus author to develop their payloads for them. It's easier to make you do the work than rely on mature software developments to have a slip up on an upgrade or revision.

Thing for me is that companies still think in Keynesian (quasi-Cartesian) terms of the nature of the firm and free enterprise. As such, they continue to assume a programmer is a programmer is a programmer (or that a game is a game is a game). They think in terms of homogeneity, rather than in terms of how things are actually heterogeneous (in comparison to similar sort and dissimilar sort). When they stop thinking that the firm is a machine, and more of a living thing, then there might be real business men ready to lead their respective firms to better game development. Until then, it's more of the same epic failure from the business and economic schools. >_>

---

Originally posted by zymurgeist
History shows if you put enough people up against a wall and shoot them it tends to discourage antisocial behavior.

---

---

Originally posted by zymurgeist
Totalitarian governments don't really care if your theories conflict with their ideology. They'll keep applying force until they get the desired result or some other force makes them stop.

---

Yet these theories themselves prove the point again and again in terms of how social order is maintained (here's a hint: it's not maintained from the top-down, but rather the bottom-up.). China had to admit in its own day that totalitarianism in terms of the economy was bad. This is no different as it still deals with the social order, which no big army can ever defeat (save for by means of genocide/extermination of a people). As such, either the regime admits the futility now or it faces the long term cost of decline (and eventual destruction at the forces of the natural social order itself [via social entropy]).

Also, doing Jedi-Handwaving in terms of saying "It's only a theory" doesn't refute my point if both rational and empirical basis is sound. As such, one must attack the theory on those grounds, rather than playing an intellectually dishonest game of deflection (translation: leave it for the maroons at Faux News.).

---

Originally posted by zaylin
Vigil is the one who actually has the license, but yes they are under THQ. no diff than Games being made by said company and that company being owned by say EA.

---

What's Vigil's track record prior to THQ's ownership?

---

Originally posted by arcdevil

---

Originally posted by Wolfenpride

If it does come out, lets all pray it doesn't turn out like WAR online did.

---

 
Its THQ,not Mythic. 
in other words,its a competent developer, not a farce

---

THQ gave us the Matrix Online, which is closing or has closed. So, I don't think you can say they're competent. I would say their last good game was Septerra Core. But that's just me.

Bad idea is bad. Here's why. The fundamental attempt to enforce what is a wholly private affair is not only beyond the sphere of any reasonable governance, it's one that cannot be enforced within reasonable terms. Consider how the State in various countries still attempts forms of substance prohibition with scores of utter failures rolling in (through corruption, organized gangs, and generally draconic laws applied largely to consumers). This particular prohibition will be no different as both substance and behavioral prohibitions (in terms of purely consensual uses) suffer from the nature of market demand (and supply). People simply don't want to follow the same set of behaviors in terms of MMOs. There should be MMOs that cater to this demand; period and end of story (even though I personally find such behavior detestable).

The State should not even bother attempting to prohibit it. Nor should the State promote it. Rather, the State needs to accept the parallel, self-regulatory nature of the market (as in theory the State has its own self-regulatory factors). In such a hands-off policy, the people will realign their tastes accordingly, and institutions will give rise to properly partition gold sellers (and buyers) from those disinterested in such services. Any other claims to the contrary are not only in conflict with history, but also in conflict with non-contradictory economic theorems (which have stood the test of time from even the days before the Marginal Revolution of Menger and company).

---

Originally posted by zaxxon23
It's been fun times discussing RMT lately, but I wanted to bring up another issue just as important and unbalancing.  Time.  The anti-rmters think it's ok for someone to have more time to play a mmo than someone else and reap those rewards.  Yet, the moment someone spends some real cash to catch up to those who have the time advantage, it is suddenly cheating.  IMO, time is just as unbalancing a factor in mmo gameplay as rmt supposedly is.  In fact, I'd go so far as to say that rmt is more of a balancing factor than an unbalancing factor.

---

Not at all, it's not unbalancing in any way. What folks like you and others who argue back and forth on balance don't get that all human actions are through time. And time is asymmetric. The arrow points one way. As such, there's no magical code or model that resolves this fact. In fact, it should be enjoyed that as one applied either money or labor (which both are logically equivalent as money can buy labor, and labor can earn one money) result in a progression of states from human action through a game or through real life. So, throw off up the tired old idea of balance and equilibrium and embrace the empirical and rational fact that things are not always going to be fair, nor are they always going to be unfair in games. :-P

---

Originally posted by junior3000
hi all,
like the title is saying Eve Online fuckes Europe players. how?
usa players are paying 14.95 usd for a month playing europe player are paying 14.95 euro for a month that is 7 usd more than the usa platers this is unfair and crasy !!!!!
so i want to pay in USD ....... that is not passebol becourse i'm from europe. FUCKERS!!!!
what do you think about this most games are 10-12 usd eve online is already expensive and now whit 20 usd even the most expensive online game ever. (for europe players).

---

If you don't think it's worth the equivalent 20 USD in Euros, then don't pay it. Ever heard of free enterprise? You're not owed a videogame. It's not a human right.

---

Originally posted by zymurgeist
Not extra power extra utility. Any noob can gut someone with a big scrap of iron. Not everyone can evade, track down, pass without a trace, move silently, disable without killing, overcome certain types of obstacles, avoid traps. find the best routes between points, mapping  Debuff removal, cure poisons, remove death effects, reduce fatigue. To me the most interesting spells have always been the ones that do something besides kill.

---

This, dammit, this!

I never liked raids. I'm glad to see them go. Next, there needs to be less use of instancing, and more detailed player interaction with the environment (with consequences that stick both on the environment and the player). Then I might consider resubscribing to an MMO. Otherwise, I'll just stick to TF2 and my stack of golden oldie single player games. :-P

---

Originally posted by Cyborg99

---

Originally posted by EricDanie

Thing that must be funny for you is that every giant company started out as a small one.
It doesn't matter who the developer is, if you don't try a game because of that, you are a true ignorant who will probably miss good things because you didn't even try it.

---

 
I'm sorry the correct answer to this thread was: The devs/companies does not matter, the only thing that matters is if you have fun playing the game.
Well everyone thank you for playing and remember to neuter your pets.
 

---

Wanna know where the windshield wiper came from? An entrepreneur. The integrated circuit (A fellow from Liberal, Kansas...heh)? An entrepreneur. Amazon? An entrepreneur. And so on. Devs aren't any different in that regard, even if they are hired by a big production company. They have to integrate both subjective (personal) and objective (impersonal) facts in such a way that resolves into a given product or service. As such, the denial of the importance of the keen insights, and even complete failures of developers is in itself indefensible in any context.

Sorry for doling out the whole Austrian/Chicagoite spiel of entrepreneurship, but it's something that I find is sometimes necessary to illustrate a fallacious thought process. *salts the Earth* I'm done. :)

Runes of Magic and 9 Dragons as I can't find myself bothering to pay 15 a month for what pretty much already exists in the F2P market (hint to developers: get creative already!).

AC2 - Sorcerer
AoC - Herald of Xotli
AO - Bureaucrat
DAOC - Champion or Thane
WAR - Magus or Witch hunter
NWN - Bard/RDD
CoX - Controller (hero side) and Corrupter (villain side)

---

Originally posted by Jimmy_Scythe
Someone went and made a free open source UO client.
I'm not advocating piracy, but this does beg the question: If you log into a free server with a custom client, are you really violating copyright?

---

Since it seems most don't understand copyright here, I'll answer the question and then explain myself: no.

Here's why, copyright applies only to those that attempt to utilize the given IP and its content for an non-contracted purpose (meaning you didn't get permission). But that only applies to those actually doing something to the given IP. You as a consumer can only violate copyright two ways: duplication of IP for storage (under DMCA act) and distribution of IP (usually of duplicates, and again under DMCA act).

Anyone claiming you violated copyright law by playing a private server clearly doesn't know the law. Otherwise, EA wouldn't just threaten users with bannination as they do if they find out that you do play private servers (that is in their ToS/EULA based agreements which you 'sign'...), instead they'd go for full civil court violations and other penalties therein. So, don't worry that playing UO private shards makes you a 'criminal' whether in the traditional legalistic or pseudo-ethical sense (in this case, how the hell can one steal an idea that's not scarce or bounded...?).

Now, running a UO private shard can get your arse in a bind with copyright, but that really depends on if the private shard is utilizing server code based on EA's own work? If not, under law is legal and accepted, otherwise the entire Open Source movement would have been sued into non-existence. Duplication of features in clean room reverse engineering is not only legal under copyright, it's the basis of every new software product designed both open and closed source in the WORLD.

That's what got the first Lineage 2 emulation server in trouble; it utilized code that was leaked from NCsoft in its builds. It wasn't until a later L2 emulation project got started, that all legal claims by NCsoft became null and void under copyright (although they still persist against emulation servers under other copyright restrictions such as the use of Lineage 2 in their name, artwork that is derived from Lineage 2 concept art, screen shots, and etc...). But, by comparison that's why the whole slew of UO emulation servers have never gotten in trouble, and never will, as they were clean room reverse engineered, thus are free of any copyright obligations.

So, if anyone tells you otherwise, point them to this post. And if they want to know my expertise. I am a software designer by trade, so it's clear that I have to know how copyright law (along with patent law) influences my trade more than most.

---

Originally posted by Czzarre
Is it me, or is internet companies trying to follow a cell phone business model.
Eventually we will be buying minutes

---

It makes no sense as the content is what sells and not the bandwidth. Bandwidth minute by minute is virtually limitless; that's the beauty of packet switching. It seems they're not grasping that by limiting bandwidth artificially they're dooming themselves two fold. First, governments will see this as a legitimate reason to tax them (thus negating any profits gained). Second, it will kill the goose and smash its eggs (content creators will go else where if they cannot be guaranteed an audience). And third, wireless is becoming ubiquitous in nature, especially with the 700 mhz spectrum being utilized as a device spectrum rather than simply a service spectrum.

So, I think the wired boys better wake up before they're out of cash for even paying the power bill. Or else the market's closing bell will toll their death knell.

---

Originally posted by Xaaa
They just need to fine and warn/ban the very small minority group of people out there who are using the majority of the bandwidth... the idiots who do nothing with their life except sit around and download massive amounts of pirated movies/music/software 24/7 off torrents and newsgroups.  They are scum, and they care about nothing in the world.

---

You seem to be passing judgment on a population without much proof to the given claims therein. For example, I play with a few programs that use streaming for their content (Secondlife is one of them). So, I'm scum because I happen to use Secondlife? Also, I do use torrents as many companies offer their updates more and more on torrent trackers (a few do so exclusively), so I'm scum because it's a popular option for users to have their downloads not corrupted (it often utilizes hashing to make sure packets weren't mangled along the way)?

Wow, talk about pulling a craptacular conclusion out of thin air, pal.

[quote]Originally posted by Vetarnias

---

Originally posted by ladyattis

Yep, I love Rush. I'm listening to The Necromancer on Youtube. :3

And thank you for going on tangents that just give more fodder to the OP.

---

Seriously, wut?

My basic 'ideal' MMO:

1) Large and diverse landmass (similar to N. America or Australia in size and/or diversity).

2) 'Living' factions that evolve in relation to each other and players (Swarm based AI plus generative narratives).

3) Low fantasy (Magic, extremely rare and dangerous) or hard science fiction (Heinlein's Moon is a Harsh Mistress is a good example of something close to hard science fiction that wouldn't boggle the mind to implement).

Yep, I love Rush. I'm listening to The Necromancer on Youtube. :3