Electronic Arts


Caine said:
Tim Berners-Lee entirely lost his credibility when he forcefully pushed DRM into the HTML standards.
Click to expand...

A quote from someone who commented on that article, and I think they're right:

"He wants people to use his thing: hyperlinks. They're an open protocol and allow for different sites to connect to one another, and he sees virtue in this. What he's said in the past was that he believed DRM to be inevitable in some form, so by standardizing it in this way it allows the web to maintain its interconnectivity instead of devolving into a bunch of closed platforms."
 
If all customers would stop using DRM'ed content today, then DRM would be gone tomorrow.
I think his stance is a cop out, but I am probably too idealistic about this.

What I understood about the DRM standard is that it is mainly an API for DRM plugins, please correct me if I am wrong.
That means that it is still just as closed as when the API would not be standardized.
So, it eludes me how this maintains the interconnectivity.
 
An API definition (and usually a demonstration sample as well) can define what information is shared with what components and when. Having a good API is probably better than having quickly knocked together browser plugins like java or flash.

That said, I'm still undecided on TBL's decision to support having an API in the core of the browser. It still feels a bit on an anathema to the spirit of the open internet.
 
Please vote:
DdK7ODM.jpg
 
Kippykip said:
WEW
Click to expand...
Not to be a downer, but looking at their stock for the last six months (even the last 6 weeks) this is nothing. At best I'd say this is just a minor correction, with the pre-November price being heavily inflated.
 
WizardStan said:
Don't help them. They haven't caved, the microtransactions will be back. They've removed them now in order to make it seem like they're caving and boost initial sales; in 3 or 4 months they'll bring them back the way they were and people will fall for it because they're already invested.
Click to expand...

First there was online dating. Then there was catfishing.
Then came along videogame developers. They too, learned how to catfish.
 
Called it. Now that they've got a player base they can safely bring in the loot boxes and "sunk cost" will kick in.
 
I'm watching my buddy play the game on PS4. He doesn't work over the winter months and invests lots of time in Battlefront 2.
In order to be competitive you have to level up classes/vehicles so you can equip them with three cards (read: skills) which also can be levelled up individually.
An example would be increasing damage reduction for small vehicles by as much as 60% at skill level 4. As you might guess the impact of some of those in PvP is enormous.
Getting that far takes flippin' ages because earning new skills is basically randomized - you can also receive duplicates - and the higher levels have to be 'crafted' with currency that merely trickles in unless, or so I assume, you're a top tier player.
Having played a range of free-to-play titles I must say that Battlefront 2's progression system feels just like that: a free-to-play grindfest that's designed to incite people to spend real money.
 
Last edited:
Obviously we need the people who take our money by force to strip the rights of the people who offer us stupid things to purchase voluntarily.

[EDIT] That was sarcasm.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top