3 ms·

The emotionally charged nature of the article was presumably intended to provoke a sense of outrage/injustice in readers, however it only made me feel pity for

by taws 16y ago

The emotionally charged nature of the article was presumably intended to provoke a sense of outrage/injustice in readers, however it only made me feel pity for the author. He shows signs of being an addict--one whose life has become so narrow that such interruptions in game playing take on monumental importance. "..spent my free time this past weekend needlessly trapped in troubleshooting hell." You're damn right, it was needless. Here's an idea: when something doesn't work, chill the fuck out. Do something else with your time while the problem is resolved. "Malicious neglect"? Really? Only an addict could become convinced of that.

getsat 16y ago
Addict? It seems to me that he's merely someone extremely passionate about something. This is also a case of one of the worst DRM-related fears coming to fruition. You no longer have (legal) access to a product you purchased. You're now essentially licencing games from the publisher and they get to decide when that licencing expires.
- taws 16y ago
  Explain the basis for the "malicious neglect" claim. That's not a rational conclusion. It's unbalanced. It's the mind of an addict.
MichaelGG 16y ago
I don't think it's unreasonable for someone to decide to do something, then get frustrated when they are unable to do so. For instance, if you bought a new computer and TV, and then it started acting up or didn't work, you might quite reasonably spend time troubleshooting drivers, firmware, maybe even cables, to try to get it working. It's not that you're an addict to the system. If you knew it was a broken part ahead of time, you might have simply sent it in for repairs and gone skiing instead. But if you decided "hey I'm going to do X this weekend", it's quite easy to lose time trying to do so. As far as "malicious neglect", you could conclude that the author really thinks EA wants their DRM servers to fail on purpose and has lost touch with reality. Or, you could just read that as an upset and frustrated user (not necessarily an "addict") expressing things with a bit of hyperbole.
danssig 16y ago
I disagree. If I decide to engage in some pass-time and it doesn't work, I'll spend time troubleshooting it even if I don't engage in that pass-time all the time. If I don't fix it now, I'll have to fix it next time, or else give it up forever. If I find out later it's because some idiot made a useless change then that means that person put me in the position of either wasting my time figuring out what happened or walking away from that pass-time forever.
spacemanaki 16y ago
I refer you to Virginia Heffernan's recent column: http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/04/09/miss-g-a-case-of-internet-addiction/ http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/04/09/miss-g-a-cas... In it, she ponders why new pastimes like the internet and video games are treated as addictions when someone uses them heavily, but older forms like opera, reading, etc are considered somehow more worthy passions and therefore not addictions if someone is a heavy "user". Would you have written the same comment if the article was about an opera-goer being really upset at not being allowed into the theater because a new anti-ticket-counterfeiting system had mistakenly flagged theirs as fake, when they had bought it outright? I didn't downvote you btw, but just wanted to point out that it's something to think about.

by taws 16y ago

getsat 16y ago

Addict? It seems to me that he's merely someone extremely passionate about something. This is also a case of one of the worst DRM-related fears coming to fruition. You no longer have (legal) access to a product you purchased. You're now essentially licencing games from the publisher and they get to decide when that licencing expires.

taws 16y ago
Explain the basis for the "malicious neglect" claim. That's not a rational conclusion. It's unbalanced. It's the mind of an addict.

MichaelGG 16y ago

I don't think it's unreasonable for someone to decide to do something, then get frustrated when they are unable to do so. For instance, if you bought a new computer and TV, and then it started acting up or didn't work, you might quite reasonably spend time troubleshooting drivers, firmware, maybe even cables, to try to get it working. It's not that you're an addict to the system. If you knew it was a broken part ahead of time, you might have simply sent it in for repairs and gone skiing instead. But if you decided "hey I'm going to do X this weekend", it's quite easy to lose time trying to do so. As far as "malicious neglect", you could conclude that the author really thinks EA wants their DRM servers to fail on purpose and has lost touch with reality. Or, you could just read that as an upset and frustrated user (not necessarily an "addict") expressing things with a bit of hyperbole.

danssig 16y ago

I disagree. If I decide to engage in some pass-time and it doesn't work, I'll spend time troubleshooting it even if I don't engage in that pass-time all the time. If I don't fix it now, I'll have to fix it next time, or else give it up forever. If I find out later it's because some idiot made a useless change then that means that person put me in the position of either wasting my time figuring out what happened or walking away from that pass-time forever.

spacemanaki 16y ago

I refer you to Virginia Heffernan's recent column: http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/04/09/miss-g-a-case-of-internet-addiction/ http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/04/09/miss-g-a-cas... In it, she ponders why new pastimes like the internet and video games are treated as addictions when someone uses them heavily, but older forms like opera, reading, etc are considered somehow more worthy passions and therefore not addictions if someone is a heavy "user". Would you have written the same comment if the article was about an opera-goer being really upset at not being allowed into the theater because a new anti-ticket-counterfeiting system had mistakenly flagged theirs as fake, when they had bought it outright? I didn't downvote you btw, but just wanted to point out that it's something to think about.