owsf2000: (default)
This, if true, is probably the largest WTF I've seen Microsoft attempt in a long time. Here's the gist of it. If you share your wifi password/login with someone, and they happen to be running Windows 10, then their computer will automatically share the ability to log into your network with all their "contacts".

"Those contacts include their Outlook.com (nee Hotmail) contacts, Skype contacts and, with an opt-in, their Facebook friends."

Supposedly WiFi Sense only lets the other person use the internet, not access your computer directly. But there are 2 problems with this that ANYONE with two brain cells to rub together should have noticed.

1. Hackers make computers do things that the developer did not intend. Give it a year, and I'm being generous, and you'll probably start to see serious attempts to hijack this. It may have been active on Windows Phones since 8.1 but Windows Phones aren't 70%+ of the computer market.

2. Even if I gave access to my wifi to a friend, it doesn't mean I want to offer my limited internet access to THEIR ENTIRE CIRCLE OF FRIENDS. What the fuck does Microsoft think I am? A fucking ISP?

The way to disable this, is a clunky, stupid change in the name of your wifi network to include "_optout". In other words, Microsoft knows full well of the security risks this is opening up. Anything even remotely like this should always be OPT IN.

I don't know if this means if I had a Windows 10 computer, and I didn't know about how to opt-out of this retarded scheme - and I DIDN'T give anyone my wifi login info explicitly - would it automatically share my wifi with all of my own contacts? Thankfully I don't use outlook, or skype, and my Facebook is pretty much non-existant (And I wouldn't opt in to it anyway.) but even still, this is a reason to avoid jumping up to Windows 10 when I get a new computer, or that computer would only be running Windows when I needed to work on projects. And I'd make sure IT doesn't have access to my Wifi.
owsf2000: (Default)
Here's another article from Kotaku. "What your $60 really buys". in a convenient pie chart that, according to people in the comments that claim to be (or claim to have been, or worked at, etc) owners and managers of game stores, is vastly over-estimating the retailer slice of 25%. They say the retailer portion is closer to 5-10 dollars. In effect, they make almost no money on new games at all.

Which of course is why they sell used games: To stay in business.

If a game store has to pay about $45 dollars to get a copy of the game, they have to sell at least 75% of the stock they bought before they actually start to see any profit. Further keep in mind that this is BEFORE the game store has to shell out for employee wages (such as they are) bills for things like electricity/heat, rent if they don't own their own land, land taxes if they do, as well as having money available to handle Unforeseen Circumstances. Broken water valve, theft, vandalism, etc etc. The list can go on.

So as a result of this, I find it rather easy to predict the end of video game stores eventually if the console makers and publishers successfully manage to castrate the used game market. And then what? Well let's see. Not everyone buys their games online. This will not affect some major chains that have the economic might to force publishers to sell cheaper in bulk (Like Wal-mart) but then those types of chains only deal with the either dirt cheap games or the major sure-fire hits. You're just not going to get the same variety available at a dedicated game store.

Do you see where I'm going with this? Can you see which foot the gun is pointed at? If game stores go under because they can't turn a profit when the used market is completely stamped out, the only chains that will still be around to sell games will be the super huge ones such as Wal-mart, Amazon, etc. Companies large enough to effectively say "Yeah we'll buy half a million copies, if you'll sell them for X dollars, otherwise we'll take none at all." <-- this kind of tactic would be devastating on all but the most popular 3-5 games on the go at any given time.

To clarify myself however, I do NOT agree with this bullshit about used games being sold for a couple dollars cheaper than brand new games. I do support the used game market in principle however so long as the games are sold for used game prices. (Which MUST be at least 50% off retail imo.)

Also, I'm still trying to get around the idea that console games these days seem to need installation. I thought that was one of the things we wanted to get AWAY from by moving away from PC gaming.

*edit*

Oh and just to comment about one commenter's smart ass pie chart about used game profits, he got the chart wrong. It conveniently leaves out whatever slice of the sale that was paid to the original owner of the game that the game store had to pay for the game in the first place. (For example: that 2-4 dollars Game Stop paid to Joe Sixpack for his used copy of NFL 2010) So really, the pie should be pac-man you insensitive clod!!1!!1!

September 2017

S M T W T F S
     12
3456789
10111213141516
17 181920212223
24252627282930

Syndicate

RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Sep. 21st, 2017 03:14 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios