Ask Paradox (almost) Anything Thread

[Svip]

Some academic institutions, at least within the continental United Slaves of America, have banned the use of Wikipedia for research purposes...due to wiki's open-input-policy. At least this was the case for my Alma Mater (ie the nourushing goddess; giver of knowledge) years back.

Other academic institutions (even in the USA) have found that Wikipedia is far more accurate, thorough and up to date than any other known encyclopaedia. Wikipedia is not perfect. For specific topics, there are works you are better off reading. But for general knowledge about topics, Wikipedia is perfect. But as always, keep a sceptic mind, and ensure yourself to verify its sources. You'll often find that some of its sources are quite interesting to read in their own context.

[safferli]

I forbid wikipedia citations in papers/thesis/seminar works that my students hand in. Simply for the fact that students are idiots, and don't know what they're doing with it. Wikipedia is a nice encyclopedia that sometimes deceptively looks like a scholary article to students. I also strongly discourage any encyclopedia citations, no matter the source.

If you're at a university, you're expected to use scientific sources. Wikipedia is not one of them. And they don't pretend to be.

[Nikolai]

I forbid wikipedia citations in papers/thesis/seminar works that my students hand in. Simply for the fact that students are idiots, and don't know what they're doing with it. Wikipedia is a nice encyclopedia that sometimes deceptively looks like a scholary article to students. I also strongly discourage any encyclopedia citations, no matter the source.

If you're at a university, you're expected to use scientific sources. Wikipedia is not one of them. And they don't pretend to be.

It depends entirely on what subject it is. When I took the Indian history course my uni offers, two years ago, we were told that while Wikipedia is a no no in general, in Indian history it should be used a lot. Why? Because Indians are very proud of their history and there's a billion of them, a lot of them poor, so part of an Indian historian inside professional humaniora is to write articles on English Wikipedia. It is used for educational purposes over there and the articles is generally highly reliable, as long as it covers Indian history. Of course, it is not a source, it is litterature at best. But it can and should be used. For citations, one should of course use the citations the article gives, that's history 101...

[Nikolai]

For PI: What person in gaming history do you look up to the most, and why?

[Svip]

For PI: What person in gaming history do you look up to the most, and why?

Bismarck, obviously.

Caution: The joke above is brilliant, because it works on so many levels.

[Ordo Impavidus]

...strongly discourage any encyclopedia citations...

If you're at a university, you're expected to use scientific sources. Wikipedia is not one of them. And they don't pretend to be.

+1

That's how all of my Professors had put it.

Wiki has its place, however, and it does serve an important role. And although a lot of it can be proven true and accurate, I still place it within the fictional section...along with the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times...for reason's I'd rather not discuss here.

[RedRooster81]

Lol! Well, eat more protein (especially if you're going to the gym regularly...)

I've lost some weight this month, so my nice pants fit again. And thanks for the advice.

[podcat]

...strongly discourage any encyclopedia citations...

If you're at a university, you're expected to use scientific sources. Wikipedia is not one of them. And they don't pretend to be.

in all fairness I'm not sure why random scientific papers should be regarded as more likely to be true than random posting online that is guaranteed to be reviewed by many people. Anyone can publish stuff right and if only your professor checks it thats a lot less checking than hundreds of people in the field fixing the wikipedia page.

[safferli]

in all fairness I'm not sure why random scientific papers should be regarded as more likely to be true than random posting online that is guaranteed to be reviewed by many people. Anyone can publish stuff right and if only your professor checks it thats a lot less checking than hundreds of people in the field fixing the wikipedia page.

Because I also don't allow my students to use "random scientific stuff". Peer-reviewed papers in accepted journals of the field. These papers get at least 2-3 peer reviewers, at least once, more probably 2-3 times. Additionally, each paper is presented at various conferences and get various comments before it is published.

There are lightyears of difference in qualities -- for specific topics. Wikipedia is great, and very good for general overviews. But if I want to have a paper on the Revelation Principle, I will pick the original source. Additionally, the papers we want from our students go beyond what Wikipedia can give, they're too specific, too focused on a topic.

Often, the wikipedia article will give you some references you can start with. That's fine. And personally, I don't know where I would be without wikipedia. How did GMs prepare their rpg sessions before it?

[Smaen]

Why is it so much spam on the forum?

[Nikolai]

People are chatty and spammy?

[EvilFishtank]

Y iz ure custom title "Corporate Paladin"?

[Johan]

Steam is many things. But, undoubtedly, DRM is one of them.

*sigh* So many misconceptions on the internet.

Steam is NOT a DRM. Steam is a distribution platform with dozens of features that makes it a preferred solution for many developers that do not have blizzard-sized budgets.

When using Steam for your game-distribution you have the possibility to enable a DRM on the game.

Without enabling DRM, having a game installed through steam is no different that any non-DRM game installed by GG.

There is 0% difference between a Sengoku installed through Steam and one installed through Gamersgate or Direct2Drive or retail-box.

[Innocent Beard]

...There is 0% difference between a Sengoku installed through Steam and one installed through Gamersgate or Direct2Drive or retail-box.

Question(s):

1) If Steam decides that I cheat/hack/pirate/misbehave/whatever, can they legally forbid me from downloading the game in the future?
2) If the games are like GG, then I assume they need not steam to launch. Does this not negate the Day 1 patch distribution to all benefit?

[Svip]

Question(s):

1) If Steam decides that I cheat/hack/pirate/misbehave/whatever, can they legally forbid me from downloading the game in the future?

Yes. And so can GG.

2) If the games are like GG, then I assume they need not steam to launch. Does this not negate the Day 1 patch distribution to all benefit?

No, because you have to use Steam to download it, and it will download the patch immidiately. You can then launch it outside of Steam.

[Innocent Beard]

Yes. And so can GG.

Ah I didn't know GG could do that. But in all fairness, GG will never, ever collect any data to that effect, since all they have is my credit card info (maybe not even that if I choose so) and a list of games/serials attached to my name. They never have a client running on computer for them to check for piracy, and certainly none ever running during games to check for hacks/cheats. So though you may be correct that GG can legally ban my account, limiting my access to games (something that is news to me btw), the fact is that by virtue of their unobtrusive system, they will never ever be in a position to make that judgement simply due to lack of data. Something which I think is a postive, because they're just retailers - they shouldn't have the right to judge anyone for anything, much less nose around to do it.

PS: That came off as pro-GG and anti-Steam, but it's not. It's just my present view, which I'm attempting to clarify here. At the moment, I see less risks with GG.

No, because you have to use Steam to download it, and it will download the patch immidiately. You can then launch it outside of Steam.

Sorry I actually meant Day 1 delivery of future patches post-release. So Patch #2,3,4,5...etc. Basically, if you never need Steam to run a game, that effectively means people won't (may not) use Steam at all post-install, meaning that they still won't get the patches until they check for updates themselves and then go reinstall/rerun steam with the particular goal of getting the patch. So essentially, you lose the auto-patch benefit if you allow non-steam execution to occur.

Q3) Has paradox given thought/made plans to make future games on Steam make expansions/patch levels optional? So that if I buy EU+NA+IN+HttT+DW, I can play with whichever form of the game I desire? With whatever patch I choose? So in the future, is paradox planning to make it possible for me to install only up to HttT 4.1, even though lets say a 4.2 is out, as well as DW 5.1? The reason I ask is because this very directly affects mod-friendliness. An example would be the general inability (or atleast difficulty) in playing MMtM for Steam DW purchasers.

Johan, I've been reading up the forums quite a bit lately, and I realize you're very objective about Steam, and seriously consider it a very useful tool for future (& present) paradox games, and have been fairly vocal on the forums when people have spoken against their service. That's why I figured you would be the best person to ask to clarify these questions I have. Don't take any of it strongly - I'm trying to clear up my own presently outdated understanding of steam and also to reassess my position of their service - especially as it relates to Paradox. Thanks for your help.

[Johan]

Q3) Has paradox given thought/made plans to make future games on Steam make expansions/patch levels optional? So that if I buy EU+NA+IN+HttT+DW, I can play with whichever form of the game I desire? With whatever patch I choose? So in the future, is paradox planning to make it possible for me to install only up to HttT 4.1, even though lets say a 4.2 is out, as well as DW 5.1? The reason I ask is because this very directly affects mod-friendliness. An example would be the general inability (or atleast difficulty) in playing MMtM for Steam DW purchasers.

Thats the goal of our new patch & expansion strategy. You should be able to decide exactly WHICH expansions you want enabled..

[Romtos]

*sigh* So many misconceptions on the internet.

Steam is NOT a DRM. Steam is a distribution platform with dozens of features that makes it a preferred solution for many developers that do not have blizzard-sized budgets.

When using Steam for your game-distribution you have the possibility to enable a DRM on the game.

Without enabling DRM, having a game installed through steam is no different that any non-DRM game installed by GG.

There is 0% difference between a Sengoku installed through Steam and one installed through Gamersgate or Direct2Drive or retail-box.

Thanks for the elaboration. I've learned something new.
Does this imply that any game which can be launched outside of Steam does not have Steam DRM implemented and visa versa?

[Svip]

Ah I didn't know GG could do that. But in all fairness, GG will never, ever collect any data to that effect, since all they have is my credit card info (maybe not even that if I choose so) and a list of games/serials attached to my name. They never have a client running on computer for them to check for piracy, and certainly none ever running during games to check for hacks/cheats. So though you may be correct that GG can legally ban my account, limiting my access to games (something that is news to me btw), the fact is that by virtue of their unobtrusive system, they will never ever be in a position to make that judgement simply due to lack of data. Something which I think is a postive, because they're just retailers - they shouldn't have the right to judge anyone for anything, much less nose around to do it.

Well, GG will just prevent you from buying games via their services. But any service will close your account if they feel you are abusing it. I cannot think of one that would not do such a thing.

Moreover, while Steam does run a client on your system, Steam makes a point of requiring you to opt-in for a survey on what you run on your machine. Since GG requires you to download their download applications, you could argue that these small programs could even contain a hidden data collecting scheme themselves, although, I sincerely doubt that.

For that money, I trust GG the same amount as I trust Steam.

PS: That came off as pro-GG and anti-Steam, but it's not. It's just my present view, which I'm attempting to clarify here. At the moment, I see less risks with GG.

Or do you?

Sorry I actually meant Day 1 delivery of future patches post-release. So Patch #2,3,4,5...etc. Basically, if you never need Steam to run a game, that effectively means people won't (may not) use Steam at all post-install, meaning that they still won't get the patches until they check for updates themselves and then go reinstall/rerun steam with the particular goal of getting the patch. So essentially, you lose the auto-patch benefit if you allow non-steam execution to occur.

Well, obviously not. But that's the same issue with GG, I suppose. If you decide not to have automatic patch distribution, that's your choice. And while you will get the day 0/1 (whatever) patch, you can't be sure about any subsequent patches. Neither can the developers. But day 0 patches tend to be more important, anyway.

Q3) Has paradox given thought/made plans to make future games on Steam make expansions/patch levels optional? So that if I buy EU+NA+IN+HttT+DW, I can play with whichever form of the game I desire? With whatever patch I choose? So in the future, is paradox planning to make it possible for me to install only up to HttT 4.1, even though lets say a 4.2 is out, as well as DW 5.1? The reason I ask is because this very directly affects mod-friendliness. An example would be the general inability (or atleast difficulty) in playing MMtM for Steam DW purchasers.

Again, Steam allows you to disable auto-patching. But personally, I just make a copy of my EU3 directory, then patch that to whatever I like. Again, since EU3 works without Steam, you can do that, even if you purchased EU3 through Steam.

Johan, I've been reading up the forums quite a bit lately, and I realize you're very objective about Steam, and seriously consider it a very useful tool for future (& present) paradox games, and have been fairly vocal on the forums when people have spoken against their service. That's why I figured you would be the best person to ask to clarify these questions I have. Don't take any of it strongly - I'm trying to clear up my own presently outdated understanding of steam and also to reassess my position of their service - especially as it relates to Paradox. Thanks for your help.

Steam has gotten an unnecessary bad wrap in recent years. Perhaps from 'haters' as they are called, but Steam is actually one of the best digital distribution channels there is. Needless to say, I still get my Paradox games via GG, because I like that for its better integration with Paradox in general.

[RedRalphWiggum]

Honestly: how important is the appearance of the game to each individual PI staff?