@furiouswk: The shortest answer is because GPUs have the most processing power of any piece of hardware in your computer.
The slightly longer answer: Bitcoin mining involves super-complex equations. GPUs are more powerful, and thus better able to solve these equations, than CPUs. But you don't *need* to use a GPU, you're just unlikely to have much success absent without one. (Unless you can throw thousands of CPUs at the equation, which is what cryptojacking is about.)
@lukasr: No, by my logic you do not, because as I explicitly said "stealing involves taking your stuff." My TV is part of "my stuff."
Now, if you have a Star Trek replicator then feel free to come on over and replicate a copy of my TV. That wouldn't be stealing. (You might think it's wrong since now some TV company's out money, but it can be wrong without being stealing. For the moment we're just debating whether it's stealing.)
2. Why's it matter if *someone* bought it? The issue is whether *I* should buy it.
The point I'm making is that stealing involves taking your stuff, whereas piracy involves not giving you my money. Now, you might argue that I *owe* them my money, but that doesn't make it stealing. That would make it closer to breach of contract.
Now, if I owe them money, why? Presumably because they provided either a product or a service. But if it's a product, I owe money to the retailer I bought the product from, not the person who made it. If I buy a Sony TV, I owe money to Best Buy, not Sony. I shouldn't send a check to Sony. Piracy just cuts out the retailer, but if anyone's getting a raw deal here it's retailers. But again, I'm not obligated to buy from any particular retailer, so how can I owe money to any of them?
Maybe I owe EA for a service. But what service? Making the game? I'm not obligated to buy it just because they made it. Providing me with the enjoyment from playing? There's lots of ways I can play the game that don't put me in EA's debt. I can buy it used, I can play a friend's copy, I can wait til it's a free weekend a speed through it, I can buy it from Humble Bundle and give all the money to charity instead of EA. Or, for story-based games, I can watch it on youtube. All of these are ways of enjoying the game that don't put me in EA's debt.
@lukasr: Piracy is no more theft than borrowing a game from a friend is. It's the exact same result either way: you play the game and the company doesn't get any money from it.
@thelostscribe: Yeah, I mean if your idea is it would need to do that to get up to the level the $40 price tag promises, then I agree (I'm still not sure it would be there, but it'd be closer for sure). But if you're looking at a remake of a SNES game and thinking "looks like a less pixelated PS2 game," well that seems pretty normal, IMO. The price tag is still BS though.
@dani3po: Oh, I don't doubt that it will. But you can use the same engine without designing for phones--or at least without designing for phones in any negative sense of the phrase. Cell phones are powerful enough to run most indie game engines--that's why many indie games get ported without having their engines completely redone.
@Xristophoros: You say "scaled down." Did they start with a better engine or something? Cause this is clearly an improvement over the original version. Is there some reason to think they had designs on making the game look significantly better but scaled it back to launch on cell phones?
@Xristophoros: No it's not. This version of the game hasn't even been released for phones. A straight port of the game was released for phones (back in 2010) but it's hardly what anyone would consider "designed for phones." (It features the emulated buttons of lazy ports of games designed for consoles.) This remake may have flaws (the $40 price tag being a HUGE one), but being designed for phones ain't one.
@kelendil87: Oops. Didn't mean to criticize you for writing in your second language.
I agree with some of the criticisms, but disagree with most of them. I agree that the Fin-Rose subplot could have been improved, I think the whole charge on the battering ram was basically awful, and I don't think Rose was a great character. I even have some criticisms that the haters have largely missed: the timeline is messed up. Rey talks to Kylo when the resistance has 18 hours of fuel left, then spends multiple days with Luke before arriving before the fleet is destroyed.
But I find most of the common criticisms really bad. "Why didn't Holdo just tell Poe?" Because he's a loose cannon who literally just got demoted for sacrificing people to save ships and her plan is to sacrifice ships to save people. "Why didn't Kylo notice that Luke was using the same lightsaber that just got destroyed?" Well, (1) he didn't see it get destroyed--we saw it come apart because we had a side view of it. All he saw was a flash. (2) There's only so many lightsaber colors, unless he's looking at the handle (mostly covered by Luke's hand) he wouldn't notice and (3) he's really pissed off. We see that and we know that the darkside involves drawing on one's anger. It's easy to believe he could have missed it. "Why did Luke leave a map if he didn't want to be found?" Not his map, Abrams said this after TFA. "Why would Luke think of killing his own nephew?" His nephew threatened 30 years of peace--longer than many countries have ever been at peace--and that terrified him enough that he briefly considered cutting him down and feels ashamed of it. "Why didn't the First Order Catch Up with the resistance by doing X, Y and Z." I think there are answers for whatever X, Y and Z are, but instead of addressing them point-by-point I'll note that you could ask the same question about why the death star didn't get around the gas giant between it and the rebel base. Star Wars has always had technology do whatever serves the story. "Why didn't Holdo originally plan to ram the FO ships?" (1) Because that only was able to do so because their guns were trained on other ships and (2) trying to do so would indicate that her ship was empty.
I'm sure there's other objections I missed, but I already wrote more than I intended to. This should give you my basic feeling: most of the objections are both (1) nit-picky and (2) answerable if you put as much thought into defending the movie as to criticizing it. That's not to say there's no problems with it--there are--but I think they're outweighed by what's good about the movie. That's my take, at least.
RS13's comments