kingschiebi

While a proxy does work, I would rather not have to rely on using it.
For one, the bandwidth is usually really crappy and more importantly, you never know who is hosting the hardware and what they do with the data you sent through the proxy. It does not matter if the proxy services tout VPN and SSL as bulletpoints since that does not protect your data (i.e. logins, password) from the ones sitting in the middle.

Apart from that, I would be a fair bit disappointed if I had to resort to that,
while already paying the premium membership to help the crew keep their own operation going without resorting to youtube.

Specifically all youtube live streaming - yes. As @sudomiser mentioned, Twitch and others seem to not care about any imposed restriction or have found a different way to argue themselves out of the situation.

Without going into the full legal meat, it basically boils down to the lobby representing artists (no matter if those artists want that or not) in regards to public viewings of their works want to prevent people from streaming copyrighted stuff. They also take a considerable cut if you want to perform something publicly and youtube did not agree to that. There are also some archaic broadcasting rights being applied by folks who are still stuck in the 80s in regards to global communication platforms. So ultimately youtube decided to give us all the middle finger and just block our ip ranges until the negotiations are done.

Believe me when I say that no one outside of the GEMA (the institution that presses the issue) is happy with this and would gladly like to see an approach that is more suitable for our current times.

I'd like to second this. While I understand that these guys are streaming from home and can't support multiple streams necessarily, it would be nice to see a service being used then that is available everywhere.

I guess that explains why they had to rename the boardgame...

to

@drewbert

You guys want to play that in your boardgame segment the next time you get to it. Bring @danryckert, he'll love it.

@puppies4life: Drop-downs still not working for me. Chrome Version 38.0.2125.111 m on Win 8.1

There might not be matchmaking available, but this seems pretty useful...

http://destinylfg.net/

Patrick left out the most important part of his tweet: "Great actor, good man. The game will probably still be excellent. Like New Coke!"

Being part of the 56.8 percent, I approve of this option being offered.

I am also happy that Irrational does something based on player feedback that is not just influencing a marketing decision, but genuine gameplay.

Hut ab!

@VibratingDonkey said:

@kingschiebi said:

@VibratingDonkey said:

I see a lot of words but none of them are about two-step authentication.

...

The answer is usability.

...

An unverified system only needs to be verified once. Using this security feature is optional.

Even if it is just one step more, it is one step too much. Same reason why online shops try to do their best in making the actual shopping as painless as somehow possible. (i.e. Amazon 1-Click) and still there are people who are put off by that. It is getting less and "we" (for simplicity sake, I assume that people here are somewhat proficient with computers and the internet) is not the problem. It's the average person on the street that is having problems with that.

It is the same reason why Apple is tremendously successful with their IOS devices and why Microsoft is working hard on making Metro as accessible as possible.

People tend to avoid everything that is even just slightly more complicated if they are not forced to use it in a more secure way and unless every vendor does adopt the same usage regulations, customers will simply go the way of least resistance. It simply comes down to being a business risk, especially if you would be the first in a specific segment to do something like that.

@VibratingDonkey said:

I see a lot of words but none of them are about two-step authentication.

Why is no one asking about that? Microsoft keeps reiterating that they're very concerned with the online security of their customers etc. PR speak blablah, yet they haven't once mentioned this obvious solution in the form of a security measure designed specifically to protect against account hijacks.

And they literally have everything in place for it too. I don't understand why they haven't done it already, or said anything about doing it.

The answer is usability.

Consoles are entertainment devices and that makes things even more difficult than on the PC.

People would complain - a lot - for every additional time they have to enter a password, even to the extend that they go with another product. No vendor would risk that and rather takes the hit for a couple of compromises instead.

Steam just gets away with that because their audience does generally understand much better the risk and issues attached to an online service and are also much more familiar with these security procedures.

That is simply something that a vendor does not expect from the average family that bought the "gaming box" for the living room.