Gran Turismo 5 box art provided by reviewers which gives us a hint that the game is nearly ready to be released.
The following is a video showing all the trophies available in GT5.




The division of the game into distinct halves – one where your hero is a revolutionary leader and the other as king – is smart and keeps you occupied. You’ll need to display both violence and smarts to be successful throughout the entire game. The good news about the lackluster development of the storyline is that you’ll have plenty of time to develop whatever you’re lacking. If you’re a bad fighter or spell-caster, you’ll have enough chances at swordplay and wolf-killing in the first half. If you’re not up on your Albion tax law, tweaking policy in the second half of the game will let you see what kind of ruler you really are.
There are some nice side touches to Fable III. You can find and accumulate wealth, including gold or jewels. If clothes do make the man (or woman), you have plenty of choices of what to buy and wear in Fable III. You can wander slightly off the path the game wants you to take to interact with or engage passers-by. The game’s social aspect also lets you develop relationships with other characters.
Friday Blizzard said that Southeast Asian gamers would also have access to a DVD starter kit for those who would rather not download the game client. The kit will include the disk, a 7-day pass, and a guide to creating a Battle.net account and installing the client.
For some of its games, like Zynga Poker, the use of virtual currency might fall under state gambling guidelines. Online gambling is highly regulated in some states, illegal in others. But Zynga’s patent application stresses that one of its virtual-currency innovations is that the currency exchange is one-way: Players can send cash into the system, but they can’t take cash out, arguably avoiding the risk of regulation as gambling.
A patent on how virtual currencies operate would also secure Zynga’s position as the dominant player in social games. Zynga is already the largest developer of games on social networks like Facebook. But there is a good bit of competition from other social networking game companies like Playdom and Playfish. Disney recently acquired Playdom for about $760 million, while gaming giant Electronic Arts picked up Playfish for around $400 million.The critical point is that WoWGilder did not contributorily or vicariously lead to violating any rights granted under the Copyright Act. Unlike speed-up kits, there was no creation of an unauthorized derivative work, nor was a copy made even under the Ninth Circuit's misinterpretation of RAM copying in the MAI v. Peak case. How one might ask can there be a violation of the Copyright Act if no rights granted under the Act have been violated? Good question.While the appeal in that case is still ongoing, it appears that Blizzard is using that precedent to go after more folks who have made tools for "cheating." The company recently banned thousands of players from Starcraft II for allegedly using such cheat codes, but reader Jay was the first of a bunch of you to point out that it's also suing three creators of cheat codes using the same dubious claims of copyright infringement.
To get to its result, the court had to first find that WoW, even though sold over the counter, was licensed not sold. In so finding, the court declined to follow the recent Vernor opinion in the Western District of Washington, believing it had to follow other Ninth Circuit precedent. I agree with the Vernor court that the other precedent (MAI, Triad, Wall Data) do not hold that over the counter software is licensed, not sold. (WoW may be purchased online too, but I don't think this changes the analysis.). Having found there was license not a sale, there still had to be a breach of the license in order to permit an infringement action to lie, and recall here that the claim is not one for direct infringement, but rather secondary liability; there was no privity between the parties. There was in fact no provision in the license that barred use of WoWGlider. The court took the extraordinary step of stitching together two unrelated provisions to create one. You have to read it to believe it, but it took the court 8 pages to go through this hard work, and why? Was the court offended by what it regarded to be cheating? If so, God help us if law is being reduced to such subjective, non-statutory grounds.
When users of the Hacks download, install, and use the Hacks, they copy StarCraft II copyrighted content into their computer's RAM in excess of the scope of their limited license, as set forth in the EULA and ToU, and create derivative works of StarCraft II.Pick apart that sentence carefully. In order to make this a copyright issue, Blizzard is claiming that (1) running a cheat code violates the EULA and the ToU (the fine print no one read) and (2) once you've violated the EULA and the terms of service, you no longer have a license for the game ("excess of the scope of their limited license") and, because of that (3) when you copy aspects of the game in a fleeting manner into the computer's RAM, it violates the copyright.

