Saw this linked over on the BSN. Not sure if it was posted here already, but I didn't see it anywhere. Anyway, some interesting thoughts and comments by the CD PRojekt guys.

Linky

I thought that Atari published the game in the US?

Warner Bros published the Xbox version, Atari the PC version.

They did, I think. I believe the article writer screwed up and said Ubisoft instead of Atari.

For a second there I wondered why Europeans got lumbered with Namco Bandai (who took over Atari's European half). I'd actually rather have had sodding Ubisoft. Which is saying something.

Isn't that pretty much what they've said all along?

Great that it's getting more publicity and a nice article that got most of their points in one article.

Yeah, not much new there, but I like the fact they're still saying it and, as you noted, that they have all their points in one article.

Works for me.

Edit: Might be the BBcode. Try copy the link address and paste it in your browser.

Link works directly for me.

Fun article, not new news to me, but maybe it'll get more readership given the Diablo 3 fiasco and raise awareness somewhat. Blizzard has taken a few lumps over its online strategy lately, it's good to see. Ideally I'd like to think they'll right their ship, but I'm a bit of a realist, they probably won't.

Me too but I've run across links done in BBcode before that didn't so I thought maybe that's what happened to Barefoot_Monkey.

I think it does, but its success really depends on the game in question.

WoW is a good example, I could count on one hand the people near my location that would have bought the game, if Blizzard had not used server-side protected resources.

Yeah, but the bbcode->html translation is done server-side, so that doesn't have anything to to with the client and shouldn't be the problem. I am interested in what the problem may be however (not that I can do much about it). It sounds like either a problem with the browser (though the link has no special characters in it), a proxy, or the Forbes site doing trying to do some magic depending on the IP of the visitor.

Weird. I had to force-refresh it 6 times in a row and then the server returned HTTP 200 instead of 301. Now it's fine.