Slashdot Mirror
Is There a Future for Indie Games?
An anonymous reader writes "If you've been following Greg Costikyan's recent rants (such as Death to The Games Industry), you would have seen mention of one developer's attempt at breaking the traditional games publisher funding model. Well, their game is now in the stores, and whats more it has been getting some pretty good reviews, but has anyone heard of it? Judging by some
press, the marketing has been somewhat underwhelming. So the question is, is there still a viable space for good games developed outside the traditional corporate publisher model, or does E.A. already own the future of video games?" Moreover, when indie developers have to go up against the likes of EA and Steven Spielberg, what hope can they have for matching that kind of success? At least one company thinks they can do it by offering games for direct download. Is direct purchasing enough of an incentive for your average gamer to shell out money on something he's never heard of before?
404 File Not Found
4 &tid=10) was not found.
The requested URL (games/05/10/16/1323209.shtml?tid=187&tid=98&tid=
If you feel like it, mail the url, and where ya came from to pater@slashdot.org.
Back in the 1990s, when President Bill Clinton was running for re-election, he was given the "welfare reform" bill to sign. He was between a rock and a hard place because, as a liberal, he of course did not want to sign a bill that undercut the ability of the federal government to provide welfare to people it deemed "needy." At the same time, Clinton had won the Presidency largely on promises that he would end "welfare as we know it." When he signed the bill, he was reported as making comments that even though he didn't particularly like the bill that the conservative Republican Congress had sent him, once elected to a second term he would hopefully be able to do something about overturning some of it. It was said that he signed the bill, but with a "wink" or a nod towards fellow liberals that he didn't really mean to sign it.
This is the kind of open two-facedness that President Clinton was famous for, and why so many people didn't respect him. For years now, conservatives have been claiming that President Bush is just the opposite; that he says what he means and he means what he says. I never thought this to be the case, and now we can see just how right I was. He has nominated for the Supreme Court his personal friend and lawyer, Harriet Miers. Little is known about Ms. Miers' record, viewpoints or ideology--things that used to matter when appointing a Supreme Court justice, but evidently do not matter to President Bush. We do know that Ms. Miers is associated with Focus on the Family, a militant Christian religious organization in favor of curbing the breach between church and state even more than President Bush has attempted to do. Bush, like his predecessor Clinton, is openly and brazenly trying to have it both ways. He's reportedly telling religious conservatives that given Ms. Miers' membership in such an organization--which he considers a good thing--she can be counted on to vote against abortion rights on the high court. In the same breath, he's telling liberals and others who kind of like the separation of church and state the way that it is that they aren't to worry, Ms. Miers is not an ideologue of any kind--meaning that she has no ideas and therefore no positions, the same argument made in defense of John Roberts, the man recently appointed to be Chief Justice.
President Bush is a lot more like President Clinton than most people realize. He's a politician to the core, but the point is much deeper than that. President Clinton, like his wife, craves power. He wanted to be in office and to have power, no matter what. Yes, he'd prefer to be a liberal--and even a socialist if allowed to get away with it--but in the end he'd do whatever he had to do in order to win. That's why he signed welfare reform, but with a wink to his core supporters that he would try to overturn some of it. Try to imagine, for a moment, CowboyNeal and Commander Taco signing the Constitution, with a wink to the British Royalists that in a few years they'd try to change it.
President Bush wants power, but I don't think power is his primary motivating force. His primary motivating force is to be liked by people who hate him--people who hate him for being "conservative," i.e., for holding ideas that they dislike. The truth about President Bush is that he has no ideology or ideas of any kind. He came into office to cut taxes and avenge his father in Iraq by unseating Saddam Hussein. He has done both, and beyond these two policies he, and his Republican Congress, have engaged in the biggest domestic spending spree since the founding welfare state days of the New Deal and the Great Society. Now that taxes have been cut, the economy continues its expansion into deeper and deeper welfare statism and regulation; now that Saddam Hussein has been unseated, our soldiers take hits in Iraq every day as our commander in chief all but admits he has no clue what to do except "have faith." With respect to his latest nomination to the Supreme Court, the President wants to have his fundamentalist religion, and eat it too; that is to say,
Is busy infighting God, Let's fucking
states that there Usenet posts. DOG THAT IT IS. IT core team. They big picture. W4at locating #GNAA, Achieve any of the There's no