I'm sure there is SOME logical explanation for it...it seems daffy that they would do that without good reason. Still, it's an odd one. Thanks for bringing this up though, I was completely unaware of it!
Odd. Well, I gotta ask the obvious question...did anyone think to up the visual settings on their PC so the whole game ran closer to 30 FPS? Would that make the issue less noticable, or did the problem scale down as well?
True, and while I wouldn't call Bioshock an open-world game, they made it JUST open enough to not make the would-you-kindly and progression go hand in hand. In fact, the only thing unrealistic about the progression in Bioshock isn't that it is linear, but the fact that there is a navigable route through a war-torn Rapture.
I had a similar problem with the first Half-Life. Amazing game, but...I mean come on, what are the chances of every part of the escape route you took being open? The fact that an intensely intricate way to the surface existed always seemed a bit off to me.
Perhaps you would be interested in my game reviews then? I try to approach them as somewhere between a game reviewer and a game player. I like to think I do OK, although my writing could use a little work:-) Some reviews of games I've done recently:
I do my best to keep personal excitement out of the review and stick only to my experience playing the game, but alas I'm not always able to:-(::end self promotion::
Actually, it's dying because too many PC gamers download games without paying for them. That's why they introduced DRM in the first place. It doesn't really work, but such is life.
That's not the whole story. I (and many others like me) absolutely DESPISE DRM. If you look at the large CD holder on my desk, you will find ~160 retail games released between 1994-2003. Released between 2003-now? 20. Only 20. Despite the fact that I have more disposable income than I did back then, I am buying FAR LESS PC games now. The only way I will pay for a PC game is if it is DRM-free beyond a serial number/CD check, or if it's from a designer/developer I want to support.
In the case of the former, that is a very rare occurence these days...Dragon Age was the last one that fit the bill, and before that I believe it was Galactic Civ 2. In the case of the latter, I almost always still pirate the game after buying the retail version because I don't want the SecuROM and other crap on my system...the most recent being Bioshock 2, which I plan on picking up on my way home tonight.
I know I am just one gamer, but I doubt I'm the only person they have lost sales on due to DRM.
Re:Not groundbreaking at all, System Shock 2 clone
on
BioShock 2 Released
·
· Score: 1
I will likely go the "buy to support the devs/download to actually play the damn thing" route. DRM (and not having an updated computer) were the reasons why I went with the 360 version the first time
***Major spoilers for those that never played the first Bioshock***
Agreed. Pulling off that type of twist in another medium (such as film) would have be nearly impossible. The illusion of free will was exactly that...an illusion. Up until the showdown with Ryan, you THOUGHT you were in control...but if you go back through it again, you will see that any time Atlas asked you to "kindly" do something, you couldn't advance through the game without doing it...just like during and after the showdown with Ryan.
The only difference was that you were aware of it. I'd say that makes its point perfectly.
Re:Not groundbreaking at all, System Shock 2 clone
on
BioShock 2 Released
·
· Score: 1
That's not to say at some point I will not play Bioshock 2, I just have trouble really putting my heart into it after Bioshock was such a weak game compared to the story and gameplay of System Shock...
...why are you comparing the two? Even though they had many of the same people working on them and shared thematic similarities, they were two very different games.
I don't think the follow-up will hold up. Part of that is that too many gamers (like me) would keep comparing a sequel to an original game that was (in many ways) groundbreaking. And it's awfully hard to live up to that.
This was exactly how I felt...until I realized that I was being foolish. I've never said this about a sequel before, but in the case of Bioshock 2, I don't care if it's more of the same...more of the same of Bioshock is a GREAT thing. Even if it doesn't improve on anything, it would still be worth playing based on the fact that we get more Rapture!
Sorry if I sound like a drooling Bioshock cultist, but seriously, ask yourself...would more of the first game be a bad thing?
Google isn't being allowed to use other's people's stuff to make money! That isn't fair! I like Google, so they shouldn't have to follow the rules just like everyone else! They should be able to do anything and everything they want!
Honestly, I was just trying to kick up a conversation. Despite my flamebait post, it turned into something quite productive:-)
But what if somebody makes an unauthorized recording of you on a particularly bad night and you sound horrible? Or you made a 'demo' album six years ago and sold a handful of cassette copies in the local record shop. It gets around and awhile later becomes viral and everybody starts sending it around to all their friends. "listen to the tard playing the shitty guitar" they would all caption it. And the name of your band is all over it.
They could have chosen to let it go nowhere, but they decided to release it and make some money off it. And you know what? People who were big fans in the 90's and early 2000's (like myself) wanted it and even paid for it, despite knowing that it was horrible quality. I haven't even watched more than 10 minutes of the copy that I own, yet I am glad that I can own a piece of the band's history. There is even footage on there from Mrs. Scabtree!
Early works shouldn't be ignored. They are an integral part of eventually becoming who you are as an artist.
So a bunch of people are downloading it and your band's rep is ruined.
If, as a band, your fans are so fickle that they will stop liking you because of something you did years ago which is currently irrelevant to what you are releasing, then you have the wrong kind of fans.
No, you have the right to decide how it is further disseminated. There might be 40 crappy cassettes out there, but nobody can digitize it and spread copies around the net.
It isn't a monetary issue. If the copyright holder wants their work to languish in obscurity, it's within their rights to require that of potential distributors. Until the copyright expires, they have the full right to control how it's disseminated. And it defaults to 'hands off.'
There is something you are forgetting about writing and music: in the abstract, it doesn't belong to the creator. Sure, by copyright and any other law you want to mention it belongs to them...but the cultural significance of it doesn't belong to them.
People have chosen, on their own, to use a portion of their limited time and energy to incorporate my efforts into their existence. I am the creator of my music, and I control its distribution...but it isn't mine.
First of all the Napster of now and the Napster of old have nothing to do with each other other than the name
Are you trying to say that using the Napster name didn't have a hand in the new service's success? If you are, I disagree.
, why should Google be rewarded with exclusive rights to books, which the authors has to opt-out of Google getting, after blatantly ignoring other people's copyrights?
They shouldn't.
This isn't even getting into the fact that not even all the authors that Google will be making money off of will get anything out of this.
This is where my original point came in. What google did was messed up, I agree with that. However, by doing this, publishers and authors are shutting out an additional avenue for potential revenue and sales. Why would they deliberately do that? How is it a good idea to shut down more ways to earn money instead of coming to an agreement where everyone benefits?
I neglected to mention another thing I'm thinking. I understand where you're coming from -- give something out for free, get the recognition, and be able to sell more... IN THE FUTURE. Giving something away gives people no incentive to purchase that specific product. Giving something away would, perhaps, give people the incentive to purchase a product released by you for sale in the future. I agree with this, but to stand by this argument through hell and high water is to imply that every aspiring New York Times best selling author should release their first work for free, in full. Fundamentally, this theory is somewhat contrary to the structure of the IP industry and capitalism in general.
Take a look at the New York Times best seller list. How many obscure, non-promoted authors do you see on there? Hardly any, if any. These are people that have the full force of a major publication house to advertise their book.
Independent or smaller writers, even those on a major publisher, don't have that same luxury. All advertising costs something...what more effective advertising is there than giving people a portion of your work for free?
Yes, please point out what is wrong with my implication.
Write a book, keep tight control, make profit on its sales = $X. Write another book, put it online for free, make profit on its sales > $X.
Is that really what you're saying? I'm genuinely curious, not trying to be an idiot.
Say you are either an obscure or not a top-shelf author. The publisher isn't going to spend a bunch of money on promoting you, so you are left to get your name out there. The hardest part about being a writer is getting people to recognize your name and read your work.
Fans will buy what you write no matter what, but you have to get the fans before that can happen. Slashdot favorite Wil Wheaton is a great example of this. He makes the majority of his income from book and audio book sales...yet try to find his work on torrent sites. You will be suprised at how little of his work is pirated. This is because people love what he does and understand that their support enables him to care for his family. His books have gotten slightly more expensive over the years, because his fans are willing to pay for his work. He still gives away a TON of content at very little or no cost. His audio production diary from Criminal Minds is a good example of this. It was originally a free blog post, people enjoyed it, and now he can charge money for it.
In summary:
Write a book, sell it = sales Write another book, put it online for free = exposure Write another book after the increased exposure, sell it = more sales than your first book.
Making a portion of your work available for free increases the number of people that it will reach, since people don't have to spend money to see if they like what you do. Exposure is basically free advertising. Given what it costs to properly and professionally promote your work, giving some of it away for free is the cheapest and most effective form of advertising you could possibly engage in.
I specifically put the word financially in there knowing this would be the first response. This isn't about popularity, recognition, fame, fan-base, etc. This is about the money side of things, and I'm asking why any professional writer who lives by selling his written work would make a decision to give his work to the world for free.
You are implying popularity, recognition, fame, fan-base, etc. have nothing to do with making more money as a professional writer.
Do you really need me to point out what is wrong with that implication?
Right now, they are trying to shut down Google's ability to do this. Instead of trying to shut it down, why not hammer out an agreement with Google that requires money up front or a portion of the money generated when someone views their content? Or, even better, with links to where someone can buy the thing.
Google makes a little extra, publishers make a little extra and/or get more eyeballs on webpages where their stuff can be bought, and subsequently authors make a little extra. I fail to see what would be wrong with that.
For the same reason I put some of my music online at no charge and with no DRM: Free exposure.
Sure, a bunch of people will download it and not buy the album (when it becomes available)...but they still know my name and are aware of my work. That's as valuable as a sale, just in a less tangible way.
So instead of striking a deal forcing google to not ignore those copyrights and let everyone make some money, you want to force google to not ignore those copyrights and let no one make money?
Slashdot Mirror
I'm sure there is SOME logical explanation for it...it seems daffy that they would do that without good reason. Still, it's an odd one. Thanks for bringing this up though, I was completely unaware of it!
Odd. Well, I gotta ask the obvious question...did anyone think to up the visual settings on their PC so the whole game ran closer to 30 FPS? Would that make the issue less noticable, or did the problem scale down as well?
True, and while I wouldn't call Bioshock an open-world game, they made it JUST open enough to not make the would-you-kindly and progression go hand in hand. In fact, the only thing unrealistic about the progression in Bioshock isn't that it is linear, but the fact that there is a navigable route through a war-torn Rapture.
I had a similar problem with the first Half-Life. Amazing game, but...I mean come on, what are the chances of every part of the escape route you took being open? The fact that an intensely intricate way to the surface existed always seemed a bit off to me.
::begin self promotion::
Perhaps you would be interested in my game reviews then? I try to approach them as somewhere between a game reviewer and a game player. I like to think I do OK, although my writing could use a little work :-) Some reviews of games I've done recently:
Mass Effect 2
Torchlight
Modern Warfare 2 (Single Player only)
Borderlands
The Dark Spire
I do my best to keep personal excitement out of the review and stick only to my experience playing the game, but alas I'm not always able to :-( ::end self promotion::
Actually, it's dying because too many PC gamers download games without paying for them. That's why they introduced DRM in the first place. It doesn't really work, but such is life.
That's not the whole story. I (and many others like me) absolutely DESPISE DRM. If you look at the large CD holder on my desk, you will find ~160 retail games released between 1994-2003. Released between 2003-now? 20. Only 20. Despite the fact that I have more disposable income than I did back then, I am buying FAR LESS PC games now. The only way I will pay for a PC game is if it is DRM-free beyond a serial number/CD check, or if it's from a designer/developer I want to support.
In the case of the former, that is a very rare occurence these days...Dragon Age was the last one that fit the bill, and before that I believe it was Galactic Civ 2. In the case of the latter, I almost always still pirate the game after buying the retail version because I don't want the SecuROM and other crap on my system...the most recent being Bioshock 2, which I plan on picking up on my way home tonight.
I know I am just one gamer, but I doubt I'm the only person they have lost sales on due to DRM.
I will likely go the "buy to support the devs/download to actually play the damn thing" route. DRM (and not having an updated computer) were the reasons why I went with the 360 version the first time
This is the first I've heard of this physics issue (played the first one on 360). Care to elaborate a bit? Sounds weird...
***Major spoilers for those that never played the first Bioshock***
Agreed. Pulling off that type of twist in another medium (such as film) would have be nearly impossible. The illusion of free will was exactly that...an illusion. Up until the showdown with Ryan, you THOUGHT you were in control...but if you go back through it again, you will see that any time Atlas asked you to "kindly" do something, you couldn't advance through the game without doing it...just like during and after the showdown with Ryan.
The only difference was that you were aware of it. I'd say that makes its point perfectly.
That's not to say at some point I will not play Bioshock 2, I just have trouble really putting my heart into it after Bioshock was such a weak game compared to the story and gameplay of System Shock...
...why are you comparing the two? Even though they had many of the same people working on them and shared thematic similarities, they were two very different games.
I don't think the follow-up will hold up. Part of that is that too many gamers (like me) would keep comparing a sequel to an original game that was (in many ways) groundbreaking. And it's awfully hard to live up to that.
This was exactly how I felt...until I realized that I was being foolish. I've never said this about a sequel before, but in the case of Bioshock 2, I don't care if it's more of the same...more of the same of Bioshock is a GREAT thing. Even if it doesn't improve on anything, it would still be worth playing based on the fact that we get more Rapture!
Sorry if I sound like a drooling Bioshock cultist, but seriously, ask yourself...would more of the first game be a bad thing?
Ah yes, I forgot about that one! That was from Canopus, right?
Pfft. Everyone knows the Monster3D was where it was at!
^^^^This
Google isn't being allowed to use other's people's stuff to make money! That isn't fair! I like Google, so they shouldn't have to follow the rules just like everyone else! They should be able to do anything and everything they want!
Honestly, I was just trying to kick up a conversation. Despite my flamebait post, it turned into something quite productive :-)
But what if somebody makes an unauthorized recording of you on a particularly bad night and you sound horrible? Or you made a 'demo' album six years ago and sold a handful of cassette copies in the local record shop. It gets around and awhile later becomes viral and everybody starts sending it around to all their friends. "listen to the tard playing the shitty guitar" they would all caption it. And the name of your band is all over it.
This is a link to a super early concert given by Marilyn Manson. I could be wrong, but I believe it was one of the first concerts they ever did under the name "Marilyn Manson and the Spooky Kids". The production values are horrendous, the music quality is bad, and the whole thing is generally shitty.
They could have chosen to let it go nowhere, but they decided to release it and make some money off it. And you know what? People who were big fans in the 90's and early 2000's (like myself) wanted it and even paid for it, despite knowing that it was horrible quality. I haven't even watched more than 10 minutes of the copy that I own, yet I am glad that I can own a piece of the band's history. There is even footage on there from Mrs. Scabtree!
Early works shouldn't be ignored. They are an integral part of eventually becoming who you are as an artist.
So a bunch of people are downloading it and your band's rep is ruined.
If, as a band, your fans are so fickle that they will stop liking you because of something you did years ago which is currently irrelevant to what you are releasing, then you have the wrong kind of fans.
No, you have the right to decide how it is further disseminated. There might be 40 crappy cassettes out there, but nobody can digitize it and spread copies around the net.
Agreed, you do have that right.
It isn't a monetary issue. If the copyright holder wants their work to languish in obscurity, it's within their rights to require that of potential distributors. Until the copyright expires, they have the full right to control how it's disseminated. And it defaults to 'hands off.'
There is something you are forgetting about writing and music: in the abstract, it doesn't belong to the creator. Sure, by copyright and any other law you want to mention it belongs to them...but the cultural significance of it doesn't belong to them.
People have chosen, on their own, to use a portion of their limited time and energy to incorporate my efforts into their existence. I am the creator of my music, and I control its distribution...but it isn't mine.
As a ghost writer by profession, I agree with the latter but disagree with the former. Feel me?
As someone just getting into freelance writing as a way to earn a little extra money to pad my savings account, absolutely :-)
First of all the Napster of now and the Napster of old have nothing to do with each other other than the name
Are you trying to say that using the Napster name didn't have a hand in the new service's success? If you are, I disagree.
, why should Google be rewarded with exclusive rights to books, which the authors has to opt-out of Google getting, after blatantly ignoring other people's copyrights?
They shouldn't.
This isn't even getting into the fact that not even all the authors that Google will be making money off of will get anything out of this.
This is where my original point came in. What google did was messed up, I agree with that. However, by doing this, publishers and authors are shutting out an additional avenue for potential revenue and sales. Why would they deliberately do that? How is it a good idea to shut down more ways to earn money instead of coming to an agreement where everyone benefits?
I neglected to mention another thing I'm thinking. I understand where you're coming from -- give something out for free, get the recognition, and be able to sell more... IN THE FUTURE. Giving something away gives people no incentive to purchase that specific product. Giving something away would, perhaps, give people the incentive to purchase a product released by you for sale in the future. I agree with this, but to stand by this argument through hell and high water is to imply that every aspiring New York Times best selling author should release their first work for free, in full. Fundamentally, this theory is somewhat contrary to the structure of the IP industry and capitalism in general.
Take a look at the New York Times best seller list. How many obscure, non-promoted authors do you see on there? Hardly any, if any. These are people that have the full force of a major publication house to advertise their book.
Independent or smaller writers, even those on a major publisher, don't have that same luxury. All advertising costs something...what more effective advertising is there than giving people a portion of your work for free?
Yes, please point out what is wrong with my implication.
Write a book, keep tight control, make profit on its sales = $X.
Write another book, put it online for free, make profit on its sales > $X.
Is that really what you're saying? I'm genuinely curious, not trying to be an idiot.
Say you are either an obscure or not a top-shelf author. The publisher isn't going to spend a bunch of money on promoting you, so you are left to get your name out there. The hardest part about being a writer is getting people to recognize your name and read your work.
Fans will buy what you write no matter what, but you have to get the fans before that can happen. Slashdot favorite Wil Wheaton is a great example of this. He makes the majority of his income from book and audio book sales...yet try to find his work on torrent sites. You will be suprised at how little of his work is pirated. This is because people love what he does and understand that their support enables him to care for his family. His books have gotten slightly more expensive over the years, because his fans are willing to pay for his work. He still gives away a TON of content at very little or no cost. His audio production diary from Criminal Minds is a good example of this. It was originally a free blog post, people enjoyed it, and now he can charge money for it.
In summary:
Write a book, sell it = sales
Write another book, put it online for free = exposure
Write another book after the increased exposure, sell it = more sales than your first book.
Making a portion of your work available for free increases the number of people that it will reach, since people don't have to spend money to see if they like what you do. Exposure is basically free advertising. Given what it costs to properly and professionally promote your work, giving some of it away for free is the cheapest and most effective form of advertising you could possibly engage in.
I specifically put the word financially in there knowing this would be the first response. This isn't about popularity, recognition, fame, fan-base, etc. This is about the money side of things, and I'm asking why any professional writer who lives by selling his written work would make a decision to give his work to the world for free.
You are implying popularity, recognition, fame, fan-base, etc. have nothing to do with making more money as a professional writer.
Do you really need me to point out what is wrong with that implication?
Substitute "Napster" for "Google" in your statement to see how wrong it is.
OK. Here it is.
The music industry should try to work with Napster instead of against them. It's in their (and the public's) best interest.
...you do realize that the music industry did everything in their power to get Napster shut down, and now sells music THROUGH Napster, yes?
So, if anything, substituting "Napster" for "Google" just makes my statement more right.
I think you misunderstood what I was saying.
Right now, they are trying to shut down Google's ability to do this. Instead of trying to shut it down, why not hammer out an agreement with Google that requires money up front or a portion of the money generated when someone views their content? Or, even better, with links to where someone can buy the thing.
Google makes a little extra, publishers make a little extra and/or get more eyeballs on webpages where their stuff can be bought, and subsequently authors make a little extra. I fail to see what would be wrong with that.
For the same reason I put some of my music online at no charge and with no DRM: Free exposure.
Sure, a bunch of people will download it and not buy the album (when it becomes available)...but they still know my name and are aware of my work. That's as valuable as a sale, just in a less tangible way.
So instead of striking a deal forcing google to not ignore those copyrights and let everyone make some money, you want to force google to not ignore those copyrights and let no one make money?