No, no, no, you've got it all backwards - it'll be the people on the other planets that live outside under the naked sun; only Earthers will live in caves of steel.
Firefly is the first time such a thing was on television Not quite the first time, I don't think. The main crew in Farscape was pretty much a classic AD&D party - at least, during the first couple seasons.
The problem with your argument is that it's demonstrably wrong, because you're engaging in a trees/forest problem.
Of course you don't want to have the same character in every MMORPG, that would suffer from all the problems you've pointed out. But the character in any given game is one of the trees, the "metaverse" they're talking about will end up being the forest.
As it is right now, I'm an XBox Live subscriber. Which means I'm "Control Group" when I play CoD2, I'm Control Group when I play PGR3, I'm Control Group when I play Marble Blast Ultra, I'm Control Group when I play NFS:MW, etc. Obviously, this doesn't mean that I play a Mosin-Nagant toting Russian gropo while collecting gems in Marble Blast Ultra, or even that I bring my tricked-out RX-8 with when I race people in PGR3, but it does mean that I'm the same person in each game.
This is, admittedly, a far cry from the full-fledged sort of "metaverse" they're talking about in the article, but it's a difference in degree, rather than kind. You could easily replace the XBox's "blade" UI with a 3d rendered world, and my user icon with a character model. Toss in game-independent chat features to go with the already-implemented persistent persona/friends list, and you've got a limited "metaverse."
While the chances of MS and Sony getting together to integrate their separate "metaverses" are all but zero, there's no reason something like this couldn't happen on the internet. Steam could be a step in this direction, or GameSpy.
*shrug*
You're right that real game interaction isn't going to happen. But extra-game interaction certainly could.
I mean, if someone went into a video store and they only rented Betamax there, people would know not to shop there.
I agree that open formats are better for everyone (except, possibly, the company that owns the proprietary format), but this example just doesn't hold water. People wouldn't go into a video store that only rented Betamax not because VHS is an open format, but because they don't have a Betamax player.
Of course, the reason they don't have a Betamax player is that VHS is an open format - but that's a secondary effect. VHS caught on because of secondary effects of being open: cheaper hardware, and longer-play tapes (which were provided faster by the marketplace due to the openness of VHS).
This may seem like nit-picking, but I think it goes right to the point of your statement, insofar as people don't necessarily prefer open formats, they prefer cheaper formats. I think it's an uphill battle if you're trying to convince people to buy into a format because it's open. They'll buy into it if/when the openness of the format leads to cheaper hardware. So, insofar as openness ultimately leads to a healthier, more competitive marketplace, people will end up choosing the open standard (VHS vs Beta, PC vs Mac, CD vs Minidisc). But if that doesn't happen (due to the companies that own proprietary formats manipulating the market via marketing, exclusive licensing deals, government lobbying, or what have you), then people will just go with the cheapest available alternative.
I could make a good case that this is the real intent behind DRM: by enforcing an end-to-end monopoly on content, you can tie it to a format, which then prevents the commoditization (to verbify a noun; sorry) of the format, and therefore dodge the bitch slap of the invisible hand. Or at least, that's the plan. We've yet to see if this will work over the long haul, or if the more they tighten their grip, the more star systems^W^W customers will slip through their fingers.
I'm not a chip designer, I've never been in a chip fab, and I didn't stay in a Holiday Inn Express last night, but I thought it was exactly the other way around. The greater the density of chips per wafer (so, the smaller the chip), the more chips a given flaw ruins.
This, though, is based on reading every arstechnica article on chip fabrication that they've put up in the last six years, which may not be a fully qualified source.
Full games are required to have 1000 points in achievements. Live Arcade games are required to have 200. So far as I know, there will be no deviations from this formula, so no game can "point inflate." The most that could happen is games dole out their 1000 points for trivially easy "accomplishments." I sincerely doubt that the sales to be gained by the free 1000 points would compensate for the sales lost when people realize it's a crappy game.
Points are no worse or better at creating addiction than any other feature added to a game to enhance replayability. In fact, they're exactly the same thing, since they're often handed out for precisely the stuff that developers hope will have you run through the game again (unlocking cheat codes, acquiring every item x available, finishing below a certain time) that they've been including since the NES.
All the points do is provide a reasonably verified way to brag about your accomplishments. As such, they're just an answer to a market desire. That the desire exists is obvious from the people who post screenshots or Polaroids of high scores and the like.
Which 2 games? Also, what kind of games do you like?
If you like Zelda-style games (by which mean N64 and later Zelda-style), then Kameo is a fantastic game. If it turns into a franchise (which it probably will, since everything's a franchise these days), it's the sort of game that will make me buy a system to play it.
If you're into arcade street racing, NFS: Most Wanted is a pretty good implementation of it, though it's not worth getting for the 360 if you already have it for another platform - it looks and runs better, but not an additional $60 better.
If you like more realistic racing, PGR3 is a solid example of the breed (still not what I'd call a driving sim, obviously, but a good racer).
If you like FPS games on the console, Call Of Duty 2 is the best WWII FPS I've played, and the implementation on the 360 is easily the best one available. Again, not enough better to rebuy it, but definitely better enough to make the 360 the platform of choice if you don't have it yet.
But, really, if it's your kind of game at all, I can't flog Kameo enough. Yes, it's Zelda-derivative, but it pulls it off well, and it's a fresh gaming experience.
You know, I don't care if they've got the gold master in their hands and have been deathmatching for a month...I simply can't take them seriously when they talk about DNF coming out.
And to think, there was a time when I thought nothing could be a bigger joke than Daikatana...
All Q3 did was distill all the bits of all the other FPS games out there into the ultimate twitch fest. Q3 did away with planning in favor of pure reflex.
While I'm sure this is ideal for a percentage - possibly even a large one - of gamers, it's certainly not the be-all end-all of FPS gaming. In other games, both before and after Q3, it's possible to overcome someone with cyborg reflexes by being craftier. As someone who's simply not as fast with the crosshairs as many (most) other gamers, this is something I've had to learn to do in order to be at all competitive.
And it works fine in pretty much every game except Q3.
Quite the opposite of your claim, Q3 removed the value from cunning and strategy, and dumped it all into raw reflex by upping the speed of everything. Which may well be the most fun you've ever had playing twitch games, and more power to you.
But please recognize that those of us who aren't blessed with the Advanced Wired Reflexes implant don't share your adoration for the game.
Interesting. That does change the issue, but it's not, IMHO, patently ridiculous.
If the group were to be recruiting in a truly non-sexually discriminatory way, then they should be recruiting blind to the sexual beliefs of the people being recruited. The fact that they include any criteria related to sexual orientation in their recruitment means that they are not being completely agnostic to it.
Similarly (in concept, not in my estimation of either's value), if a guild was recruiting KKK members and sympathizers, I would still consider the recruitment to not be race-agnostic.
Or substitute the sensitive-topic group of your choice: from NAMBLA to the NAACP, from rednecks to democrats.
The problem isn't with Blizzard, IMHO, it's with the fact that homosexuality is a sensitive subject at all. Blizzard is just recognizing that fact, they aren't responsible for the prevailing cultural atmosphere.
So do you also think that Blizzard should be fine with a whites-only guild? Or, specifically, an asshole rednecks-only guild? Would the resulting inevitable debate/argument/fight/flamewar between the various guilds, overall, help or hurt the game? Would it, overall, help or hurt Blizzard's profits?
This is not a troll or a flame, I'm completely serious.
But really, there aren't any ads on the real article pages, just a full-page, easily skipped ad in between them. If we take as a given that there will be ads to generate revenue, this is about as inoffensive as it gets.
And it's certainly no worse than a paper magazine, with its "continued on page 42," "continued on page 64," "continued on page 20" routine.
You know, I had managed to not think of that at all?
Now that you say it, of course, it's smacking me in the face with the "obvious" stick...and you're right, that would take care of all my concerns.
I would hope, then, that the Revo would ship with two controllers...but since I already factor the cost of a second controller and a game into the purchase price of a console, even that wouldn't bother me much. Do we know how many controllers the Revo will be able to support? If it's the traditional four, then any game which uses two controllers will automatically limit the number of players to two...but if they're wireless, it could easily be more than four.
Now, of course, I feel stupid for not thinking of this.
Fair enough, and I hadn't considered that. It at least splits functions into minor muscle groups (fingers) and major muscle group (arm). I still worry that ignoring the other hand will be, overall, detrimental. I think I'd rather have a two-piece controller, one of which was motion-sensitive and the other of which had all the buttons.
Consider driving a car. You can easily simulate (and plenty of games do) all the core functionality of a car with one thumbstick (steering), two analog controls (accelerating/braking), and a pair of buttons (shift up/down). In fact, with modern controllers, you can toss in honking the horn, looking around, adjusting your radio, and changing your camera angle (doesn't even have a real-life analogue). I do this every time I play PGR3, and it's not particularly challenging.
On the other hand, when it comes to a real car, I use two hands, my neck, and one foot (two, if I'm driving a manual). And I have less than no desire to replace all those controls that tie up all those muscle groups with a modern controller. Using more muscle groups with minimal complexity is, to me at least, easier and more intuitive than using fewer muscle groups with greater complexity.
It's not so much that I don't see how you can play a modern game with one hand, it's more that no matter how simple the game, I'd rather split its inputs across both hands. Even in Asteroids and Galaga, I want to play with one hand on the stick and the other on the button, not with a joystick+trigger.
*shrug*
Maybe it's just personal preference, but the long history of video games employing two-handed controllers seems to indicate to me that it's a natural inclination for people to split tasks like this.
This highlights exactly my concern regarding the new controller. If someone with only the use of one hand can effectively use the controller, that means (obviously) that most or all potential for input from the other hand will be ignored. This strikes me as a strange, and possibly deal-breaking decision to make for a video game console.
The trend to date in video games has been towards more, rather than less, complexity. Bucking that trend will be, in my estimation, extraordinarily difficult. Improving games by adding complexity has proven to be comparatively easy - witness the endless parade of sequels, sports franchises, and ever-increasing button counts on controllers. If you can't add complexity, however, you're forced to add to gameplay in another way.
Now, improving gameplay in ways more fundamental than just adding new things is a fantastic thing to do. Innovation is always better than revision. The problem Nintendo will have is that they've foreclosed the option to add complexity, which means all they can do is add innovation...and innovation is hard.
If they can pull it off, and release a non-stop series of games that are innovative, then I'll be a happy camper. But I don't know if they can. It's going to be hard to improve on the GC's Metroid games while providing fewer control inputs. Ditto Zelda, Mario, Smash Bro.'s, and Mario Kart, which means they're potentially hurting themselves when it comes to staple games that, to date, have sold systems.
Possibly even worse, having a radically different controller than the other two consoles will be a disincentive to 3rd-party developers to try and port games to the Revolution. Perhaps the Revo's hardware is going to be far enough behind the others' that this won't matter; they wouldn't have ported anyway. But whatever the reason, that slows uptake of the new console, too.
Now, if anyone can pull it off, it's probably Nintendo. And I really hope they do, since it would be fantastic if there was a dramatic change in what kind of new games got released in favor of innovation vs. revision. But I harbor deep-seated doubts as to whether even the big N can succeed solely on innovative games, and ignoring wheelhouse franchises.
(As a sidebar, I'm also leery of how comfortable I might be using just one hand to play a game. I look at it this way: the NES controller could easily be redesigned to be used one-handed, as a pistol-grip with a thumbstick on top and a button per finger on the underside. Would I want to play any game with that controller as opposed to the original? I really don't think so. It's just easier to do two things at once when you've got one hand per task...and most genres of games require at least executing movement along with at least one-button action simultaneously)
It's kind of sad people think of "cost savings" as one of the biggest benefits... Freedom to use your software they way you want, the ability to fix things if you need to, the ability to make sure there's nothing hidden in the code that you may not want... These are things that should be topping that list, but I guess for a business where "the bottom line" is the most important thing for you, that's all we can really hope for
I think you're introducing a false dichotomy. After all, why should a business care if the software does what they need, can be fixed, and doesn't do clandestine things while they're not looking? Because it potentially loses them money.
That's what TCO is all about.
If you can convince a business that OSS will do more of what they need, will be more cheaply repaired if it breaks, and they won't hemorrhage money through security holes, they'll go with OSS. You're right, it is all about cost; but cost and the other factors you identify aren't different things to value, they're one and the same.
Slashdot Mirror
No, no, no, you've got it all backwards - it'll be the people on the other planets that live outside under the naked sun; only Earthers will live in caves of steel.
Firefly is the first time such a thing was on television
Not quite the first time, I don't think. The main crew in Farscape was pretty much a classic AD&D party - at least, during the first couple seasons.
The problem with your argument is that it's demonstrably wrong, because you're engaging in a trees/forest problem.
Of course you don't want to have the same character in every MMORPG, that would suffer from all the problems you've pointed out. But the character in any given game is one of the trees, the "metaverse" they're talking about will end up being the forest.
As it is right now, I'm an XBox Live subscriber. Which means I'm "Control Group" when I play CoD2, I'm Control Group when I play PGR3, I'm Control Group when I play Marble Blast Ultra, I'm Control Group when I play NFS:MW, etc. Obviously, this doesn't mean that I play a Mosin-Nagant toting Russian gropo while collecting gems in Marble Blast Ultra, or even that I bring my tricked-out RX-8 with when I race people in PGR3, but it does mean that I'm the same person in each game.
This is, admittedly, a far cry from the full-fledged sort of "metaverse" they're talking about in the article, but it's a difference in degree, rather than kind. You could easily replace the XBox's "blade" UI with a 3d rendered world, and my user icon with a character model. Toss in game-independent chat features to go with the already-implemented persistent persona/friends list, and you've got a limited "metaverse."
While the chances of MS and Sony getting together to integrate their separate "metaverses" are all but zero, there's no reason something like this couldn't happen on the internet. Steam could be a step in this direction, or GameSpy.
*shrug*
You're right that real game interaction isn't going to happen. But extra-game interaction certainly could.
Memory is cheap
"That's more an article of faith than a statement of fact"
I mean, if someone went into a video store and they only rented Betamax there, people would know not to shop there.
I agree that open formats are better for everyone (except, possibly, the company that owns the proprietary format), but this example just doesn't hold water. People wouldn't go into a video store that only rented Betamax not because VHS is an open format, but because they don't have a Betamax player.
Of course, the reason they don't have a Betamax player is that VHS is an open format - but that's a secondary effect. VHS caught on because of secondary effects of being open: cheaper hardware, and longer-play tapes (which were provided faster by the marketplace due to the openness of VHS).
This may seem like nit-picking, but I think it goes right to the point of your statement, insofar as people don't necessarily prefer open formats, they prefer cheaper formats. I think it's an uphill battle if you're trying to convince people to buy into a format because it's open. They'll buy into it if/when the openness of the format leads to cheaper hardware. So, insofar as openness ultimately leads to a healthier, more competitive marketplace, people will end up choosing the open standard (VHS vs Beta, PC vs Mac, CD vs Minidisc). But if that doesn't happen (due to the companies that own proprietary formats manipulating the market via marketing, exclusive licensing deals, government lobbying, or what have you), then people will just go with the cheapest available alternative.
I could make a good case that this is the real intent behind DRM: by enforcing an end-to-end monopoly on content, you can tie it to a format, which then prevents the commoditization (to verbify a noun; sorry) of the format, and therefore dodge the bitch slap of the invisible hand. Or at least, that's the plan. We've yet to see if this will work over the long haul, or if the more they tighten their grip, the more star systems^W^W customers will slip through their fingers.
??
I'm not a chip designer, I've never been in a chip fab, and I didn't stay in a Holiday Inn Express last night, but I thought it was exactly the other way around. The greater the density of chips per wafer (so, the smaller the chip), the more chips a given flaw ruins.
This, though, is based on reading every arstechnica article on chip fabrication that they've put up in the last six years, which may not be a fully qualified source.
Full games are required to have 1000 points in achievements. Live Arcade games are required to have 200. So far as I know, there will be no deviations from this formula, so no game can "point inflate." The most that could happen is games dole out their 1000 points for trivially easy "accomplishments." I sincerely doubt that the sales to be gained by the free 1000 points would compensate for the sales lost when people realize it's a crappy game.
Points are no worse or better at creating addiction than any other feature added to a game to enhance replayability. In fact, they're exactly the same thing, since they're often handed out for precisely the stuff that developers hope will have you run through the game again (unlocking cheat codes, acquiring every item x available, finishing below a certain time) that they've been including since the NES.
All the points do is provide a reasonably verified way to brag about your accomplishments. As such, they're just an answer to a market desire. That the desire exists is obvious from the people who post screenshots or Polaroids of high scores and the like.
Which 2 games? Also, what kind of games do you like?
;)
If you like Zelda-style games (by which mean N64 and later Zelda-style), then Kameo is a fantastic game. If it turns into a franchise (which it probably will, since everything's a franchise these days), it's the sort of game that will make me buy a system to play it.
If you're into arcade street racing, NFS: Most Wanted is a pretty good implementation of it, though it's not worth getting for the 360 if you already have it for another platform - it looks and runs better, but not an additional $60 better.
If you like more realistic racing, PGR3 is a solid example of the breed (still not what I'd call a driving sim, obviously, but a good racer).
If you like FPS games on the console, Call Of Duty 2 is the best WWII FPS I've played, and the implementation on the 360 is easily the best one available. Again, not enough better to rebuy it, but definitely better enough to make the 360 the platform of choice if you don't have it yet.
But, really, if it's your kind of game at all, I can't flog Kameo enough. Yes, it's Zelda-derivative, but it pulls it off well, and it's a fresh gaming experience.
Not that I'm a Kameo fanboi, or anything.
Of some note, here, is that "Half Life" and "HL2" are, you know, not the same game. This is indicated by the fact that they have different names.
...that all the best presentations are given by Taipei personalities.
No, I'm not sorry.
You know, I don't care if they've got the gold master in their hands and have been deathmatching for a month...I simply can't take them seriously when they talk about DNF coming out.
And to think, there was a time when I thought nothing could be a bigger joke than Daikatana...
All Q3 did was distill all the bits of all the other FPS games out there into the ultimate twitch fest. Q3 did away with planning in favor of pure reflex.
While I'm sure this is ideal for a percentage - possibly even a large one - of gamers, it's certainly not the be-all end-all of FPS gaming. In other games, both before and after Q3, it's possible to overcome someone with cyborg reflexes by being craftier. As someone who's simply not as fast with the crosshairs as many (most) other gamers, this is something I've had to learn to do in order to be at all competitive.
And it works fine in pretty much every game except Q3.
Quite the opposite of your claim, Q3 removed the value from cunning and strategy, and dumped it all into raw reflex by upping the speed of everything. Which may well be the most fun you've ever had playing twitch games, and more power to you.
But please recognize that those of us who aren't blessed with the Advanced Wired Reflexes implant don't share your adoration for the game.
*shrug*
This ID created purely to suppress JonKatz's articles.
.sig a while, have you?
Had that
WHOOPS
My bad; you were serious. I misread your original comment as sarcasm, and so drew conclusions about your opinion that are completely wrong.
Sorry 'bout that.
I'll just shut up, now.
Interesting. That does change the issue, but it's not, IMHO, patently ridiculous.
If the group were to be recruiting in a truly non-sexually discriminatory way, then they should be recruiting blind to the sexual beliefs of the people being recruited. The fact that they include any criteria related to sexual orientation in their recruitment means that they are not being completely agnostic to it.
Similarly (in concept, not in my estimation of either's value), if a guild was recruiting KKK members and sympathizers, I would still consider the recruitment to not be race-agnostic.
Or substitute the sensitive-topic group of your choice: from NAMBLA to the NAACP, from rednecks to democrats.
The problem isn't with Blizzard, IMHO, it's with the fact that homosexuality is a sensitive subject at all. Blizzard is just recognizing that fact, they aren't responsible for the prevailing cultural atmosphere.
So do you also think that Blizzard should be fine with a whites-only guild? Or, specifically, an asshole rednecks-only guild? Would the resulting inevitable debate/argument/fight/flamewar between the various guilds, overall, help or hurt the game? Would it, overall, help or hurt Blizzard's profits?
This is not a troll or a flame, I'm completely serious.
Questions:
Are there currently guilds that only recruit heterosexuals? What's Blizzard's policy on this? What should it be?
Are there currently guilds that only recruit African-Americans? How about guilds that only recruit whites?
Yes, yes, very amusing.
But really, there aren't any ads on the real article pages, just a full-page, easily skipped ad in between them. If we take as a given that there will be ads to generate revenue, this is about as inoffensive as it gets.
And it's certainly no worse than a paper magazine, with its "continued on page 42," "continued on page 64," "continued on page 20" routine.
*blink*
You know, I had managed to not think of that at all?
Now that you say it, of course, it's smacking me in the face with the "obvious" stick...and you're right, that would take care of all my concerns.
I would hope, then, that the Revo would ship with two controllers...but since I already factor the cost of a second controller and a game into the purchase price of a console, even that wouldn't bother me much. Do we know how many controllers the Revo will be able to support? If it's the traditional four, then any game which uses two controllers will automatically limit the number of players to two...but if they're wireless, it could easily be more than four.
Now, of course, I feel stupid for not thinking of this.
Fair enough, and I hadn't considered that. It at least splits functions into minor muscle groups (fingers) and major muscle group (arm). I still worry that ignoring the other hand will be, overall, detrimental. I think I'd rather have a two-piece controller, one of which was motion-sensitive and the other of which had all the buttons.
Consider driving a car. You can easily simulate (and plenty of games do) all the core functionality of a car with one thumbstick (steering), two analog controls (accelerating/braking), and a pair of buttons (shift up/down). In fact, with modern controllers, you can toss in honking the horn, looking around, adjusting your radio, and changing your camera angle (doesn't even have a real-life analogue). I do this every time I play PGR3, and it's not particularly challenging.
On the other hand, when it comes to a real car, I use two hands, my neck, and one foot (two, if I'm driving a manual). And I have less than no desire to replace all those controls that tie up all those muscle groups with a modern controller. Using more muscle groups with minimal complexity is, to me at least, easier and more intuitive than using fewer muscle groups with greater complexity.
It's not so much that I don't see how you can play a modern game with one hand, it's more that no matter how simple the game, I'd rather split its inputs across both hands. Even in Asteroids and Galaga, I want to play with one hand on the stick and the other on the button, not with a joystick+trigger.
*shrug*
Maybe it's just personal preference, but the long history of video games employing two-handed controllers seems to indicate to me that it's a natural inclination for people to split tasks like this.
This highlights exactly my concern regarding the new controller. If someone with only the use of one hand can effectively use the controller, that means (obviously) that most or all potential for input from the other hand will be ignored. This strikes me as a strange, and possibly deal-breaking decision to make for a video game console.
The trend to date in video games has been towards more, rather than less, complexity. Bucking that trend will be, in my estimation, extraordinarily difficult. Improving games by adding complexity has proven to be comparatively easy - witness the endless parade of sequels, sports franchises, and ever-increasing button counts on controllers. If you can't add complexity, however, you're forced to add to gameplay in another way.
Now, improving gameplay in ways more fundamental than just adding new things is a fantastic thing to do. Innovation is always better than revision. The problem Nintendo will have is that they've foreclosed the option to add complexity, which means all they can do is add innovation...and innovation is hard.
If they can pull it off, and release a non-stop series of games that are innovative, then I'll be a happy camper. But I don't know if they can. It's going to be hard to improve on the GC's Metroid games while providing fewer control inputs. Ditto Zelda, Mario, Smash Bro.'s, and Mario Kart, which means they're potentially hurting themselves when it comes to staple games that, to date, have sold systems.
Possibly even worse, having a radically different controller than the other two consoles will be a disincentive to 3rd-party developers to try and port games to the Revolution. Perhaps the Revo's hardware is going to be far enough behind the others' that this won't matter; they wouldn't have ported anyway. But whatever the reason, that slows uptake of the new console, too.
Now, if anyone can pull it off, it's probably Nintendo. And I really hope they do, since it would be fantastic if there was a dramatic change in what kind of new games got released in favor of innovation vs. revision. But I harbor deep-seated doubts as to whether even the big N can succeed solely on innovative games, and ignoring wheelhouse franchises.
(As a sidebar, I'm also leery of how comfortable I might be using just one hand to play a game. I look at it this way: the NES controller could easily be redesigned to be used one-handed, as a pistol-grip with a thumbstick on top and a button per finger on the underside. Would I want to play any game with that controller as opposed to the original? I really don't think so. It's just easier to do two things at once when you've got one hand per task...and most genres of games require at least executing movement along with at least one-button action simultaneously)
In fact, I plan on doing that very thing tonight.
It's called "having a beer."
Why don't I just go ahead and save some analyst's copy editor some time by putting together a list of the next few headlines they'll need:
Google To Take On Photoshop
Google To Start Chip Fab
Google To Declare Indpendence
Google vs. Mecha-Godzilla!
*eyeroll*
It's kind of sad people think of "cost savings" as one of the biggest benefits... Freedom to use your software they way you want, the ability to fix things if you need to, the ability to make sure there's nothing hidden in the code that you may not want... These are things that should be topping that list, but I guess for a business where "the bottom line" is the most important thing for you, that's all we can really hope for
I think you're introducing a false dichotomy. After all, why should a business care if the software does what they need, can be fixed, and doesn't do clandestine things while they're not looking? Because it potentially loses them money.
That's what TCO is all about.
If you can convince a business that OSS will do more of what they need, will be more cheaply repaired if it breaks, and they won't hemorrhage money through security holes, they'll go with OSS. You're right, it is all about cost; but cost and the other factors you identify aren't different things to value, they're one and the same.
Wow
Nicely done.
Wish I had modpoints.