I was told by my current employer that they almost didn't hire me because I was "too opinionated", and that it "could cause workability issues". This was because I was open and honest in my interview, and because they saw my website, which I used as a reference for my skills.
But in the end, they hired me, opinions and all. It's caused a few issues in their eyes, but I think they've learned they'd rather deal with me - where my opinions are out in the open for everyone to see - than deal with someone who is better at hiding things. That, and I'm very, very good at my job.
In the end, the problem fixes itself; anyone that wouldn't hire me because of the things I've said on my website or anywhere else, that's their loss, and even if I worked for someone like that, I wouldn't be in that kind of environment for long. The ones that take me get a very good employee who's loyalty is unquestioned.
It's not really a matter of a game's quality, it's a matter of how everything spawns off of it.
For example, video game RPGs spawned off of Akalabeth. That doesn't make it *better* than, say, Final Fantasy or Dragon Quest, but it does make it influential.
I don't think Goldeneye belongs in that category, however, because while it was the ubiquitous console shooter, it still owed a lot to those PC shooters. It's not like Tetris, which spawned itself countless clones; it was an evolution, not a spark.
I'm not entirely sure. I don't follow the rest of the entertainment industry to really draw a comparative, I don't know, say, movie prices from 1989, or budget prices, etc.; I'm a freelance video game columnist, so that's more my speciality.
Let's also not forget inflation. Let's compare today's games to the games of the 80s and 90s.
A top-priced game costs $60 today. But then consider the budget that goes into making the massive 3D graphics, including modern rendering and lighting techniques, R+D, possible budget for voice actors (and unlike the 90s, they can't just rely on local talent, some of these games require big names), etc. All that budget is being used on games that cost $60, surely, but adjusting for inflation, a game that costs $60 in 2009 would equal half-price in 1989.
Let's stick with 1989. Back then, new games for the NES typically went for $50. Then, consider that proportionally, game budgets were much, much smaller - even when you adjust for inflation - and then affix 2009 inflation to 1989 prices; that $50 game cost about $85 when adjusted (calculated here: http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl).
Plus, once you get into subjective arguments, you can argue that the quality of games today has gone way, way up; yes, there's a lot of crap out there, and like some of you, I haven't fully evolved from my 80s self and aren't very good at 3D action/platformer games, or FPS titles. Taken on the whole, the average game today is much, much better than the average game of the 80s was; the crap is still crap, but the ratio is much better today than back then.
It can be argued that the American per capita income hasn't adjusted properly with inflation - that's an argument to itself - but I think that the main point stands: we're getting more games today than twenty years ago, we're getting better games, we're getting them comparatively cheaper than we did in the 80s, and companies are making less money than they did in the long run (on average).
The media cartel would still make it more worthwhile to Microsoft - who have their own interests - to do these things than not do them.
The only thing they will respond to is a mass boycott. And considering this is Windows, which is pretty much locked into most large scale networks as it is, not to mention end users' homes, good luck.
"My ISP (Comcast) does not have access to ESPN360.com. I do not have a choice in this matter; they are the only ISP in my area, so therefore, I will not be using your service.
This is absolutely fine by me. I would have been willing to pay a price for your service to be contracted out to me the same way I pay for ESPN Insider; if you were to make the two services together, even better. As it stands, I do not want my ISP to capitulate and purchase your service because I do not think it's fair that they have to pay for me to watch sports.
Furthermore, I think your intentions are not honest. This is a strongarm tactics you're using on ISPs to increase your profit margin and little more, and not only are you trying to completely pull the wool over everyone's eyes on this, you have no care that every cable subscriber will have to pay extra money so that a few can use your service. In addition to that, I see this as a dangerous precedent; I want to be able to access the entire internet no matter where I want to go, and do not want premium services limited to what ISP I choose. I feel your actions will convince other content providers to do something similar, and this is intrinsically anti-consumer.
With that said, I know full well you do not care about the consumer, so with that noted, take your service and shove it.
I watch ESPN's networks, and I hate this. Absolutely hate it.
As it stands, I would buy ESPN360 as a premium service the way I bought the NHL's Centre Ice package, and the way I used to buy MLB's online package before they went anti-Linux and pro DRM. I like the service, and I like watching games on my laptop. But the way this is being done is terrible; my home ISP (Comcast) won't support it, and they're the only option I have.
So it's just like cable. Whereas I have to have a shitload of channels I have no interest in and pay for all of them, I also have no option of changing them. So it's going to go back to what it still is: Comcast doesn't carry all of the MSG networks, so I can't watch the Rangers if the Knicks are playing because Centre Ice blacks out the Rangers, and I can't watch the Mets without paying for a stupid package that has 10 other useless channels, etc... etc... etc...
I can proxy around this, surely... but that's besides the point. This isn't how the internet is supposed to work, and I like the internet specifically because I can get around this territorial leg pissing.
Way to go, your majesty! Take out those offending web pages! Don't mind the fact that your #1 industry is the underage sex trade, by all means, wax The Economist!
To-may-to, to-mah-to. It doesn't matter if it's to Olbermann or O'Reilly. They're BOTH useless. They're BOTH mindlessly partisan. And they BOTH should be marginalized.
We need less O'Reilly and Hannity, but we also need less Olbermann, because Keith is nothing but a blue O'Reilly to begin with.
They have no choice. The industry put them into such a wringer that they have no choice but to find some way to generate revenue. It sucks, but the only way to get rid of ads is to put so much pressure on the board that decides the royalties that they almost have no choice but to drop the fees, but that's not going to happen; if this ensures Pandora's survival, I'm sure they'll find another way to try to kill Pandora.
The RIAA wants nothing less than 100% control over every distribution outlet for their controlled music, and the destruction of anything they don't control, be it artists or distribution outlets. It's as simple as that. To fight that kind of junta... I'll listen to a few ads.
How many people are going to do that? If every person that didn't buy DRM laden software - especially SecuROM, since some of them are not as intrusive, such as Uniloc - told the company they didn't buy it because of DRM, would it matter? Would it have any negligible effect on sales? Would they write those sales off to piracy? Despite the negative PR that comes with it, companies still use SecuROM, and they're not punished for it, because every big release that's had SeucROM is still reviewed highly - guarantee GTAIV gets in the 9s - and still sells extremely well; the best selling PC game of all time is The Sims, which uses SecuROM.
It's the pillocks that don't read Slashdot that are fucked. Because Far Cry 2 is selling extremely well, Bioshock sold extremely well, Spore sold extremely well, The Sims is the best selling PC title of all time, etc... etc... etc... etc...
It's not making a dent in their sales, and they're likely writing off people like us as pirates anyway.
I ended up getting SecuROM from the fucking DEMO for Bioshock. THE DEMO! What the fuck is there to protect in the demo, especially on Steam!?
Yes, you nailed it. Sprint terminated the connection; if it was a dropped or otherwise misrouted packet, it would be showing a time-out. But my traceroute that I showed in my entry) completed; I said "go to 76.X.X.X", and they said "OK! We made it to 206.X.X.X! Mission Accomplished!"
As for whether or not that's fraud... I'm wondering the same thing.
Slashdot Mirror
Source: http://www.rollingstone.com/artists/metallica/articles/story/6959138/money_makers
That's the top 50 moneymaker list from 2004.
I was told by my current employer that they almost didn't hire me because I was "too opinionated", and that it "could cause workability issues". This was because I was open and honest in my interview, and because they saw my website, which I used as a reference for my skills.
But in the end, they hired me, opinions and all. It's caused a few issues in their eyes, but I think they've learned they'd rather deal with me - where my opinions are out in the open for everyone to see - than deal with someone who is better at hiding things. That, and I'm very, very good at my job.
In the end, the problem fixes itself; anyone that wouldn't hire me because of the things I've said on my website or anywhere else, that's their loss, and even if I worked for someone like that, I wouldn't be in that kind of environment for long. The ones that take me get a very good employee who's loyalty is unquestioned.
Depends. How much do you value groupthink? Personally, "getting along with the team" is overrated, and honestly, a false sense of security.
It's not really a matter of a game's quality, it's a matter of how everything spawns off of it.
For example, video game RPGs spawned off of Akalabeth. That doesn't make it *better* than, say, Final Fantasy or Dragon Quest, but it does make it influential.
I don't think Goldeneye belongs in that category, however, because while it was the ubiquitous console shooter, it still owed a lot to those PC shooters. It's not like Tetris, which spawned itself countless clones; it was an evolution, not a spark.
I'm not entirely sure. I don't follow the rest of the entertainment industry to really draw a comparative, I don't know, say, movie prices from 1989, or budget prices, etc.; I'm a freelance video game columnist, so that's more my speciality.
It's an interesting question, though.
Let's also not forget inflation. Let's compare today's games to the games of the 80s and 90s.
A top-priced game costs $60 today. But then consider the budget that goes into making the massive 3D graphics, including modern rendering and lighting techniques, R+D, possible budget for voice actors (and unlike the 90s, they can't just rely on local talent, some of these games require big names), etc. All that budget is being used on games that cost $60, surely, but adjusting for inflation, a game that costs $60 in 2009 would equal half-price in 1989.
Let's stick with 1989. Back then, new games for the NES typically went for $50. Then, consider that proportionally, game budgets were much, much smaller - even when you adjust for inflation - and then affix 2009 inflation to 1989 prices; that $50 game cost about $85 when adjusted (calculated here: http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl).
Plus, once you get into subjective arguments, you can argue that the quality of games today has gone way, way up; yes, there's a lot of crap out there, and like some of you, I haven't fully evolved from my 80s self and aren't very good at 3D action/platformer games, or FPS titles. Taken on the whole, the average game today is much, much better than the average game of the 80s was; the crap is still crap, but the ratio is much better today than back then.
It can be argued that the American per capita income hasn't adjusted properly with inflation - that's an argument to itself - but I think that the main point stands: we're getting more games today than twenty years ago, we're getting better games, we're getting them comparatively cheaper than we did in the 80s, and companies are making less money than they did in the long run (on average).
The media cartel would still make it more worthwhile to Microsoft - who have their own interests - to do these things than not do them.
The only thing they will respond to is a mass boycott. And considering this is Windows, which is pretty much locked into most large scale networks as it is, not to mention end users' homes, good luck.
This is nothing new; they've been talking about this for months, maybe over a year. It's caused issues with Amazon in the past, if I remember right.
"My ISP (Comcast) does not have access to ESPN360.com. I do not have a choice in this matter; they are the only ISP in my area, so therefore, I will not be using your service.
This is absolutely fine by me. I would have been willing to pay a price for your service to be contracted out to me the same way I pay for ESPN Insider; if you were to make the two services together, even better. As it stands, I do not want my ISP to capitulate and purchase your service because I do not think it's fair that they have to pay for me to watch sports.
Furthermore, I think your intentions are not honest. This is a strongarm tactics you're using on ISPs to increase your profit margin and little more, and not only are you trying to completely pull the wool over everyone's eyes on this, you have no care that every cable subscriber will have to pay extra money so that a few can use your service. In addition to that, I see this as a dangerous precedent; I want to be able to access the entire internet no matter where I want to go, and do not want premium services limited to what ISP I choose. I feel your actions will convince other content providers to do something similar, and this is intrinsically anti-consumer.
With that said, I know full well you do not care about the consumer, so with that noted, take your service and shove it.
Sincerely,
[me]"
Could you verify that with a link?
I'm not challenging you, I'm genuinely interested.
I watch ESPN's networks, and I hate this. Absolutely hate it.
As it stands, I would buy ESPN360 as a premium service the way I bought the NHL's Centre Ice package, and the way I used to buy MLB's online package before they went anti-Linux and pro DRM. I like the service, and I like watching games on my laptop. But the way this is being done is terrible; my home ISP (Comcast) won't support it, and they're the only option I have.
So it's just like cable. Whereas I have to have a shitload of channels I have no interest in and pay for all of them, I also have no option of changing them. So it's going to go back to what it still is: Comcast doesn't carry all of the MSG networks, so I can't watch the Rangers if the Knicks are playing because Centre Ice blacks out the Rangers, and I can't watch the Mets without paying for a stupid package that has 10 other useless channels, etc... etc... etc...
I can proxy around this, surely... but that's besides the point. This isn't how the internet is supposed to work, and I like the internet specifically because I can get around this territorial leg pissing.
Way to go, your majesty! Take out those offending web pages! Don't mind the fact that your #1 industry is the underage sex trade, by all means, wax The Economist!
Give legislators enough time; they'll find a way to make those words synonyms.
To-may-to, to-mah-to. It doesn't matter if it's to Olbermann or O'Reilly. They're BOTH useless. They're BOTH mindlessly partisan. And they BOTH should be marginalized.
We need less O'Reilly and Hannity, but we also need less Olbermann, because Keith is nothing but a blue O'Reilly to begin with.
They have no choice. The industry put them into such a wringer that they have no choice but to find some way to generate revenue. It sucks, but the only way to get rid of ads is to put so much pressure on the board that decides the royalties that they almost have no choice but to drop the fees, but that's not going to happen; if this ensures Pandora's survival, I'm sure they'll find another way to try to kill Pandora.
The RIAA wants nothing less than 100% control over every distribution outlet for their controlled music, and the destruction of anything they don't control, be it artists or distribution outlets. It's as simple as that. To fight that kind of junta... I'll listen to a few ads.
I agree. But as a taxpayer, I want those students to do it on THEIR computers, not something I paid for.
Hacks.
Alan Thicke is a God among men.
So people that don't have that kind of money are pretty much fucked, eh?
OK, now here's the question:
How many people are going to do that? If every person that didn't buy DRM laden software - especially SecuROM, since some of them are not as intrusive, such as Uniloc - told the company they didn't buy it because of DRM, would it matter? Would it have any negligible effect on sales? Would they write those sales off to piracy? Despite the negative PR that comes with it, companies still use SecuROM, and they're not punished for it, because every big release that's had SeucROM is still reviewed highly - guarantee GTAIV gets in the 9s - and still sells extremely well; the best selling PC game of all time is The Sims, which uses SecuROM.
Who said we were going to?
It's the pillocks that don't read Slashdot that are fucked. Because Far Cry 2 is selling extremely well, Bioshock sold extremely well, Spore sold extremely well, The Sims is the best selling PC title of all time, etc... etc... etc... etc...
It's not making a dent in their sales, and they're likely writing off people like us as pirates anyway.
I ended up getting SecuROM from the fucking DEMO for Bioshock. THE DEMO! What the fuck is there to protect in the demo, especially on Steam!?
If that's their definition of "legal", then fuck legality.
Well, in three years, you likely won't want to be using a 2008 model, either.
A crown. You are the KING OF THE NERDS!
:'(
I, and my seven digit UID, are extremely jealous of my overlords.
Yes, you nailed it. Sprint terminated the connection; if it was a dropped or otherwise misrouted packet, it would be showing a time-out. But my traceroute that I showed in my entry) completed; I said "go to 76.X.X.X", and they said "OK! We made it to 206.X.X.X! Mission Accomplished!"
As for whether or not that's fraud... I'm wondering the same thing.