The article implicitly assumes both that game developers only make games for the money, and that a front-loaded payment model is the only way to go; both of which are not necessarily true. For example, Tarn Adams (Dwarf Fortress) earns his living entirely through donations.
Fixed that for you. Tarn Adams is the only example of a game developer living entirely through donations. Not even Jason Rohrer, who lives a minimalist lifestyle in the middle of nowhere, is capable of sustaining himself on donation only income.
Compare that with the overwhelming number of game developers who make a living through getting paid by people buying games.
Your arguments and comparisons are predicated on Apple being a monopoly in a space. Smartphones, tablets/netbooks, whichever. This is not currently even close to the case.
Apple had 99.4% market share of the mobile application market in 2009.
Yep, those Chess levels sure get uninteresting after a while...
"Once you start recognizing individual elements, then it really doesn't matter how the level's put together, and it stops being fun any more."
You're assuming a certain type of game where the level layout is relatively unimportant. Mario isn't one of those games.
Even a relatively simple level generation algorithm like in, say, Angband is enough to keep people playing the game for fifteen+ years - because the level layout matters and every move can be the difference between winning the game and having to start over.
What changes every 5 years is the business process that makes you money. Selling hardware -> breakfix services -> managed services -> whatever is profitable in a cloud computing world.
You can achieve everything that you suggest with an endpoint management system that doesn't require a domain structure in place to use - e.g. the product I mentioned in the OP. I would say more but I'll just end up astroturfing.
As for putting trust in critical apps and data - I see that most substantial organisations don't trust banks, and keep their cash in a very large mattress, don't trust the grid supply, and run their own power stations, don't trust the existing transport infrastructure and build their own roads to get staff to work and so on. You have a huge number of dependencies already - you're just living in a world where data and applications aren't yet expressed in utility terms.
In fact don't run a domain at all. Let the end users manage their own PCs / laptops / printers and run a real virtual organization. You'll save heaps of cash using Skype, Salesforce, GoToMeeting and other solutions designed for this. If you want to manage your end points, buy a solid endpoint management solution like Kaseya (Disclaimer: I work for Kaseya) rather than trying to customize something with GPOs.
I've worked with both trying to get a domain structure running over a wide area network with slow/cheap bandwidth links, and not running any kind of domain structure at all and the later is by far the best way to go. Forget trying to lock down local machines, manage user data and so on. It's like holding a leaky bucket.
Yes, you lose control of your data. The only way to avoid that is to centralize completely, go with a Citrix solution and do ridiculous things like prevent users printing or connecting any USB devices to their machines. There are solutions out there that completely lock and encrypt all data on the user endpoints, but you said that your company doesn't want to spend any money, so I'm assuming that they aren't going to fork out for any kind of real solution.
For modern Angband variants (in addition to T-o-M-E), I'd recommend Sangband (aka Skills Angband) as best of breed out there, for someone looking to get back into things.
"Basically this guy decided to criticize a gameplay setup without giving any thought to why it's there in the first place."
I'm arguing for the existence of levels, not against. I apologise for not making it clear enough in the summary - I guess I expected more people to read the fine article. However, I'm setting out the reasons why the existence of levels in order to load additional parts of the game is no longer a requirement, and perhaps theming, pacing, narrative, learning curve and reward are much better reasons for the level structure (I missed out reward, and I'm kicking myself for not thinking of when I first wrote the article - ironically, there's a great review of Supreme Commander on Eurogamer at the moment arguing one of the frustrating issues in that gave is the reward for 'finishing a level' in that game is to expand the play area and make it harder).
A book has chapters and a movie has scenes because these are both (mostly) narrative mediums. A counter example of books without chapters which venture closer to the game space is the Fighting Fantasy series, where the chapter mechanism is thrown away in favour of the 'choose your own' mechanic. Similarly, cross-cutting two scenes in film is a way of mixing up the narrative structure. I would be interested to know if there are any Momento-like games out there.
A game has levels for - well, narrative is certainly a reason, but not the only one.
Really? I wasn't at all aware of that. It's not like I actively maintain an Angband variant... And I think you'll find Angband development has kicked off again, whereas ToME doesn't look in danger of releasing a beta quality release of ToME 3 for some time. But hey, the roguelike community is small enough we shouldn't be kicking each other in the shins.
Half-Life has a continuous space which loads as you move throughout it. Half-Life 2 has loading screens that sit between each map - forcing you out of the game experience. Sure, both games have the same underlying map mechanism. But Half-Life 2 interrupts your game play to load the next stage. That's why I make a distinction in this instance. Of course, both games are on the same side of a lot of the other arguments I give for the existence of levels.
And you wonder why the US referred China to the WTO last week...
I wonder if there's a direct correlation. It wouldn't surprise me if this kind of factoid passed direct from Microsoft to lobbyists to the comittee responsible for the referral.
Dystopia, a Half-Life 2 mod, developed a statistics server that collected information on in-game beta testing they conducted with their world-wide fan base. They used e.g. rates of damage inflicted in the beta tests to balance the new weapons they implemented between beta 4 and their release candidate. There's a very good interview right at the top of the Dystopia main page that discusses the weapon balancing in some depth.
If mod developers relying on volunteers can use statistical analysis, its pretty much applicable to anyone.
It is great to see so many software projects coming forward and being nominated for this award. Mozilla, KDE, Berlin, Gnome, KDevelop and other projects have all made great leaps and bounds in the last year. It is also great to see projects getting nominated that I (And other users) probably are not aware of.
I want people to consider more than just nominating their favourite / pet / contributing project however, regardless of their merits. There is, I think, more to consider than which project has been the most successful however. In particular, this award is not just about the money.
Slashdot has achieved considerable currency in the more mainstream media over the last year's time. As a result, the open source awards (The Beanie's) that Slashdot gives, are going to achieve considerable recognition beyond that of a cash prize. You need to consider both when you nominate and when you vote, what it is that you want to the successful candidate, and the open source project as a whole to achieve by these awards.
By the most improved open source project, I feel we can represent a project that does something that open source is not recognised as having strengths in, be it e-commerce, desktop or games development. Furthermore, consider contributing the money to a project that does not have a clear sponser. I am not saying ignore the Mozilla's of this world, because web browsing is also a weakness of the open source, but try to vote for something that will achieve the best benefit for the open source community as a whole.
I'm glad to see that the Slashdot response has been an appropriate one, as a whole.
I would have been more impressed with the articles, had there been empirical evidence to suggest that dopamine levels were elevated under the conditions described. As they stood, they reminded me of a letter I read once, written by a certified schizophrenic, weighing in at some 40 pages, and filled with diagrams explaining how his view on life was supported by ample evidence. Naturally, haveing drawn analogies in the diagrammatic form, the diagrams then became indisputable evidence from which conclusions could be drawn.
I trust flashes of intuition which make one unforseen progression which explains the obvious facts, rather than GUT instincts. (I'm not shouting, it's an acronym).
Everyone who still believes in the theories discussed should be forced to read Foucoult's Pendulum, by a Snr. Umberto Eco, over and over, until they get it.
Slashdot Mirror
The article implicitly assumes both that game developers only make games for the money, and that a front-loaded payment model is the only way to go; both of which are not necessarily true. For example, Tarn Adams (Dwarf Fortress) earns his living entirely through donations.
Fixed that for you. Tarn Adams is the only example of a game developer living entirely through donations. Not even Jason Rohrer, who lives a minimalist lifestyle in the middle of nowhere, is capable of sustaining himself on donation only income.
Compare that with the overwhelming number of game developers who make a living through getting paid by people buying games.
Your arguments and comparisons are predicated on Apple being a monopoly in a space. Smartphones, tablets/netbooks, whichever. This is not currently even close to the case.
Apple had 99.4% market share of the mobile application market in 2009.
Ars Technica
Which part of that doesn't qualify as a monopoly?
Andrew
Yep, those Chess levels sure get uninteresting after a while...
"Once you start recognizing individual elements, then it really doesn't matter how the level's put together, and it stops being fun any more."
You're assuming a certain type of game where the level layout is relatively unimportant. Mario isn't one of those games.
Even a relatively simple level generation algorithm like in, say, Angband is enough to keep people playing the game for fifteen+ years - because the level layout matters and every move can be the difference between winning the game and having to start over.
Andrew
What changes every 5 years is the business process that makes you money. Selling hardware -> breakfix services -> managed services -> whatever is profitable in a cloud computing world.
For any one interested further, you might want to read or help contribute to the procedural content generation wiki at pcg.wikidot.com.
You can achieve everything that you suggest with an endpoint management system that doesn't require a domain structure in place to use - e.g. the product I mentioned in the OP. I would say more but I'll just end up astroturfing.
As for putting trust in critical apps and data - I see that most substantial organisations don't trust banks, and keep their cash in a very large mattress, don't trust the grid supply, and run their own power stations, don't trust the existing transport infrastructure and build their own roads to get staff to work and so on. You have a huge number of dependencies already - you're just living in a world where data and applications aren't yet expressed in utility terms.
In fact don't run a domain at all. Let the end users manage their own PCs / laptops / printers and run a real virtual organization. You'll save heaps of cash using Skype, Salesforce, GoToMeeting and other solutions designed for this. If you want to manage your end points, buy a solid endpoint management solution like Kaseya (Disclaimer: I work for Kaseya) rather than trying to customize something with GPOs.
I've worked with both trying to get a domain structure running over a wide area network with slow/cheap bandwidth links, and not running any kind of domain structure at all and the later is by far the best way to go. Forget trying to lock down local machines, manage user data and so on. It's like holding a leaky bucket.
Yes, you lose control of your data. The only way to avoid that is to centralize completely, go with a Citrix solution and do ridiculous things like prevent users printing or connecting any USB devices to their machines. There are solutions out there that completely lock and encrypt all data on the user endpoints, but you said that your company doesn't want to spend any money, so I'm assuming that they aren't going to fork out for any kind of real solution.
Have they checked for jagged double-edged tool marks and surface marking in a mesh pattern?
No problem. Amazingly enough, I think the vast majority of posters didn't read it either... but that's Slashdot, AFAICT.
(Anyone moderating this. Mod the parent up please).
Asking Slashdot a rhetorical question...
For modern Angband variants (in addition to T-o-M-E), I'd recommend Sangband (aka Skills Angband) as best of breed out there, for someone looking to get back into things.
"Basically this guy decided to criticize a gameplay setup without giving any thought to why it's there in the first place."
I'm arguing for the existence of levels, not against. I apologise for not making it clear enough in the summary - I guess I expected more people to read the fine article. However, I'm setting out the reasons why the existence of levels in order to load additional parts of the game is no longer a requirement, and perhaps theming, pacing, narrative, learning curve and reward are much better reasons for the level structure (I missed out reward, and I'm kicking myself for not thinking of when I first wrote the article - ironically, there's a great review of Supreme Commander on Eurogamer at the moment arguing one of the frustrating issues in that gave is the reward for 'finishing a level' in that game is to expand the play area and make it harder).
A book has chapters and a movie has scenes because these are both (mostly) narrative mediums. A counter example of books without chapters which venture closer to the game space is the Fighting Fantasy series, where the chapter mechanism is thrown away in favour of the 'choose your own' mechanic. Similarly, cross-cutting two scenes in film is a way of mixing up the narrative structure. I would be interested to know if there are any Momento-like games out there.
A game has levels for - well, narrative is certainly a reason, but not the only one.
Really? I wasn't at all aware of that. It's not like I actively maintain an Angband variant... And I think you'll find Angband development has kicked off again, whereas ToME doesn't look in danger of releasing a beta quality release of ToME 3 for some time. But hey, the roguelike community is small enough we shouldn't be kicking each other in the shins.
RTFA
Half-Life has a continuous space which loads as you move throughout it. Half-Life 2 has loading screens that sit between each map - forcing you out of the game experience. Sure, both games have the same underlying map mechanism. But Half-Life 2 interrupts your game play to load the next stage. That's why I make a distinction in this instance. Of course, both games are on the same side of a lot of the other arguments I give for the existence of levels.
As pointed out here "Apparently the method is polynomial in time, but exponential in energy ..."
to which Charles Stross replies "Ah, so that's what the short duration GRBs are!"
Fnord.
And here I was sitting next to a food scientist who works 14 hours days and still makes the time to cook for her and her husband when she gets home.
I guess its more about the motivation.
And you wonder why the US referred China to the WTO last week...
I wonder if there's a direct correlation. It wouldn't surprise me if this kind of factoid passed direct from Microsoft to lobbyists to the comittee responsible for the referral.
I for one welcome our new Slashdot overlords...
Dystopia, a Half-Life 2 mod, developed a statistics server that collected information on in-game beta testing they conducted with their world-wide fan base. They used e.g. rates of damage inflicted in the beta tests to balance the new weapons they implemented between beta 4 and their release candidate. There's a very good interview right at the top of the Dystopia main page that discusses the weapon balancing in some depth.
If mod developers relying on volunteers can use statistical analysis, its pretty much applicable to anyone.
I think these guys are doing the same thing, but it sounds a little more thought out. The wikipedia article on left4dead is a good overview.
I want people to consider more than just nominating their favourite / pet / contributing project however, regardless of their merits. There is, I think, more to consider than which project has been the most successful however. In particular, this award is not just about the money.
Slashdot has achieved considerable currency in the more mainstream media over the last year's time. As a result, the open source awards (The Beanie's) that Slashdot gives, are going to achieve considerable recognition beyond that of a cash prize. You need to consider both when you nominate and when you vote, what it is that you want to the successful candidate, and the open source project as a whole to achieve by these awards.
By the most improved open source project, I feel we can represent a project that does something that open source is not recognised as having strengths in, be it e-commerce, desktop or games development. Furthermore, consider contributing the money to a project that does not have a clear sponser. I am not saying ignore the Mozilla's of this world, because web browsing is also a weakness of the open source, but try to vote for something that will achieve the best benefit for the open source community as a whole.
I'm glad to see that the Slashdot response has been an appropriate one, as a whole.
I would have been more impressed with the articles, had there been empirical evidence to suggest that dopamine levels were elevated under the conditions described. As they stood, they reminded me of a letter I read once, written by a certified schizophrenic, weighing in at some 40 pages, and filled with diagrams explaining how his view on life was supported by ample evidence. Naturally, haveing drawn analogies in the diagrammatic form, the diagrams then became indisputable evidence from which conclusions could be drawn.
I trust flashes of intuition which make one unforseen progression which explains the obvious facts, rather than GUT instincts. (I'm not shouting, it's an acronym).
Everyone who still believes in the theories discussed should be forced to read Foucoult's Pendulum, by a Snr. Umberto Eco, over and over, until they get it.
A.D.Venturer