someone wants to try your game before deciding if you deserve their money, they are entitled to do so.
On what is this entitlement based? The owners of the game, be it the studio or the puiblisher/distributor, obviously dont think you are entitled, otherwise they would build this into their game, via an advanced demo, or time-based activation key.
SO who or what entitles them to this try-before-you-buy setup?
Well not much people agree that this spyware (That's wht it is, not necessarilly a rootkit, but it's purpose is to spy on you) is morally acceptable. Maybe you do, but most people try to avoid spyware.
Most people also think it's not morally acceptable to say "What, you already installed the game 3(or 5) times, go buy another one."
Neither of which are actions taken by YOU the CONSUMER, they are actions taken by the company. So you're saying that by them doing something which is morally unacceptable, you are therefore allowed to do something back to them? Do you live in a world where two wrongs make a right?
I mean cmon - the guys force powers at the START of the game were strong as the emperor,
I think I read somewhere that the powers in the demo were increased to give you more of a feel, and during the actual game you'll start off with very basic ones and work your way up
but I agree with your sentiment on the lightsabre, it should be one hit one kill on 99% of things...
Lucas owes me and all their other fans who have financially supported the company. ...
So, yes, they do owe me and every other paying customer something, their success.
They already repaid that debt, in advance, by making the product, which you and other fans then made successful. Thinking you are owed something AFTER that, just because you bought into the early products, is asinine.
I don't think anyone should buy this game just because it's lucasArts, but not buying it for the same reason is just as asinine.
When the OFLC refuses classification to a game, it doesn't make it illegal to own it, it makes it illegal for retailers to sell it.
So it's illegal to sell American Psycho in Qld, so while I was in NSW, I bought a copy, its not illegal for me to own it in Queensland, and it wasn't illegal for the NSW retailer to sell it, so noone broke any laws.
As an Australia, I feel compelled to remind you that it's not the classification board, by which I assume you mean the OFLC, which decides what ratings are possible. They simply rate the games within the guidelines given.
The concept of an R rating for games has already been introduced, but it needs to be agreed to by all of the state Attorneys-General, and the guy from South Australia is holding out, because he lives in the Dark Ages.
The FACT is, you claimed that nobody will invest in an independent game".. feel free to point out where I said that. Putting words in my mouth is trolling 101.
You said
"Yet another "innovative" game concept is not going to attract any investment."
Since you don't know what the game concept is, as it wasnt mentioned in the original post, that implies that your belief that noone will invest in it isn't based on whether or not the concept is good or bad.
Therefore, you believe that regardless of whether or not the concept is good or bad, noone will invest in it.
Assuming that you don't know the original poster, and hate his guts etc etc, your belief that noone will invest in it is also not based on personal feelings about the poster.
So, since you're not basing it on knowledge of the game, or the poster, you must therefore think that people will not invest in an independent game, regardless of the quality of the concept, or personality of the owner/programmer/etc.
Which is how we arrive at "nobody will invest in an independent game." Either that, or you think noone will invest in this particular game, but they will invest in other independent games, in which case I'd like to know what you're basing that on.
Valve is an established game company. They don't need business investment as desperately as an indie gamer does. Value actually has their own money to spend on these sorts of projects.
Correct. Now please explain, as I asked, how Valve has an "innovative business model"
So you're saying that all games should either
- have a uniquely designed peripheral, or
- be a pay-per-month subscription service.
We'll throw the first one out right away, I'm pretty sure most people aren't going to want to buy a peripheral for every game they play, not to mention the increase in cost-per-game.
I think one of the brilliant things about the marketing of WoW has been the subscription service. People pay little bits each month, as long as they keep playing, but I think the amount they've paid would equal WAY more than they would have expected to pay for a full game, up front.
Also, if you have ever changing remote content, and local content, can't i just copy that to all my friends?
based on selling the service of writing software rather than selling a disc in a box
And who will pay for that service, when you've just said that noone can sell discs in a box any more? If I'm the kind of business that pays people to write software, you can be damn sure I'm going to want to sell that software at some stage, which, according to your model, I now can't do.
And what business model would that be? And please dont say Steam, because being on Steam doesnt guarantee success, and also doesnt account for the thousands of Xbox users who played and loved the game.
If you think Portal's success had nothing to do with it's gameplay, then you're crazy.
Last time I checked 'Pulp Fiction' and 'Shawshank Redemption' weren't based on video games
You didnt say movies based on video games, you said movies that come out at this time are mediocre.
Shawshank Redemption' barely made a profit in the theaters and while 'Pulp Fiction' made hefty money during its run it was initially very underrated. I know because I am a huge Tarantino fan and was at opening night - with only 20 other people in an entire 350 seat theater. Somewhat anecdotal I know, but it was one of those word-of-mouth, Oscar-contender boosted movies.
Once again, you didnt say that movies that come out at this time do badly at the box office, you said they were mediocre. For my money, box office success has little to nothing to do with quality. Otherwise, zero people would be going along to the see that stream of faeces that is the "*Insert word here* Movie" series, and yet, they must be being watched, because they keep getting money to make more.
As an Australian please let me say, the Office of Film and Literature Classification (OFLC) needs to be beaten upside the head with a Cluebat, repeatedly.
As an Australian, let me beat you upside the head with said cluebat.
The OFLC is not in charge of creating the classifications, all they do is take a game and decide which classification it should have. If a game is too *insert problem here* to obtain a MA15+ rating, its not up to the OFLC to say "Well, what the hell, we'll give it an MA15+ rating anyway, so that people can play it." In order to create a new R18+ classification, the attorneys-general of the states have to unanimously agree to it, and that is the roadblock.
The OFLC are just doing their job, its the AGs you have a problem with.
Yes, that's a straightforward interpretation.
Actually, sorry, I'll take back what I said, saying that there will be no new 360s in 2009 isnt really an interpretation at all, it's just what's written.
Realising that its referring to types or models is an interpretation, extrapolating meaning from missing words and from the text of the summary.
Obviously it didnt take me very long to realise my mistake, but the fact is I saw the headline, and was momentarily taken aback by the decision not to produce any new 360s at all next year.
The plural also didnt help. If the headline read "No New Xbox 360 In 2009" it would be much more obvious, but having it as a plural further confuses.
I read it that way too, and the reason we read it that way is because that's what it says. It says there will be no new 360s in 2009. We're not being pedantic, thats a straight forward interpretation of what is written.
well, sure, assuming that what they cut didnt put them OVER the MA15+ age restriction. because if they'd left that in there, the game would have been refused classification and not been released in australia.
so some guy made up some event abuot me, because he didnt like the colour of my car, and now i have to go to court to prove i wasnt there, or that the guy has a personal vendetta? no thanks.
If the Qaeda's dreams came true, it would have us hand it our huge telecom infrastructure so their terrorists could spy on our every move.
Why bother fighting when we're just laying down and surrendering?
Could you please provide us with a link to the Al-Qaeda handbook where it mentions that one of their goals is the Australian (or any western, for that matter) government monitoring and controlling the telecoms infrastructure of the country?
Don't you get it? Al-Qaeda FUCKING HATE YOU! They hate me too. They hate all of us. They want us to die. Because they dont believe in the things we believe in, and one of the things they believe in is the eradication of the people who don't believe the things they believe in.
So believe it or not, they're not sitting at home, having a party because the Australian government decided to more actively monitor it's citizens.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not in love with this move, or any of the ones done in the name of 'freedom' and 'anti-terrorism', but I'm sick and tired of the kneejerk, the-terrorists-have-won response that seems to pop up every single time.
Umm, no, Livejournal is not a good example. Comparing this to Livejournal is invalid, because unlike the game where everyone pays to begin to play, people dont already pay for LJ. Therefore those who own free, non-ad accounts do so at the expense of those who pay.
Plus, all existing free users can stay that way. So the promise that management made to current users still stands. And if you think that promise should have been made to all potential future users of LJ, that seems a little extreme...
and as soon as you see a tampax ad in a historical game, your point will be valid.
but since this is about replacing objects in the game which are already ads with ads for real world objects, i dont see how this violates your alleged suspension of disbelief?
yeah, but what if the 52nd card is 4 cards away at the start of the round, with 3 people at the table? how do you coordinate people - does everyone take one card, or some people take more? if you get to the 3rd person and the first two have used up the 3 cards, what if the 3rd person is sitting on a total less than 10? wont people sitting on sub-10 scores attract the attention of the bosses? especially if, having realised this was going to be the hand that the 52nd card came out, everyone bet big on this particular hand?
it just seems like a lot of effort to go to to win one hand, especially as the dealers two cards are also unknown, and might not bust on 10, although obviously as you mentioned it is the most likely result...
Slashdot Mirror
someone wants to try your game before deciding if you deserve their money, they are entitled to do so.
On what is this entitlement based? The owners of the game, be it the studio or the puiblisher/distributor, obviously dont think you are entitled, otherwise they would build this into their game, via an advanced demo, or time-based activation key.
SO who or what entitles them to this try-before-you-buy setup?
Well not much people agree that this spyware (That's wht it is, not necessarilly a rootkit, but it's purpose is to spy on you) is morally acceptable. Maybe you do, but most people try to avoid spyware.
Most people also think it's not morally acceptable to say "What, you already installed the game 3(or 5) times, go buy another one."
Neither of which are actions taken by YOU the CONSUMER, they are actions taken by the company. So you're saying that by them doing something which is morally unacceptable, you are therefore allowed to do something back to them? Do you live in a world where two wrongs make a right?
I mean cmon - the guys force powers at the START of the game were strong as the emperor,
I think I read somewhere that the powers in the demo were increased to give you more of a feel, and during the actual game you'll start off with very basic ones and work your way up
but I agree with your sentiment on the lightsabre, it should be one hit one kill on 99% of things...
Lucas owes me and all their other fans who have financially supported the company.
...
So, yes, they do owe me and every other paying customer something, their success.
They already repaid that debt, in advance, by making the product, which you and other fans then made successful. Thinking you are owed something AFTER that, just because you bought into the early products, is asinine.
I don't think anyone should buy this game just because it's lucasArts, but not buying it for the same reason is just as asinine.
Why Melbourne?
When the OFLC refuses classification to a game, it doesn't make it illegal to own it, it makes it illegal for retailers to sell it.
So it's illegal to sell American Psycho in Qld, so while I was in NSW, I bought a copy, its not illegal for me to own it in Queensland, and it wasn't illegal for the NSW retailer to sell it, so noone broke any laws.
As an Australia, I feel compelled to remind you that it's not the classification board, by which I assume you mean the OFLC, which decides what ratings are possible. They simply rate the games within the guidelines given.
The concept of an R rating for games has already been introduced, but it needs to be agreed to by all of the state Attorneys-General, and the guy from South Australia is holding out, because he lives in the Dark Ages.
The FACT is, you claimed that nobody will invest in an independent game" .. feel free to point out where I said that. Putting words in my mouth is trolling 101.
You said
"Yet another "innovative" game concept is not going to attract any investment."
Since you don't know what the game concept is, as it wasnt mentioned in the original post, that implies that your belief that noone will invest in it isn't based on whether or not the concept is good or bad.
Therefore, you believe that regardless of whether or not the concept is good or bad, noone will invest in it.
Assuming that you don't know the original poster, and hate his guts etc etc, your belief that noone will invest in it is also not based on personal feelings about the poster.
So, since you're not basing it on knowledge of the game, or the poster, you must therefore think that people will not invest in an independent game, regardless of the quality of the concept, or personality of the owner/programmer/etc.
Which is how we arrive at "nobody will invest in an independent game." Either that, or you think noone will invest in this particular game, but they will invest in other independent games, in which case I'd like to know what you're basing that on.
Valve is an established game company. They don't need business investment as desperately as an indie gamer does. Value actually has their own money to spend on these sorts of projects.
Correct. Now please explain, as I asked, how Valve has an "innovative business model"
It used to be the three most important things in Journalism were accuracy, accuracy and accuracy. In slashdot it's being the first post?
This isn't journalism, it's a slashdot comment.
And since real, honest-to-god journalists have little to no interest in accuracy, why should slashdot commenters?
Guitar Hero and World of Warcraft.
So you're saying that all games should either
- have a uniquely designed peripheral, or
- be a pay-per-month subscription service.
We'll throw the first one out right away, I'm pretty sure most people aren't going to want to buy a peripheral for every game they play, not to mention the increase in cost-per-game.
I think one of the brilliant things about the marketing of WoW has been the subscription service. People pay little bits each month, as long as they keep playing, but I think the amount they've paid would equal WAY more than they would have expected to pay for a full game, up front.
Also, if you have ever changing remote content, and local content, can't i just copy that to all my friends?
based on selling the service of writing software rather than selling a disc in a box
And who will pay for that service, when you've just said that noone can sell discs in a box any more? If I'm the kind of business that pays people to write software, you can be damn sure I'm going to want to sell that software at some stage, which, according to your model, I now can't do.
2. the studio uses an innovative business model.
And what business model would that be? And please dont say Steam, because being on Steam doesnt guarantee success, and also doesnt account for the thousands of Xbox users who played and loved the game.
If you think Portal's success had nothing to do with it's gameplay, then you're crazy.
Last time I checked 'Pulp Fiction' and 'Shawshank Redemption' weren't based on video games
You didnt say movies based on video games, you said movies that come out at this time are mediocre.
Shawshank Redemption' barely made a profit in the theaters and while 'Pulp Fiction' made hefty money during its run it was initially very underrated. I know because I am a huge Tarantino fan and was at opening night - with only 20 other people in an entire 350 seat theater. Somewhat anecdotal I know, but it was one of those word-of-mouth, Oscar-contender boosted movies.
Once again, you didnt say that movies that come out at this time do badly at the box office, you said they were mediocre. For my money, box office success has little to nothing to do with quality. Otherwise, zero people would be going along to the see that stream of faeces that is the "*Insert word here* Movie" series, and yet, they must be being watched, because they keep getting money to make more.
As an Australian please let me say, the Office of Film and Literature Classification (OFLC) needs to be beaten upside the head with a Cluebat, repeatedly.
As an Australian, let me beat you upside the head with said cluebat.
The OFLC is not in charge of creating the classifications, all they do is take a game and decide which classification it should have. If a game is too *insert problem here* to obtain a MA15+ rating, its not up to the OFLC to say "Well, what the hell, we'll give it an MA15+ rating anyway, so that people can play it." In order to create a new R18+ classification, the attorneys-general of the states have to unanimously agree to it, and that is the roadblock.
The OFLC are just doing their job, its the AGs you have a problem with.
Yes, that's a straightforward interpretation. Actually, sorry, I'll take back what I said, saying that there will be no new 360s in 2009 isnt really an interpretation at all, it's just what's written.
Realising that its referring to types or models is an interpretation, extrapolating meaning from missing words and from the text of the summary.
Obviously it didnt take me very long to realise my mistake, but the fact is I saw the headline, and was momentarily taken aback by the decision not to produce any new 360s at all next year.
The plural also didnt help. If the headline read "No New Xbox 360 In 2009" it would be much more obvious, but having it as a plural further confuses.
I read it that way too, and the reason we read it that way is because that's what it says. It says there will be no new 360s in 2009. We're not being pedantic, thats a straight forward interpretation of what is written.
well, sure, assuming that what they cut didnt put them OVER the MA15+ age restriction. because if they'd left that in there, the game would have been refused classification and not been released in australia.
so some guy made up some event abuot me, because he didnt like the colour of my car, and now i have to go to court to prove i wasnt there, or that the guy has a personal vendetta? no thanks.
If the Qaeda's dreams came true, it would have us hand it our huge telecom infrastructure so their terrorists could spy on our every move.
Why bother fighting when we're just laying down and surrendering?
Could you please provide us with a link to the Al-Qaeda handbook where it mentions that one of their goals is the Australian (or any western, for that matter) government monitoring and controlling the telecoms infrastructure of the country?
Don't you get it? Al-Qaeda FUCKING HATE YOU! They hate me too. They hate all of us. They want us to die. Because they dont believe in the things we believe in, and one of the things they believe in is the eradication of the people who don't believe the things they believe in.
So believe it or not, they're not sitting at home, having a party because the Australian government decided to more actively monitor it's citizens.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not in love with this move, or any of the ones done in the name of 'freedom' and 'anti-terrorism', but I'm sick and tired of the kneejerk, the-terrorists-have-won response that seems to pop up every single time.
Where in the World is Carmen Sandiego (was in our library)
So THAT'S where she was all this time! So many wasted hours in front of the computer...
Umm, no, Livejournal is not a good example. Comparing this to Livejournal is invalid, because unlike the game where everyone pays to begin to play, people dont already pay for LJ. Therefore those who own free, non-ad accounts do so at the expense of those who pay.
Plus, all existing free users can stay that way. So the promise that management made to current users still stands. And if you think that promise should have been made to all potential future users of LJ, that seems a little extreme...
and as soon as you see a tampax ad in a historical game, your point will be valid.
but since this is about replacing objects in the game which are already ads with ads for real world objects, i dont see how this violates your alleged suspension of disbelief?
yeah, but what if the 52nd card is 4 cards away at the start of the round, with 3 people at the table? how do you coordinate people - does everyone take one card, or some people take more? if you get to the 3rd person and the first two have used up the 3 cards, what if the 3rd person is sitting on a total less than 10? wont people sitting on sub-10 scores attract the attention of the bosses? especially if, having realised this was going to be the hand that the 52nd card came out, everyone bet big on this particular hand?
it just seems like a lot of effort to go to to win one hand, especially as the dealers two cards are also unknown, and might not bust on 10, although obviously as you mentioned it is the most likely result...
okay cool, yeah i read further down about the whole team taking all the seats at the table, thats definitely feasible,
but im not sure how knowing the position of one card will do much good, except yeah if you can flick it to the dealer at an inopportune moment.