DRM only affects paying customers who play by the rules.
DRM ceased being about preventing "piracy" nearly a decade ago (if not earlier). DRM does not affect pirates. At best it makes difficult work for the one or two guys who initially crack a given scheme. Though I suspect those guys are probably getting more enjoyment out of unraveling the DRM than they would playing the game it's wrapped around - so even there it is a failure to affect "pirates".
Take UBI's DRM for instance, because it seems to be the one on everyone's minds these days. Assassin's Creed II was one of the first games to use it. Not only was the game out on usenet before retail, but the DRM was also smashed. If I can be permitted an anaolgy: Companies like UBI wants us to think of DRM like a lock that they use to put on their most valuable treasures, and they want us to think that they're just doing what is necessary to defend their livelihood. So in terms of Assassin's Creed II, it's like they bought a brand new lock to lock up their priceless treasure, then someone came in, right in front of them, cracked the lock, made a master key, duplicated it a thousand times and started spreading the keys all over the sidewalk in front of their building with little labels on them saying what they were for. Now the reasonable thing to do would have been to demand your money back from the a-hole who sold you the lock that didn't work, and move your valuables elsewhere, but that's clearly not what UBI did. They just soldiered on.
Why? Because the DRM still works. It still does what they want it to. It controls consumers who play by the rules. No company in this business is naive enough to truly believe that DRM will stop or even slow "piracy". (There may be elements in the company, like CEO's and people distant enough from the concept and susceptible enough to BS propaganda that believe it, but I'm not counting them - they're just highly paid idiots.)
Otherwise, why would DRM be implemented to stop people from playing a game before the release date? Not all pre-release copies are unlicensed. Release dates are a function of marketing, not technology - especially in situations where a software is completed and sitting on a shelf for two weeks before anyone is allowed to buy it. DRM is about controlling customers.
Why would DRM require that you log into an Internet service to "activate" a software, or only allow you to install it a certain number of times? This is not to prevent "piracy". It is to discourage "sharing" via sneakernet, and it is to kill off secondary sales. They don't want the copy of the game you have to retain any value - they are attempting to make software behave like perishable goods - in other words they want your copy to be "used up" so that anyone seeking a copy is forced to buy it new from them.
Again, these are not things that affect "pirates". "Pirates" disable the "protection" scheme and just go on their merry way. You may think that "pirates" are just greedy bastards who want everything for free, but their efforts are sometimes the only thing tipping the balance in favor of consumers.
It is ironic that so many people who read posts bitching about DRM automatically assume that the ones doing the complaining are just frustrated "pirates". "Pirates" do not complain about DRM - IT DOES NOT BOTHER THEM. The people doing the complaining are either paying customers, or people who would be if it were not for the DRM.
As far as educating your family, experience has taught me that the majority of people who don't understand technology either don't want to, or aren't willing to spend the time it takes to learn.
I *mostly* solved this exact problem for myself about 2 years ago. I tried two different methods, both of which worked to some degree.
The first method I tried was simply denying them administrative access to the machines. This is somewhat easy on XP because any software they use that normally requires admin access can be allowed to run without it by opening up only the specific file/directory and registry entries used the by the application and nothing else. In Vista it is a different story because the OS "believes" an application needs admin access even though all of the things it wants to access are open to that user.
The second method was to install a Linux distro. Since the user is clueless about the operation of the OS in either case, better to run one with more security and less malware targeted at it. This is really a variation on the first method, because, again, I don't give root access to the user. It is not without its drawbacks - this may be due to the distro I chose (openSuSE 10.3) but it has not been the easiest thing to maintain. Compatibility issues with glibc were never solved before the distro was abandoned so VLC died the death when I upgraded it to 1.0 and there was no going back because videolan.org removed the old packages that work. That's just one example, but numerous things like that have come up.
Neither of these methods is really viable from a business standpoint - like if you're operating a computer repair service out of your house, but for family they work great.
I don't know when or where you went to school, but when I was taught about evolution, it was pretty much given as the explanation for the origin of life. Maybe the whole "primordial soup" thing has been tossed out since I last took a hard look at it. I don't scour science journals every week to keep abreast of all of the newest revisions to Earth's collective scientific beliefs, so maybe no soup now? That does make me ignorant, I suppose but by the same token, I doubt you regularly study the Bible and see how it applies to life in this day and age, so it makes you ignorant too - just of a different subject.
I never claimed to have some great understanding of evolution, and, in fact, was asking someone to explain it to me. I wasn't rude or antagonistic and all of my responses were as thoughtful as I could make them. I fail to see how that warrants my karma getting trashed. But I probably don't understand karma - since we're so into reinventing things but not changing their names, maybe karma's just a big popularity contest rather than a thoughtful and objective critique of my postings.
I'm clearly not a scientist, but I don't have to be one or even agree with one to understand what science is. I know very well what it is, but perhaps you don't? Or maybe the fundamental definition of science has changed into something more like a religion since I went to school? It certainly has enough zealots now.
It's exactly reactions like yours that prompt things like Mr. Stein's movie. Maybe introspectively it looks different to you, but to me you seem insulting and spiteful. How else am I supposed to interpret you telling me that I'm so stupid that I don't know what science is in the first place and that my stupidity facilitates my belief in creation. You have really just proven my point here.
Isn't one of the points of the movie that while scientists espouse neutrality, lack of bias, objectivity, etc. that they are not actually following it?
I haven't seen the movie, but I can already say I've seen this kind of animosity without all of the requisite objectivity right here in the real world.
Right here on Slashdot my karma was trashed and I was labeled a flamebaiter for politely suggesting this was going on. I dared make the point, as an admitted non-scientist, that as none of us was here to witness the origin of life that none of us has any more right to suppose what brought it about than anyone else. I followed this up with the suggestion that maybe the evolutionary science community wasn't being objective by "fighting" creationism with such fervor.
I suppose the Darwinist community is just as human as the creationist community and after years of putting up with creationists' crap while the majority of society agreed with them, the Darwinists are out for a little revenge. I can't blame them, I guess, but I don't think it's fair to label that unforgiving zeal as science. Call it what it is - it's anger, it's revenge, it's payback, but it's not science. Science is the work, it's not the animosity against contrary viewpoints.
As a creationist myself, I, for one, have always been respectful of Darwinists' viewpoints - just never to the point of being convinced by them. That, apparently, is a sin - assuming that Darwinists have an equivalent concept.
Isn't this kinda like going to the RIAA's headquarters and spray painting profanity on it?
Not that I don't get a good chuckle out of petty vandalism, but I'd rather people beat them at their own game.
But if they're going to go the vandalism route, couldn't they at least have done something clever like insert a redirect for IP's outside of the RIAA's own range that sent visitors to thepiratebay.org?
The literature I read about Lake Victoria must have been completely false then as it was referring to periods of 20 to 40 thousand years in respect to the evolution of the cichlids.
I don't fully agree that evolution, as it is being taught currently, is conforming to your ideal of falsifiability, but YMMV based on the curriculum I suppose. If science was taught as purely as you are presenting it, then I would agree with you, but my own practical experience with it has been much to the contrary. You are one of the few people I have encountered who did not use science to prop up a strong religious belief in humanism that is openly hostile toward potential detractors. Pure science should welcome contradiction and embrace different viewpoints as a means of determining the ultimate goal of truth.
What I'd like to see happen: Creationist: The universe was sneezed out of the nose of the Great Green Arkelseizure and that is the origin of life.
Scientist: That sounds far fetched. Prove it.
Creationist: I have proof, it's in the ancient texts of the Arkelseizure - that's what it says happened.
Scientist: No, I mean prove it with science.
Creationist: I can't prove it with science because it's not a scientific explanation. Well, what do you think happened?
Scientist: Crude protein combined to form the origin of life and successive recombination led to greater sophistication until life became what we see today.
Creationist: That sounds far fetched. Prove it.
Scientist: I'm working on it. I've reasoned out ways that it could have happened, and since a lot of people agree with my logic, that's almost the same thing as proof.
Creationist: No, I mean prove it by showing me in the texts of the Arkelseizure.
Scientist: I don't think the texts of the Arkelseizure are right, and a bazillion people agree with me.
Creationist: I don't think your reasoning is right, and a bazillion people agree with me.
Scientist: Oh, well whatever, best to keep this about science and not a popularity contest. Perhaps you're right, perhaps you're wrong, new discoveries happen all the time. I need to get back to doing science, good luck.
Creationist: I believe I'm right, and that's enough for me. I need to go do my hanky ceremony to prepare for the great return, see ya around.
But what happens most often is more like this: Creationist: The universe was sneezed out of the nose of the Great Green Arkelseizure and that is the origin of life.
Scientist: That's insane. Prove it.
Creationist: I have proof, it's in the ancient texts of the Arkelseizure - that's what it says happened.
Scientist: No, I mean prove it with science.
Creationist: I can't prove it with science because it's not a scientific explanation. How dare you doubt the word of the Arkelseizure, you will be condemned to the pit of eternal earwax!
Scientist: Crude protein combined to form the origin of life and successive recombination led to greater sophistication until life became what we see today. Only morons don't know that.
Creationist: That's complete horse manure. Prove it.
Scientist: I have proven it, and all the smart people agree with me, Neanderthal. I can't believe you're living in the dark ages. You shouldn't even be allowed to teach such nonsense. I'm getting a court order to have your theory removed from school.
Creationist: You shouldn't be allowed to teach blasphemy against the great Arkelseizure, see you in court. You'll see how wrong you are.
Scientist: nuh-uh!
Creationist: yes-huh!
Scientist: NUH-UH!
Creationist: I'm telling the Arkelseizure on you!
I've seen it go round and round and round like that enough to make me sick. Neither has any proof, and both believe that the other is inferior for not agreeing. Half of these people are only casually acquainted with the creationist or scientific theory they subscribe to and end up bandying around absurd arguments anyway. I'm tired of the faith of bo
I've done as you suggested and searched both subjects.
The literature about the Ring Species was interesting, and I had heard about the Cichlids before, but all of the digging that I've seen refers to their evolution as something that happened over a span of time that far exceeds recorded history, and is therefore the product of speculation - albeit careful and thoughtful speculation, but speculation just the same.
If I have read the wrong description of the event, please provide something more specific, because that's what I came up with when I hit Google with those terms.
When I say observable, I mean something concrete that has happened and been documented in the last hundred years. I've seen mutations and breeding defects - like in cheetahs for example - but nothing that would actually prove or demonstrate the broader implications of evolution or molecular biology.
Trying to classify Evolutionism as science and Creationism as philosophy as they pertain to the origin of life, would seem to me to be hypocritical and a disservice to science. To restate my original conclusion, both explanations are unprovable (though people on both sides vehemently argue to the contrary) because neither was directly observed. It boils down to someone saying that one guess is better than the other.
An evolutionist looks at the complexity of life and sees millions of years of improbable but wonderful adaptation and specialization. A creationist looks at the complexity of life and sees a marvelous feat of engineering. They're both trusting to faith - one is a faith in the educated scientific community, the other is faith in the supernatural. It all depends on what one is willing to accept as concrete proof.
Both subjects belong in philosophy and should be optional. I fail to see how indoctrinating children into one view or the other is so crucial.
I'm inviting a flame war here, but isn't math - at least in the sense that we teach it - an artificial construct that we invented to describe our observations? Math can contain theories, but I don't think it could ever be classified as one because we actually know what it is.
Isn't gravity demonstrable? If I understand correctly, there's still a lot of uncertainty in the scientific community about how gravity works exactly, but it's clearly an observable and demonstrable fact that it does.
Isn't biology something we can study that's in front of our faces? We can actually watch plants growing, babies forming in a womb, organs working, cells replicating etc...
Maybe I'm living under a rock here, but I've never really seen evolution demonstrated. I've heard plenty of explanations and leaps of logic attached to it, but I've never actually seen anything evolve. And even if I did, that still wouldn't demonstrate that evolution is the origin of life. That's why it's a theory, because we can only infer, we can't demonstrate, and unfortunately no one actually witnessed it.
This boils down to people arguing about things that they didn't observe, and can't really know. Creationism (at least the Christian kind) requires faith that something written thousands of years ago by people who also didn't witness the events is true. "Evolutionism" requires faith in the work of hundreds of scientists interpreting the present and making educated guesses about the past. No one saw man created out of dirt and breathed to life by God, but by the same token, no one saw a single-celled organism spring to life in the primordial soup and continue re-writing itself until it became a human.
Neither group actually "knows" how these things came to be, they've just adopted a view of it that they are comfortable with. What I don't understand is how the evolutionists, who are supposed to be the more objective and open minded of the two groups, can be so "holier than thou" as to suggest that the creationists' theory doesn't even deserve a place.
It's no wonder that creationists lash back with ill-conceived regulations prohibiting the teaching of the theory of evolution - this is really just balance when you look at how much flack the "intelligent design" group has been getting recently.
Science shouldn't worry so damn much about what people think, it should be about the truth, finding it and offering it, not making people believe it. Same goes for religion. The rest is just name calling and childishness.
I love the link you sent. It very carefully avoids saying anything at all. "They expect" is a recurring theme, but "they have" is surprisingly absent. M$ is always paying people to "expect" them to succeed, but I concede the point.
I'm definitely anti-microsoft, but it's not mindless. I have perfectly good reasons for my stance. I spent several years in a career where I had to work very closely with M$ products and with M$ themselves. I have seen first hand how the company performs and how their software and philosophies compare practically with that of other companies.
I have been expecting the neutering of Silver since Live came out - I was not at all surprised by it, because it is par for the course for M$. It was a very stupid move in my opinion and I have not only explained why I feel that way, but also explained how I and other companies would have (and actually have) done it better. I'm sorry that you can't see past the M$ bashing, but then again, that's probably what they pay you for. I don't know if you're a plant, but you're certainly behaving like one.
It's funny that you bring up the issue of M$ getting attacked because it's so big. The reality behind that is that because they are so big they need it more than anyone. They have grown so large that they feel they can release buggy software and implement anti-consumer policies without fear that customers will leave, because for most people they're the only game in town. When people cry "monopoly" M$ cries Linux and MacOS; when consumers try to disengage M$ tries to frighten them away. I'll never forget that "independent study" that M$ secretly funded that magically concluded that Linux implementations were more expensive than Windows. I happen to have rolled out a major Linux implementation in an enterprise environment and I know first hand how much horse crap that is, but most people don't. What it comes down to is that if customers don't call M$ out on this crap then more and more companies are going to follow suit and the world will gradually become a worse place.
You're damn right that if Apple was so big that they thought they could get away with this crap, I would be all up in their face as well. I have criticized them when they did things anti-consumer. Same with Novell, Red Hat, Sun, you name it. If nothing else that should demonstrate that it's what the company does, not who they are, that I bash. And one last time, M$ are a bunch of idiots.
I knew someone would point this out. Yes, there is an infinitesimal amount of bandwidth involved in for-money downloads. It is the same cost involved in for-free downloads, or sign-ons, network checks, pings, messages and whatever. The bandwidth cost associated with any for-money download from Live is statistically indistinguishable from zero - and even if it wasn't, do you really think M$ pays its telco bills by the kb? And if we're going to get into a discussion about bandwidth cost, why isn't M$ compensating me every time they pop up a mandatory system update? They're using my bandwidth for something that I don't necessarily want. (And yes, I know that I can refuse the download if I don't mind not using Live at all as a consequence, that makes it less than mandatory by technicality, not practicality.) No, bandwidth is a bad way to approach your rebuttal because it is insignificant.
Your other approach - the royalties thing - was much better. I'd really like to know how M$ calculates how they pay developers and publishers for this stuff, but I don't. What I do know, however, is that any good producer of goods and services will offer charge backs, freebies and other incentives. Sort of like how food companies actually compensate grocery stores for the store's own coupons. I have a hard time believing that M$ doesn't have something like this going on with publishers, or couldn't arrange something like that very easily. Any good producer that understands business, understands that sometimes you have to give a product or service away for free to establish customers.
I fully agree with your twist on the analogy. The real point here is that good ad men know better than to try to push products on people who don't want, need, or like them, but there seem to be fewer and fewer ad men with that philosophy. Many of them are perfectly happy using deception to make sales - something car salesmen are famous for.
I suppose some people think that car salesmen are just public servants, and not trying to tip your decision to buy a car in their favor.
Am I just supposed to guess what I failed to research and ended up stating so incorrectly? What is the point of telling me that you think I'm wrong without telling me what I'm wrong about, or rather how you came to a different conclusion?
The fact is that on the surface telling someone that you're adding value to something by subtracting value from someone else is stupid. You don't think M$ made this more obvious to Silver members to give them more incentive to pay for Gold? You think XBOX Live is a profit center? Or is it that you think Microsoft is an organization of geniuses?
And my personal code to bash M$ does not have any stipulations regarding research. It simply states that I need take every opportunity to point out when M$ has done something stupid. I might praise them when they did something right, which is seldom, but they are so arrogant that they often give themselves all of the praise they need. Giving them props at that point might make me sound more like you; frankly, I couldn't stand the idea of sounding like you.
Test drives ARE advertisement. So are perfume samples.
They are not nearly as one-sided as television commercials, I agree, but average ad men only need to reel in horror if their product is bad. You don't think of car salesmen as being in advertising?
First off, think practically about this: demos are the video game equivalent of commercials - their sole reason for existence is to entice players to purchase the retail version of a game. This is like telling terrestrial TV viewers that if they want to see commercials then they're going to have to pony up for cable. The practical difference is that most viewers would rather not see commercials, and most players actively seek out demos, but the fact that this limits the scope of advertising remains constant.
M$ is not an organization of geniuses. If they were even reasonably intelligent, they would know that this isn't a viable way to try to scrape some revenue out of the enormous money pit that XBOX Live has become.
I think spending real money for leasing software (which is what anyone who spends any money on Live is doing) is plainly idiotic. It's roughly equivalent of rent-to-own and paycheck advance businesses in terms of ripping off consumers.
But if you are of the mindset that consumers exist to be taken advantage of, it doesn't take a rocket surgeon to see a better way. If you want to add value to entice people to get XBOX Live Gold, start giving them something YOU actually think is worth something, Microsoft, not pointing out that they still have some zero-value feature that you took away from other users.
Give Gold members Microsoft Points free when they get achievements and leave the Silver members with just their Achievement points. Or alternatively allow Gold members to simply accrue points when they renew their subscriptions. The worst possible outcome is that the subscribers take the free stuff and don't buy anything else so you haven't made any money beyond the subscription fee, but by the same token it costs you exactly nothing to give them this stuff for free, so it's a wash. On the other hand, if you get them to open their wallets to "rent" just one arcade title that they couldn't quite afford with the free points then you'll have gained real money for the same nothing, and potentially hooked them on the idea of downloaded content.
You could also invent a new more expensive "Platinum" membership tier that worked like cell phone service where you're allotted a certain number of points every month and have to pay extra for anything above that.
Personally I think software-as-a-service and pay-for-download is the most evil thing any corporation ever thought up. It is a completely one-sided arrangement and all of the advantage goes to the corporation, not the consumer. With physical product there is more cost to the corporation, but the consumer is given with a persistent and non-volatile representation of the software. With digital product, the corporation saves the cost of manufacture - a savings that is rarely apparent in digital download pricing - and the customer is given a volatile representation of the software on a device that the corporation can order to alter, destroy, or disable without the customer's consent. In the event of failure of that device, the customer is completely at the mercy of the corporation to replace the lost software. I would like to see the entire thing go down in flames; so please please please, ignore my advice, Microsoft.
I will always have game mag subscriptions because they act as a sort of history. Electronic information is generally volatile, and it's quite a hassle to archive it indefinitely - formats change, websites close or prune. Print, on the other hand just demands physical space, and the format only becomes incompatible when the language itself changes. I can't see myself printing out articles, but I'm more than happy paying for the service. I still enjoy pulling out 17-year-old issues of EGM and waxing nostalgic, or having a good chuckle about how things used to be. Maybe having this record of gaming past isn't of value to most people anymore, but I'll have subscriptions as long as print magazines are available.
Admittedly the two stories have nothing substantial in common, and the author could have easily chosen one that did. He should have left the reference at the poetic similarity of the opening statement and moved on.
However, when I look at what he's trying to do, I appreciate it. When people started gushing over BioShock I though "Holy crap, if the same people who only gave HL2's awesome story a passing mention are taking the time to go nuts over this, then it must be life-altering." But in reality, BioShock's story was only good, it wasn't spectacular or earth shattering. What this signifies is that people are finally starting to call attention to good storytelling in games in general. This author is attempting to say is that HL2 told an awesome story well before BioShock - this is nothing new, you're just noticing it for the first time.
I'm all for pulling the rug out from under EA like that. The ONLY problem I see with that is that EA now owns any properties created by the early development house. I'm sure half of BioWare (if not more) will quit within a month and form another company, but Mass Effect - planned as a trilogy, is effectively dead now. I suppose they could do what Monolith did when they formed outside of Squaresoft and changed Xenogears to Xenosaga. Maybe Matter Effect, or Mass Affect? That would probably work if EA abandons the series.
I concede the point. I had not read the full article just the tagline at the time I wrote this - shouldn't have done that, but I was very angry and not thinking clearly.
The fact still remains, however, that at some point BioWare surrendered control of their own destiny, presumably for money, and now we all suffer because of it. So it is still BioWare's fault that they've been destroyed.
In its effort to produce positive spin, that article assumes overmuch about Ricceletto's intentions. EA has told a lot of new acquisitions that they were going to sit back and do the paperwork and let the developers continue, creativity unhindered. We have absolutely zero reason to believe that this will be any different than every other time that was a bald faced lie. BioWare is dead. At least we got one Mass Effect game before their demise.
And to all those who actually like EA, look forward to "Madden Effect 2009" coming next Christmas, the last 1/4 of the game will be available as a download off of XBOX Live for only $20.
Speculating that the so-called "Bubble" is about to burst is probably more likely to become a self-fulfilling prophesy than anything. This is really just some high-brow writer trying to ask a question he thinks is provocative, when in reality, it's about as irrelevant as questions come. If the Wii is losing popularity, then it is, if it's not then it isn't and neither thing is going to change the fact that the little white box is now in more homes than any other present generation system just itching for new software that every development house and some that aren't even invented yet are drooling to make. Furthermore when most people see a box gathering dust, they start looking for ways to make their investment useful and are just as likely to start buying more games as to get off the Wii bandwagon.
Personally I've been playing my XBOX 360 more than anything recently, but I don't attribute this to any failing or waning popularity on the part of the Wii. I attribute this to the fact that the XBOX has been out for two years now and finally started to hit its stride. Developers have finally reached the point where they can start delivering on their promises. In the year prior to this one my XBOX 360 was gathering dust just like the Wii is now and the inane speculation was that the 360 had passed its peak because it was gathering dust. Does anybody think that now?
Give the Wii another year and see if anybody is still saying that it's heyday is over. The reality is, it hasn't even really started. And look at the really big games this Christmas, the 360s biggest potential seller is Mass Effect, and the Wii has Super Mario Galaxy. Does anyone seriously think that Mass Effect, awesome though I'm sure it will be, will sell even half as many copies of Super Mario Galaxy? My prediction is that Wii will still be outselling PS3 and 360 combined in both hardware and software.
I could hurl expletives at EA for destroying yet another decent development house - and who seriously entertains the possibility that BioWare's talent is going to be left to continue life as usual? However, what strikes me as more unbelievable is that so many damn studios keep selling to them.
AFAIK this wasn't a forced takeover. So why are so many development houses willing to feed their brainchild to the evil empire? It's getting ridiculous. It seems like the goal is to rise to fame on the backs of your customers until you look tasty enough for EA to offer you a big fat check for the whole thing. Shame on you BioWare!
Was money tight for BioWare? Were the bills piling up and EA bailed them out with a mountain of money and an offer they couldnt' refuse? It may sound self-serving, but I would much rather that the studio went bankrupt and closed its doors like Working Designs than have it's good name sullied and dragged through the mud by the Borg of Videogamedom that EA has become.
Whether you like their games or not, EA is the bane of all videogamedom because it represents the philosophy of profit before creativity. Eventually, supporting EA will destroy everything that you hold dear about gaming. It stifles and kills creativity for crunches and quarterly earnings. When it wants to do something new and creative it no longer has the ability so instead it consumes some other studio and leaches off of the fresh talent until all the life has been sucked out and all that the once-talented workers are good for is making Madden games and nickel-and-dime downloadable content.
I'm one of those geeks who actually likes watching cutscenes...the FIRST time. I absolutely hate having to sit through a cutscene - great and wonderful though it may be - for the fifth time because the developer decided to put some difficult boss fight or other obstacle directly after it with not possibility to save.
And while we're on the subject of skipping cutscenes, I think it can go too far in the other direction. A couple of times I have been engrossed in a cutscene and I sneezed on the controller and the cutscene ended midstream, cutting me off from important or enjoyable story bits. I also hate it when games don't allow you to pause cutscenes. Blue Dragon and Final Fantasy XII are great examples of how cutscenes should be done. Now if we could just do something about those lengthy battle animations...
I think your perception on where the WoT series moved during the fourth book is a little misinformed. The pacing of the series was based on the premise that it might only make it for three volumes, but if it remained popular it would be expanded to twelve. If the last nine were never made, the first three would need to stand on their own somewhat. In other words, what you're interpreting as a breakdown was really part of the plan from the beginning. I suppose that probably did have a lot to do with pressure from TOR, but if Jordan's own words could be believed, the more involved (and therefore lengthy) style was his style of choice.
Personally, I am one of those people who criticized this from the sidelines for years, reading bits and pieces and making high-handed declarations about how it was "just another fantasy series" unremarkable, and needlessly wordy. But most of that changed about three years ago when I actually sat down to give it a fair evaluation. People who think this is unnecessarily long would probably say the same thing about Tolkien, and I just can't agree with them. None of the description is superfluous. Jordan doesn't write filler to beef up his page count, his stories are simply that involved and complex, and reading them is a very rewarding experience. This series, finished or not, will always find a place of honor on my bookshelves.
As far as Card goes, I'm 100% in agreement with you. I can't tell where Card went wrong, however - whether his early writing was from the heart and took a downturn when he tried to be a crowd pleaser later on, or whether his best work was done when he was trying to be a crowd pleaser and his work deteriorates when he's left to his own devices (like the Wachowski Brothers).
At any rate, I know that Card was a fan of Jordan's work, and though I don't care much for Card's more recent work, I wouldn't expect he would ghostwrite in his own style, or embellish from his own imagination. He would probably handle the story with the utmost respect and care, and although fans would swear blind that they could tell the difference, Jordan himself probably couldn't were he alive.
Slashdot Mirror
AAAUGH!!!! The chink in the armor. How could I have not seen it??!!!
DRM only affects paying customers who play by the rules.
DRM ceased being about preventing "piracy" nearly a decade ago (if not earlier). DRM does not affect pirates. At best it makes difficult work for the one or two guys who initially crack a given scheme. Though I suspect those guys are probably getting more enjoyment out of unraveling the DRM than they would playing the game it's wrapped around - so even there it is a failure to affect "pirates".
Take UBI's DRM for instance, because it seems to be the one on everyone's minds these days. Assassin's Creed II was one of the first games to use it. Not only was the game out on usenet before retail, but the DRM was also smashed. If I can be permitted an anaolgy: Companies like UBI wants us to think of DRM like a lock that they use to put on their most valuable treasures, and they want us to think that they're just doing what is necessary to defend their livelihood. So in terms of Assassin's Creed II, it's like they bought a brand new lock to lock up their priceless treasure, then someone came in, right in front of them, cracked the lock, made a master key, duplicated it a thousand times and started spreading the keys all over the sidewalk in front of their building with little labels on them saying what they were for. Now the reasonable thing to do would have been to demand your money back from the a-hole who sold you the lock that didn't work, and move your valuables elsewhere, but that's clearly not what UBI did. They just soldiered on.
Why? Because the DRM still works. It still does what they want it to. It controls consumers who play by the rules. No company in this business is naive enough to truly believe that DRM will stop or even slow "piracy". (There may be elements in the company, like CEO's and people distant enough from the concept and susceptible enough to BS propaganda that believe it, but I'm not counting them - they're just highly paid idiots.)
Otherwise, why would DRM be implemented to stop people from playing a game before the release date? Not all pre-release copies are unlicensed. Release dates are a function of marketing, not technology - especially in situations where a software is completed and sitting on a shelf for two weeks before anyone is allowed to buy it. DRM is about controlling customers.
Why would DRM require that you log into an Internet service to "activate" a software, or only allow you to install it a certain number of times? This is not to prevent "piracy". It is to discourage "sharing" via sneakernet, and it is to kill off secondary sales. They don't want the copy of the game you have to retain any value - they are attempting to make software behave like perishable goods - in other words they want your copy to be "used up" so that anyone seeking a copy is forced to buy it new from them.
Again, these are not things that affect "pirates". "Pirates" disable the "protection" scheme and just go on their merry way. You may think that "pirates" are just greedy bastards who want everything for free, but their efforts are sometimes the only thing tipping the balance in favor of consumers.
It is ironic that so many people who read posts bitching about DRM automatically assume that the ones doing the complaining are just frustrated "pirates". "Pirates" do not complain about DRM - IT DOES NOT BOTHER THEM. The people doing the complaining are either paying customers, or people who would be if it were not for the DRM.
Holy crap! I'm getting ripped off and I didn't even know it - I too am out a billion dollars now!
As far as educating your family, experience has taught me that the majority of people who don't understand technology either don't want to, or aren't willing to spend the time it takes to learn. I *mostly* solved this exact problem for myself about 2 years ago. I tried two different methods, both of which worked to some degree. The first method I tried was simply denying them administrative access to the machines. This is somewhat easy on XP because any software they use that normally requires admin access can be allowed to run without it by opening up only the specific file/directory and registry entries used the by the application and nothing else. In Vista it is a different story because the OS "believes" an application needs admin access even though all of the things it wants to access are open to that user. The second method was to install a Linux distro. Since the user is clueless about the operation of the OS in either case, better to run one with more security and less malware targeted at it. This is really a variation on the first method, because, again, I don't give root access to the user. It is not without its drawbacks - this may be due to the distro I chose (openSuSE 10.3) but it has not been the easiest thing to maintain. Compatibility issues with glibc were never solved before the distro was abandoned so VLC died the death when I upgraded it to 1.0 and there was no going back because videolan.org removed the old packages that work. That's just one example, but numerous things like that have come up. Neither of these methods is really viable from a business standpoint - like if you're operating a computer repair service out of your house, but for family they work great.
I don't know when or where you went to school, but when I was taught about evolution, it was pretty much given as the explanation for the origin of life. Maybe the whole "primordial soup" thing has been tossed out since I last took a hard look at it. I don't scour science journals every week to keep abreast of all of the newest revisions to Earth's collective scientific beliefs, so maybe no soup now? That does make me ignorant, I suppose but by the same token, I doubt you regularly study the Bible and see how it applies to life in this day and age, so it makes you ignorant too - just of a different subject.
I never claimed to have some great understanding of evolution, and, in fact, was asking someone to explain it to me. I wasn't rude or antagonistic and all of my responses were as thoughtful as I could make them. I fail to see how that warrants my karma getting trashed. But I probably don't understand karma - since we're so into reinventing things but not changing their names, maybe karma's just a big popularity contest rather than a thoughtful and objective critique of my postings.
I'm clearly not a scientist, but I don't have to be one or even agree with one to understand what science is. I know very well what it is, but perhaps you don't? Or maybe the fundamental definition of science has changed into something more like a religion since I went to school? It certainly has enough zealots now.
It's exactly reactions like yours that prompt things like Mr. Stein's movie. Maybe introspectively it looks different to you, but to me you seem insulting and spiteful. How else am I supposed to interpret you telling me that I'm so stupid that I don't know what science is in the first place and that my stupidity facilitates my belief in creation. You have really just proven my point here.
I haven't seen the movie, but I can already say I've seen this kind of animosity without all of the requisite objectivity right here in the real world.
Right here on Slashdot my karma was trashed and I was labeled a flamebaiter for politely suggesting this was going on. I dared make the point, as an admitted non-scientist, that as none of us was here to witness the origin of life that none of us has any more right to suppose what brought it about than anyone else. I followed this up with the suggestion that maybe the evolutionary science community wasn't being objective by "fighting" creationism with such fervor.
I suppose the Darwinist community is just as human as the creationist community and after years of putting up with creationists' crap while the majority of society agreed with them, the Darwinists are out for a little revenge. I can't blame them, I guess, but I don't think it's fair to label that unforgiving zeal as science. Call it what it is - it's anger, it's revenge, it's payback, but it's not science. Science is the work, it's not the animosity against contrary viewpoints.
As a creationist myself, I, for one, have always been respectful of Darwinists' viewpoints - just never to the point of being convinced by them. That, apparently, is a sin - assuming that Darwinists have an equivalent concept.
Isn't this kinda like going to the RIAA's headquarters and spray painting profanity on it?
Not that I don't get a good chuckle out of petty vandalism, but I'd rather people beat them at their own game.
But if they're going to go the vandalism route, couldn't they at least have done something clever like insert a redirect for IP's outside of the RIAA's own range that sent visitors to thepiratebay.org?
The literature I read about Lake Victoria must have been completely false then as it was referring to periods of 20 to 40 thousand years in respect to the evolution of the cichlids.
I don't fully agree that evolution, as it is being taught currently, is conforming to your ideal of falsifiability, but YMMV based on the curriculum I suppose. If science was taught as purely as you are presenting it, then I would agree with you, but my own practical experience with it has been much to the contrary. You are one of the few people I have encountered who did not use science to prop up a strong religious belief in humanism that is openly hostile toward potential detractors. Pure science should welcome contradiction and embrace different viewpoints as a means of determining the ultimate goal of truth.
What I'd like to see happen:
Creationist: The universe was sneezed out of the nose of the Great Green Arkelseizure and that is the origin of life.
Scientist: That sounds far fetched. Prove it.
Creationist: I have proof, it's in the ancient texts of the Arkelseizure - that's what it says happened.
Scientist: No, I mean prove it with science.
Creationist: I can't prove it with science because it's not a scientific explanation. Well, what do you think happened?
Scientist: Crude protein combined to form the origin of life and successive recombination led to greater sophistication until life became what we see today.
Creationist: That sounds far fetched. Prove it.
Scientist: I'm working on it. I've reasoned out ways that it could have happened, and since a lot of people agree with my logic, that's almost the same thing as proof.
Creationist: No, I mean prove it by showing me in the texts of the Arkelseizure.
Scientist: I don't think the texts of the Arkelseizure are right, and a bazillion people agree with me.
Creationist: I don't think your reasoning is right, and a bazillion people agree with me.
Scientist: Oh, well whatever, best to keep this about science and not a popularity contest. Perhaps you're right, perhaps you're wrong, new discoveries happen all the time. I need to get back to doing science, good luck.
Creationist: I believe I'm right, and that's enough for me. I need to go do my hanky ceremony to prepare for the great return, see ya around.
But what happens most often is more like this:
Creationist: The universe was sneezed out of the nose of the Great Green Arkelseizure and that is the origin of life.
Scientist: That's insane. Prove it.
Creationist: I have proof, it's in the ancient texts of the Arkelseizure - that's what it says happened.
Scientist: No, I mean prove it with science.
Creationist: I can't prove it with science because it's not a scientific explanation. How dare you doubt the word of the Arkelseizure, you will be condemned to the pit of eternal earwax!
Scientist: Crude protein combined to form the origin of life and successive recombination led to greater sophistication until life became what we see today. Only morons don't know that.
Creationist: That's complete horse manure. Prove it.
Scientist: I have proven it, and all the smart people agree with me, Neanderthal. I can't believe you're living in the dark ages. You shouldn't even be allowed to teach such nonsense. I'm getting a court order to have your theory removed from school.
Creationist: You shouldn't be allowed to teach blasphemy against the great Arkelseizure, see you in court. You'll see how wrong you are.
Scientist: nuh-uh!
Creationist: yes-huh!
Scientist: NUH-UH!
Creationist: I'm telling the Arkelseizure on you!
I've seen it go round and round and round like that enough to make me sick. Neither has any proof, and both believe that the other is inferior for not agreeing. Half of these people are only casually acquainted with the creationist or scientific theory they subscribe to and end up bandying around absurd arguments anyway. I'm tired of the faith of bo
I've done as you suggested and searched both subjects.
The literature about the Ring Species was interesting, and I had heard about the Cichlids before, but all of the digging that I've seen refers to their evolution as something that happened over a span of time that far exceeds recorded history, and is therefore the product of speculation - albeit careful and thoughtful speculation, but speculation just the same.
If I have read the wrong description of the event, please provide something more specific, because that's what I came up with when I hit Google with those terms.
When I say observable, I mean something concrete that has happened and been documented in the last hundred years. I've seen mutations and breeding defects - like in cheetahs for example - but nothing that would actually prove or demonstrate the broader implications of evolution or molecular biology.
Trying to classify Evolutionism as science and Creationism as philosophy as they pertain to the origin of life, would seem to me to be hypocritical and a disservice to science. To restate my original conclusion, both explanations are unprovable (though people on both sides vehemently argue to the contrary) because neither was directly observed. It boils down to someone saying that one guess is better than the other.
An evolutionist looks at the complexity of life and sees millions of years of improbable but wonderful adaptation and specialization. A creationist looks at the complexity of life and sees a marvelous feat of engineering. They're both trusting to faith - one is a faith in the educated scientific community, the other is faith in the supernatural. It all depends on what one is willing to accept as concrete proof.
Both subjects belong in philosophy and should be optional. I fail to see how indoctrinating children into one view or the other is so crucial.
You're right, I should have more clearly stated that I've never seen a living organism evolve.
And why is that funny? Have you?
I'm inviting a flame war here, but isn't math - at least in the sense that we teach it - an artificial construct that we invented to describe our observations? Math can contain theories, but I don't think it could ever be classified as one because we actually know what it is.
Isn't gravity demonstrable? If I understand correctly, there's still a lot of uncertainty in the scientific community about how gravity works exactly, but it's clearly an observable and demonstrable fact that it does.
Isn't biology something we can study that's in front of our faces? We can actually watch plants growing, babies forming in a womb, organs working, cells replicating etc...
Maybe I'm living under a rock here, but I've never really seen evolution demonstrated. I've heard plenty of explanations and leaps of logic attached to it, but I've never actually seen anything evolve. And even if I did, that still wouldn't demonstrate that evolution is the origin of life. That's why it's a theory, because we can only infer, we can't demonstrate, and unfortunately no one actually witnessed it.
This boils down to people arguing about things that they didn't observe, and can't really know. Creationism (at least the Christian kind) requires faith that something written thousands of years ago by people who also didn't witness the events is true. "Evolutionism" requires faith in the work of hundreds of scientists interpreting the present and making educated guesses about the past. No one saw man created out of dirt and breathed to life by God, but by the same token, no one saw a single-celled organism spring to life in the primordial soup and continue re-writing itself until it became a human.
Neither group actually "knows" how these things came to be, they've just adopted a view of it that they are comfortable with. What I don't understand is how the evolutionists, who are supposed to be the more objective and open minded of the two groups, can be so "holier than thou" as to suggest that the creationists' theory doesn't even deserve a place.
It's no wonder that creationists lash back with ill-conceived regulations prohibiting the teaching of the theory of evolution - this is really just balance when you look at how much flack the "intelligent design" group has been getting recently.
Science shouldn't worry so damn much about what people think, it should be about the truth, finding it and offering it, not making people believe it. Same goes for religion. The rest is just name calling and childishness.
I love the link you sent. It very carefully avoids saying anything at all. "They expect" is a recurring theme, but "they have" is surprisingly absent. M$ is always paying people to "expect" them to succeed, but I concede the point.
I'm definitely anti-microsoft, but it's not mindless. I have perfectly good reasons for my stance. I spent several years in a career where I had to work very closely with M$ products and with M$ themselves. I have seen first hand how the company performs and how their software and philosophies compare practically with that of other companies.
I have been expecting the neutering of Silver since Live came out - I was not at all surprised by it, because it is par for the course for M$. It was a very stupid move in my opinion and I have not only explained why I feel that way, but also explained how I and other companies would have (and actually have) done it better. I'm sorry that you can't see past the M$ bashing, but then again, that's probably what they pay you for. I don't know if you're a plant, but you're certainly behaving like one.
It's funny that you bring up the issue of M$ getting attacked because it's so big. The reality behind that is that because they are so big they need it more than anyone. They have grown so large that they feel they can release buggy software and implement anti-consumer policies without fear that customers will leave, because for most people they're the only game in town. When people cry "monopoly" M$ cries Linux and MacOS; when consumers try to disengage M$ tries to frighten them away. I'll never forget that "independent study" that M$ secretly funded that magically concluded that Linux implementations were more expensive than Windows. I happen to have rolled out a major Linux implementation in an enterprise environment and I know first hand how much horse crap that is, but most people don't. What it comes down to is that if customers don't call M$ out on this crap then more and more companies are going to follow suit and the world will gradually become a worse place.
You're damn right that if Apple was so big that they thought they could get away with this crap, I would be all up in their face as well. I have criticized them when they did things anti-consumer. Same with Novell, Red Hat, Sun, you name it. If nothing else that should demonstrate that it's what the company does, not who they are, that I bash. And one last time, M$ are a bunch of idiots.
I knew someone would point this out. Yes, there is an infinitesimal amount of bandwidth involved in for-money downloads. It is the same cost involved in for-free downloads, or sign-ons, network checks, pings, messages and whatever. The bandwidth cost associated with any for-money download from Live is statistically indistinguishable from zero - and even if it wasn't, do you really think M$ pays its telco bills by the kb? And if we're going to get into a discussion about bandwidth cost, why isn't M$ compensating me every time they pop up a mandatory system update? They're using my bandwidth for something that I don't necessarily want. (And yes, I know that I can refuse the download if I don't mind not using Live at all as a consequence, that makes it less than mandatory by technicality, not practicality.) No, bandwidth is a bad way to approach your rebuttal because it is insignificant.
Your other approach - the royalties thing - was much better. I'd really like to know how M$ calculates how they pay developers and publishers for this stuff, but I don't. What I do know, however, is that any good producer of goods and services will offer charge backs, freebies and other incentives. Sort of like how food companies actually compensate grocery stores for the store's own coupons. I have a hard time believing that M$ doesn't have something like this going on with publishers, or couldn't arrange something like that very easily. Any good producer that understands business, understands that sometimes you have to give a product or service away for free to establish customers.
I fully agree with your twist on the analogy. The real point here is that good ad men know better than to try to push products on people who don't want, need, or like them, but there seem to be fewer and fewer ad men with that philosophy. Many of them are perfectly happy using deception to make sales - something car salesmen are famous for.
I suppose some people think that car salesmen are just public servants, and not trying to tip your decision to buy a car in their favor.
Am I just supposed to guess what I failed to research and ended up stating so incorrectly? What is the point of telling me that you think I'm wrong without telling me what I'm wrong about, or rather how you came to a different conclusion?
The fact is that on the surface telling someone that you're adding value to something by subtracting value from someone else is stupid. You don't think M$ made this more obvious to Silver members to give them more incentive to pay for Gold? You think XBOX Live is a profit center? Or is it that you think Microsoft is an organization of geniuses?
And my personal code to bash M$ does not have any stipulations regarding research. It simply states that I need take every opportunity to point out when M$ has done something stupid. I might praise them when they did something right, which is seldom, but they are so arrogant that they often give themselves all of the praise they need. Giving them props at that point might make me sound more like you; frankly, I couldn't stand the idea of sounding like you.
Test drives ARE advertisement. So are perfume samples.
They are not nearly as one-sided as television commercials, I agree, but average ad men only need to reel in horror if their product is bad. You don't think of car salesmen as being in advertising?
First off, think practically about this: demos are the video game equivalent of commercials - their sole reason for existence is to entice players to purchase the retail version of a game. This is like telling terrestrial TV viewers that if they want to see commercials then they're going to have to pony up for cable. The practical difference is that most viewers would rather not see commercials, and most players actively seek out demos, but the fact that this limits the scope of advertising remains constant.
M$ is not an organization of geniuses. If they were even reasonably intelligent, they would know that this isn't a viable way to try to scrape some revenue out of the enormous money pit that XBOX Live has become.
I think spending real money for leasing software (which is what anyone who spends any money on Live is doing) is plainly idiotic. It's roughly equivalent of rent-to-own and paycheck advance businesses in terms of ripping off consumers.
But if you are of the mindset that consumers exist to be taken advantage of, it doesn't take a rocket surgeon to see a better way. If you want to add value to entice people to get XBOX Live Gold, start giving them something YOU actually think is worth something, Microsoft, not pointing out that they still have some zero-value feature that you took away from other users.
Give Gold members Microsoft Points free when they get achievements and leave the Silver members with just their Achievement points. Or alternatively allow Gold members to simply accrue points when they renew their subscriptions. The worst possible outcome is that the subscribers take the free stuff and don't buy anything else so you haven't made any money beyond the subscription fee, but by the same token it costs you exactly nothing to give them this stuff for free, so it's a wash. On the other hand, if you get them to open their wallets to "rent" just one arcade title that they couldn't quite afford with the free points then you'll have gained real money for the same nothing, and potentially hooked them on the idea of downloaded content.
You could also invent a new more expensive "Platinum" membership tier that worked like cell phone service where you're allotted a certain number of points every month and have to pay extra for anything above that.
Personally I think software-as-a-service and pay-for-download is the most evil thing any corporation ever thought up. It is a completely one-sided arrangement and all of the advantage goes to the corporation, not the consumer. With physical product there is more cost to the corporation, but the consumer is given with a persistent and non-volatile representation of the software. With digital product, the corporation saves the cost of manufacture - a savings that is rarely apparent in digital download pricing - and the customer is given a volatile representation of the software on a device that the corporation can order to alter, destroy, or disable without the customer's consent. In the event of failure of that device, the customer is completely at the mercy of the corporation to replace the lost software. I would like to see the entire thing go down in flames; so please please please, ignore my advice, Microsoft.
I will always have game mag subscriptions because they act as a sort of history. Electronic information is generally volatile, and it's quite a hassle to archive it indefinitely - formats change, websites close or prune. Print, on the other hand just demands physical space, and the format only becomes incompatible when the language itself changes. I can't see myself printing out articles, but I'm more than happy paying for the service. I still enjoy pulling out 17-year-old issues of EGM and waxing nostalgic, or having a good chuckle about how things used to be. Maybe having this record of gaming past isn't of value to most people anymore, but I'll have subscriptions as long as print magazines are available.
Admittedly the two stories have nothing substantial in common, and the author could have easily chosen one that did. He should have left the reference at the poetic similarity of the opening statement and moved on. However, when I look at what he's trying to do, I appreciate it. When people started gushing over BioShock I though "Holy crap, if the same people who only gave HL2's awesome story a passing mention are taking the time to go nuts over this, then it must be life-altering." But in reality, BioShock's story was only good, it wasn't spectacular or earth shattering. What this signifies is that people are finally starting to call attention to good storytelling in games in general. This author is attempting to say is that HL2 told an awesome story well before BioShock - this is nothing new, you're just noticing it for the first time.
I'm all for pulling the rug out from under EA like that. The ONLY problem I see with that is that EA now owns any properties created by the early development house. I'm sure half of BioWare (if not more) will quit within a month and form another company, but Mass Effect - planned as a trilogy, is effectively dead now. I suppose they could do what Monolith did when they formed outside of Squaresoft and changed Xenogears to Xenosaga. Maybe Matter Effect, or Mass Affect? That would probably work if EA abandons the series.
I concede the point. I had not read the full article just the tagline at the time I wrote this - shouldn't have done that, but I was very angry and not thinking clearly.
The fact still remains, however, that at some point BioWare surrendered control of their own destiny, presumably for money, and now we all suffer because of it. So it is still BioWare's fault that they've been destroyed.
In its effort to produce positive spin, that article assumes overmuch about Ricceletto's intentions. EA has told a lot of new acquisitions that they were going to sit back and do the paperwork and let the developers continue, creativity unhindered. We have absolutely zero reason to believe that this will be any different than every other time that was a bald faced lie. BioWare is dead. At least we got one Mass Effect game before their demise.
And to all those who actually like EA, look forward to "Madden Effect 2009" coming next Christmas, the last 1/4 of the game will be available as a download off of XBOX Live for only $20.
Speculating that the so-called "Bubble" is about to burst is probably more likely to become a self-fulfilling prophesy than anything. This is really just some high-brow writer trying to ask a question he thinks is provocative, when in reality, it's about as irrelevant as questions come. If the Wii is losing popularity, then it is, if it's not then it isn't and neither thing is going to change the fact that the little white box is now in more homes than any other present generation system just itching for new software that every development house and some that aren't even invented yet are drooling to make. Furthermore when most people see a box gathering dust, they start looking for ways to make their investment useful and are just as likely to start buying more games as to get off the Wii bandwagon.
Personally I've been playing my XBOX 360 more than anything recently, but I don't attribute this to any failing or waning popularity on the part of the Wii. I attribute this to the fact that the XBOX has been out for two years now and finally started to hit its stride. Developers have finally reached the point where they can start delivering on their promises. In the year prior to this one my XBOX 360 was gathering dust just like the Wii is now and the inane speculation was that the 360 had passed its peak because it was gathering dust. Does anybody think that now?
Give the Wii another year and see if anybody is still saying that it's heyday is over. The reality is, it hasn't even really started. And look at the really big games this Christmas, the 360s biggest potential seller is Mass Effect, and the Wii has Super Mario Galaxy. Does anyone seriously think that Mass Effect, awesome though I'm sure it will be, will sell even half as many copies of Super Mario Galaxy? My prediction is that Wii will still be outselling PS3 and 360 combined in both hardware and software.
I could hurl expletives at EA for destroying yet another decent development house - and who seriously entertains the possibility that BioWare's talent is going to be left to continue life as usual? However, what strikes me as more unbelievable is that so many damn studios keep selling to them.
AFAIK this wasn't a forced takeover. So why are so many development houses willing to feed their brainchild to the evil empire? It's getting ridiculous. It seems like the goal is to rise to fame on the backs of your customers until you look tasty enough for EA to offer you a big fat check for the whole thing. Shame on you BioWare!
Was money tight for BioWare? Were the bills piling up and EA bailed them out with a mountain of money and an offer they couldnt' refuse? It may sound self-serving, but I would much rather that the studio went bankrupt and closed its doors like Working Designs than have it's good name sullied and dragged through the mud by the Borg of Videogamedom that EA has become.
Whether you like their games or not, EA is the bane of all videogamedom because it represents the philosophy of profit before creativity. Eventually, supporting EA will destroy everything that you hold dear about gaming. It stifles and kills creativity for crunches and quarterly earnings. When it wants to do something new and creative it no longer has the ability so instead it consumes some other studio and leaches off of the fresh talent until all the life has been sucked out and all that the once-talented workers are good for is making Madden games and nickel-and-dime downloadable content.
I'm one of those geeks who actually likes watching cutscenes...the FIRST time. I absolutely hate having to sit through a cutscene - great and wonderful though it may be - for the fifth time because the developer decided to put some difficult boss fight or other obstacle directly after it with not possibility to save. And while we're on the subject of skipping cutscenes, I think it can go too far in the other direction. A couple of times I have been engrossed in a cutscene and I sneezed on the controller and the cutscene ended midstream, cutting me off from important or enjoyable story bits. I also hate it when games don't allow you to pause cutscenes. Blue Dragon and Final Fantasy XII are great examples of how cutscenes should be done. Now if we could just do something about those lengthy battle animations...
I think your perception on where the WoT series moved during the fourth book is a little misinformed. The pacing of the series was based on the premise that it might only make it for three volumes, but if it remained popular it would be expanded to twelve. If the last nine were never made, the first three would need to stand on their own somewhat. In other words, what you're interpreting as a breakdown was really part of the plan from the beginning. I suppose that probably did have a lot to do with pressure from TOR, but if Jordan's own words could be believed, the more involved (and therefore lengthy) style was his style of choice.
Personally, I am one of those people who criticized this from the sidelines for years, reading bits and pieces and making high-handed declarations about how it was "just another fantasy series" unremarkable, and needlessly wordy. But most of that changed about three years ago when I actually sat down to give it a fair evaluation. People who think this is unnecessarily long would probably say the same thing about Tolkien, and I just can't agree with them. None of the description is superfluous. Jordan doesn't write filler to beef up his page count, his stories are simply that involved and complex, and reading them is a very rewarding experience. This series, finished or not, will always find a place of honor on my bookshelves.
As far as Card goes, I'm 100% in agreement with you. I can't tell where Card went wrong, however - whether his early writing was from the heart and took a downturn when he tried to be a crowd pleaser later on, or whether his best work was done when he was trying to be a crowd pleaser and his work deteriorates when he's left to his own devices (like the Wachowski Brothers).
At any rate, I know that Card was a fan of Jordan's work, and though I don't care much for Card's more recent work, I wouldn't expect he would ghostwrite in his own style, or embellish from his own imagination. He would probably handle the story with the utmost respect and care, and although fans would swear blind that they could tell the difference, Jordan himself probably couldn't were he alive.