Homebrew games cost.005% of sales
retail chain takes 30% of each sale.
No Media means that everyone is buying from the sony store -- 30% more money for sony.
No Media means no more used games -- good for game makers too.
The end of the game store is here. Take a picture of Gamestop next time your there -- it wont be there for long.
Agreed on why this isnt ethernet -- not agreed on why this exists. HDMI is really all about copy protection. I have a custom AV business and we commonly ran long component runs and had great results -- now we have HDMI -- a monitor spec with copy protection. The problem is that its really the old DVI spec -- which never expected the monitor to be more than a few feet away -- so when we do long runs ( 100 ft, 200 ft etc ) we now are spending > 500 for a piece of cable, we need to put in repeaters and it still doesnt always work -- and the thing that makes it not work -- if it ever thinks a copy protect bit got dropped -- it kills the signal. This is one of the most consumer unfriendly specs Ive seen. Its pretty annoying that the cableing costs are way up -- whats really annoying is that if any compoennts in the stream dont quite have it right -- then the owner is called a pirate.
And as long as I'm ranting -- would it have been that hard to make the connector stick and click like say -- ethernet or phones -- have been doing for decades./End Rant
While your analysis is correct on 1,2 and 3 -- you are forgetting number 4 -- inisitance on use by media copyright holders. HDMI did next to nothing over component video for quality - but blu ray players and now hd cable boxes require it to generate 1080p signals.
This is what this spec is all about -- if you take it apart -- its really DVI - an old monitor spec -- digital audio, and a truely broken copy protection scheme.
There are lots of ways to move video that work -- this is the one with DRM -- and it sadly will be here until the movie companies decide they dont need that protection any more.
The goals of the companies are the same -- google wants apps that only work on their platform to create some lock in -- thats not the worst thing in the world for a business to attempt -- but thats clearly all it is. You can say there is some subtle marketing difference, but they are doing the same thing.
I was working in ms java back then -- ms gave java a decent window painter ( something java still doesnt have ) and sun had a fit. The fit was more about sun feeling ms was a competitor than stewardship over java.
At some point the mood of these forums will change towards google when enough people realize they have gotten as big and monopolistic as ms and they are starting to play from the same playbook. The easy test is to ask yourself if this story was for the new application environment on the pocket pc -- would we have 200 ranting msft posts.
His marketing group is mostly correct about this. Most large companies ( the ones that buy software ) have rules that say they cant buy 1.0 software. They don't look at the software to see if its working well, talk to other customers, etc -- its just off the approved purchase list.
With that kind of arbitrary behavior about what should be an internal release number -- the only sensible thing to do if you actually need to sell software to pay your employees is change the version number.
Now -- version 5 is silly -- I always like version 2.2 myself. Then you can talk about how version 1.0 was a beta that only a few early customers had -- you used that feedback to make version 2 -- and now that were on version 2.2 -- we are really stable.
This is the narrative that an internal IT staff is expecting -- if you don't play into it, then your saying that release number purity is more important than having a market for your product. If you believe that - you have no place in commercial software.
Regardless of version number, you will still have to convince someone that your product is worth buying. With a version 1.0 product -- your telling corporate IT -- you don't understand their purchasing requirements.
Any time you work for a company and you are not in the direct line of business - defined by what they sell - , you will get this behavior. If you are a software developer for a company that doesnt sell software, then you will be viewed as a cost center - something to be minimized.
I would suspect you dont see these same attitudes if you talk to developers that work for a software company, or Network Techs that work for a consulting company that only does WAN design.
Havent played GURPS so I cant comment on that. But as far as DnD is concerned wotc saved the game.
TSR -- the enlightened company that started this kept a stranglehold on publishing and we had very little content except recycled tournament modules.
Even after they let the whole thing die and you couldnt find the sourcebooks at any store, they still had lawyers sending cease and desist letters to people that wanted to create web content or put their own module on-line.
From that comes wotc -- 3rd edition and the open gaming license. Because of the open gaming license we have so much content that you can play 3.0 3.5 forever and never run out of source books and modules. Their one big mistake -- 3.0 was a little rough and needed an update 3.5 ( by the way -- it did )
My groups been playing 3.0 since it was released and weve pretty much maxed it out as a role playing platform. The games flaws have taken over and we have a ton of house rules to work around them. When I read the designer essays ( not the marketing thing they published here ) you can see that these guys have also played out 3.0/3.5 and know where all the suck is. I dont know how they are going to fix the rules -- but everything that my group found wanting in 3.5 they have talked about in their designer notes. So 4.0 could still suck, but it wont be because these guys didnt know where to focus.
As to your other point that there are more role playing games out there -- no argument -- but so far only dnd has OGL and 20 third party publishers waiting to fill the shelves with content. ( I am kind of peeved though that dungeon went away as a magazine )
Have to agree with the summoning and shapechanging changes. I run a 3.5 game and we had to put a no summoning rule into effect ( it was enforced with the agreement that if the dm summoned then the characters would start summoning.
I was running one of the adventure path modules last week when I broke that rule because the tactics dictated it -- and remembered why -- some dire badger or some such thing gets summoned -- you then switch from the players to the MM -- then realize that badgers are not under B because there woodland creatures or are the vermin ( not under V but in some appendix ) screw it -- he attacks you with his mace.
If you read the essays the designers have been publishing and really play 3.5 or 3.0 -- youll realize that these people love the game, and they have played enough to know a lot of the places it just doesnt work.
Slashdot Mirror
Homebrew games cost .005% of sales
retail chain takes 30% of each sale.
No Media means that everyone is buying from the sony store -- 30% more money for sony.
No Media means no more used games -- good for game makers too.
The end of the game store is here. Take a picture of Gamestop next time your there -- it wont be there for long.
Agreed on why this isnt ethernet -- not agreed on why this exists. HDMI is really all about copy protection. I have a custom AV business and we commonly ran long component runs and had great results -- now we have HDMI -- a monitor spec with copy protection. The problem is that its really the old DVI spec -- which never expected the monitor to be more than a few feet away -- so when we do long runs ( 100 ft, 200 ft etc ) we now are spending > 500 for a piece of cable, we need to put in repeaters and it still doesnt always work -- and the thing that makes it not work -- if it ever thinks a copy protect bit got dropped -- it kills the signal. This is one of the most consumer unfriendly specs Ive seen. Its pretty annoying that the cableing costs are way up -- whats really annoying is that if any compoennts in the stream dont quite have it right -- then the owner is called a pirate. And as long as I'm ranting -- would it have been that hard to make the connector stick and click like say -- ethernet or phones -- have been doing for decades. /End Rant
While your analysis is correct on 1,2 and 3 -- you are forgetting number 4 -- inisitance on use by media copyright holders. HDMI did next to nothing over component video for quality - but blu ray players and now hd cable boxes require it to generate 1080p signals. This is what this spec is all about -- if you take it apart -- its really DVI - an old monitor spec -- digital audio, and a truely broken copy protection scheme. There are lots of ways to move video that work -- this is the one with DRM -- and it sadly will be here until the movie companies decide they dont need that protection any more.
The goals of the companies are the same -- google wants apps that only work on their platform to create some lock in -- thats not the worst thing in the world for a business to attempt -- but thats clearly all it is. You can say there is some subtle marketing difference, but they are doing the same thing. I was working in ms java back then -- ms gave java a decent window painter ( something java still doesnt have ) and sun had a fit. The fit was more about sun feeling ms was a competitor than stewardship over java. At some point the mood of these forums will change towards google when enough people realize they have gotten as big and monopolistic as ms and they are starting to play from the same playbook. The easy test is to ask yourself if this story was for the new application environment on the pocket pc -- would we have 200 ranting msft posts.
His marketing group is mostly correct about this. Most large companies ( the ones that buy software ) have rules that say they cant buy 1.0 software. They don't look at the software to see if its working well, talk to other customers, etc -- its just off the approved purchase list. With that kind of arbitrary behavior about what should be an internal release number -- the only sensible thing to do if you actually need to sell software to pay your employees is change the version number. Now -- version 5 is silly -- I always like version 2.2 myself. Then you can talk about how version 1.0 was a beta that only a few early customers had -- you used that feedback to make version 2 -- and now that were on version 2.2 -- we are really stable. This is the narrative that an internal IT staff is expecting -- if you don't play into it, then your saying that release number purity is more important than having a market for your product. If you believe that - you have no place in commercial software. Regardless of version number, you will still have to convince someone that your product is worth buying. With a version 1.0 product -- your telling corporate IT -- you don't understand their purchasing requirements.
Any time you work for a company and you are not in the direct line of business - defined by what they sell - , you will get this behavior. If you are a software developer for a company that doesnt sell software, then you will be viewed as a cost center - something to be minimized. I would suspect you dont see these same attitudes if you talk to developers that work for a software company, or Network Techs that work for a consulting company that only does WAN design.
Havent played GURPS so I cant comment on that. But as far as DnD is concerned wotc saved the game. TSR -- the enlightened company that started this kept a stranglehold on publishing and we had very little content except recycled tournament modules. Even after they let the whole thing die and you couldnt find the sourcebooks at any store, they still had lawyers sending cease and desist letters to people that wanted to create web content or put their own module on-line. From that comes wotc -- 3rd edition and the open gaming license. Because of the open gaming license we have so much content that you can play 3.0 3.5 forever and never run out of source books and modules. Their one big mistake -- 3.0 was a little rough and needed an update 3.5 ( by the way -- it did ) My groups been playing 3.0 since it was released and weve pretty much maxed it out as a role playing platform. The games flaws have taken over and we have a ton of house rules to work around them. When I read the designer essays ( not the marketing thing they published here ) you can see that these guys have also played out 3.0 /3.5 and know where all the suck is. I dont know how they are going to fix the rules -- but everything that my group found wanting in 3.5 they have talked about in their designer notes. So 4.0 could still suck, but it wont be because these guys didnt know where to focus.
As to your other point that there are more role playing games out there -- no argument -- but so far only dnd has OGL and 20 third party publishers waiting to fill the shelves with content. ( I am kind of peeved though that dungeon went away as a magazine )
Have to agree with the summoning and shapechanging changes. I run a 3.5 game and we had to put a no summoning rule into effect ( it was enforced with the agreement that if the dm summoned then the characters would start summoning. I was running one of the adventure path modules last week when I broke that rule because the tactics dictated it -- and remembered why -- some dire badger or some such thing gets summoned -- you then switch from the players to the MM -- then realize that badgers are not under B because there woodland creatures or are the vermin ( not under V but in some appendix ) screw it -- he attacks you with his mace. If you read the essays the designers have been publishing and really play 3.5 or 3.0 -- youll realize that these people love the game, and they have played enough to know a lot of the places it just doesnt work.