Mario 64 is one heck of a platformer - for it's time. Just like Super Mario Bros 3 is a heck of a platformer for the NES, but today it's kinda sorta a bit dated.
However, playing it on an emulator is not quite the same, since you won't have quite as tight controls (controls are off by around 100ms or so). On the N64 the balance of the game is just right IMO, well designed puzzles, new-ish moves like backflips and longjumps, and epic moments like when you meet Bowser for the second time and he makes the ground almost flip you off. And the difficulty is just enough to be challenging without being frustrating, and the size of the game is just enough to make you want more without actuallly making you tire midway because it's so much.:)
I find Mario Galaxy 2 to be the game Mario64 should've been to be honest, except that I find it a bit *too* large... But to each to his own eh?
Linux. Kernel. Is. Not. And. Cannot. Ever. Be. GPLv3.
"As for why they can't just "put those parts" into a binary...because it won't fricking work? you are talking about gutting the very HEART of the system, what would that accomplish?"
Spoken like a person who haven't ever refactored code. Yes you can move those business-critical parts into their own functions, and then move those specific functions into a binary blob. BSD allows for that. But seems you can't comprehend this, since it seems UMPOSSIBLE.
Now if the code is spagetthicoded all over the place and thus this isn't possible, then that's a whole other ballpark entirerly. And yes, OSS drivers just work while proprietary needs some love. Even though most of them suffer a bit of performance.
First off: Nvidia can choose any GPLv2 compatible license they want, including GPLv2 itself. It CANNOT choose GPLv3 because it's incompatible with GPLv2 (though not GPLv2+, but kernel is GPLv2 and not GPLv2+).
Secondly: Why can't those few, specific parts that must be closed be pushed into a binary blob with hooks in the more open source core? Sounds to me it should be possible especially with a BSD-style license. It could be possible, for instance, to just keep the encryption closed while everything else is open.
Thirdly: nVidia WAS the best choice for Linux. Now AMD and Intel "just works" on Linux (atleast with OSS drivers) while nVidia requires some maintenance. This gap will only widen further and further, the more nVidia persist with their closed source strategy. This is starting to translate to direct sales to both Intel and AMD. The fact that some nVidia fanboys are recommending the hardware does not change that fact.
Fourthly: Linux has gotten along just fine on servers and other types of devices. And no, I don't count Android as Linux because Android is a platform that happens to use the Linux kernel as it's base, but virtually everything above that is proprietary and/or reworked. Therefore one could rather easily replace the Linux kernel in Android for, say, BSD or Windows kernels.
You can use closed-source software in an open source ecosystem, whatever gave you the idea that you can't? Also, commercial is not the same as open source - look at Quake 1, 2 and 3, totally open yet the games themselves still cost money.
However, Nvidia is a special case - their drivers are NOT their core business model, and developing Open Source ones (or even better, join the Nouveau effort) would, in the long run, gain them so much. Right now it's a bit of a "Meh" situation - but imagine 10 years down the road, when the Nouveau drivers are up to par to the latest and greatest graphics. Where new hardware get full support within six months. And where the current drivers have been optimized out of the wazoo. Even now, the case for staying closed source for nVidia is shrinking, especially as their biggest competitors - Intel and AMD - already went FOSS. In a few years there will be rational reason left to stay closed source.
What Linux devs has said is that, if you develop hardware, and you want to play nice with Linux, then you must go Open Source drivers. However by going open source you do not need to worry too much about driver development in the first place, since 90% of your work will already be done.
Anything that uses windows.forms seemed to be struggling last I looked, but, that was a few years ago, so things might've improved. There are a few other proprietary extensions as well, like XNA. But, yeah...
Not really, Nouveau has come a long way and will get a competitive advantage by this. Though Nouveau is still slow, performance is increasing all the time. Last I heard power management was the final big hurdle to overcome and then a few smaller areas that need to be worked on (as well as performance ofc), so in another 3 years I'm expecting Nouveau to be fully up to par with the blob.
"And never focus on a language which can be only used for a single platform (Objective C - Apple)"
That would also rule out C#, since it's only available on the.NET platform (ok, technicly XBox too with XNA). And no, Mono is not.NET the same way Wine is not Windows.
Others can work against you, like you will never be able to compete with the costs of piracy.
That's a false misconception spread by the MAFIAA. If you can't compete with free, how come some people manage to do just that? Take bottled water for instance. Tap water is virtually free, still people pay a premium for bottled water.
While you can't really charge for digital media, you can charge for the access to it. That's why Steam and iTunes are so successful.
Now, let's assume the original i-tag has an id, blue, with these rules:
#blue { color : #00F; }
However, only the first i tag would render as blue, not both! But as a designer you want both i tags to be blue. The malformed HTML plays an unintended consequence on you, which with XHTML you would've easily avoided - because XHTML forces you to fix your markup first.
Even so they will not catch every error, the way XHTML will. Incorrect HTML documents can still render fine. XHTML cannot. Consider this markup:
<p>Hello <b>my <i>beautiful</b> world</i>
Renders perfectly, and consistently, but will introduce errors in any eventual DOM-parsing. Consistent errors, but will still complicate matters.
Besides, there are three additional core rules in valid XHTML over valid HTML:
a) Add XML tag at top b) Add a trailing slash at the end of empty elements c) Don't escape any other characters than < > " and &.
That's it. a) is minimum hassle, really. It's one line in your header template. b) requires a slight bit of (advanced regexps and) find and replace on existing documents, but is otherwise easy to remember. And c) is extremely easy to adhere to if you just use Unicode, which like, all modern web development frameworks do.
Bottom line, it's no big deal to write XHTML over HTML, and if it helps you spot malformed HTML in an early stage of your project, then it's better to use XHTML. Or HTML5 with XHTML Mime type. Whatever rocks your boat. Please note that after you have developed your stuff, though, you should serve it with HTML Mime type, because serving as XHTML to the general public is not yet safe.
What the grandparent said, was this: Windows solves the problem with COM. UNIX solves it with sockets and scripting/piping. Two different methods, neither is better than the other, both have advantages and drawbacks.
So, what's the point in introducing a piece of software which does not bring anything *new* to the table, in an Ecosystem that has been established and mature since the eighties?
I'd rather have a few more errors which are easy to correct in the development phase, than a bunch of tagsoup HTML causing JavaScript and CSS problems later on down the road. But hey, that's just me.:)
The only difference between well-formed HTML and well-formed XHTML are that the later is served with a strict XHTML MIME type.
Now, there are a few reasons you would not want this, but as a developer, you always want to get the HTML errors as soon as possible, therefore as a developer you always wish to write XHTML and then serve it as HTML.
Thing with piracy - it doesn't matter one bit if it's 9% or 90% that pirates your games. A download does not neccessarily equal a lost sale, I know many people whom have downloaded a copy only to buy the game afterwards, or downloaded a copy because it was easier than cracking the legit version from all the intrusive DRM crap. There are quite a few other (semi-)legitimate reasons for unauthorized downloading and burning.
The easier it is to go legitimate, the more people will refrain from piracy. That's the thing traditional publishers just can't understand.
To me both Kino and KDENLive seems like perfect for casual users. But hey, that's my opinion. You've honestly not even used them the last four or five years have you?
The fact is they are DECLINING, and lost 6%, mostly to Apple during a *four-year* period.
Meanwhile there is Wii, PS3, Linux, iOS and Android running OpenGL *or* OpenGL ES *or* a subset/superset of these. Thus, yes, OpenGL is very relevant today, and no, it's not any harder than Direct3D. But on the desktop it might very well be too late.
And what do you have on Windows then? Movie Maker? The program that has repeatedly eaten my friends video projects, and whenever I mention it they react the same way as if I'd mentioned a powerful vampire like count Dracula?
Blender is a great video editor for advanced stuff, and has been used to successfully create atleast threeshortmovies with a very professional look, which isn't bad at all. And you can use it for special effects too! And there is also Cinelerra. For easy-to-use, there's Kino and there is Avidemux.
Now, if we're talking Creative Suite-level, where you get an entire pipeline, then you do have a point. There is nothing like it on Linux - but then again there is no competition on Windows either. So...
I find the Linux experience, as a whole, to be fully adequate for the most part.
Libre/OpenOffice is a fullgood substitution. I've even heard some people prefer it over newer additions of MS Office. GIMP needs more user friendlyness for sure, but is serviceable enough. For most small tasks though like red-eye removal the built in tool in the photo handler takes care of that. And the overall out-of-the-box experience, atleast in Ubuntu 12.04, *is* in many ways superior to Windows. As always, YMMV.
If the surface becomes a hit, then it *will* (probably) drive the adoption of Linux preinstalls. If it doesn't, then Microsoft has lost some (more?) faith with their OEM partners. It's a lose/lose, the question is will it be worth it?
No, what he prefers is that many OEMs move over to Linux, leaving Windows in the dust.
Think about it - today the only thing still keeping Microsoft in business is largely inertia, and the fact Windows comes preinstalled on virtually every PC sold. When Microsoft themselves enter the race with their own hardware, many OEMs (and maybe even Enterprise customers) will think "Whoa, wait wait wait... Linux can do all these things and more and total cost will be a lot less!" - Then they will jump ship and start offering Linux computers by default with an optional Windows upgrade for say, another $60-$100.
Fast-forward to four-five years later, and the Windows monopoly will be broken. Entering the race as an OEM is probably the worst decision Microsoft ever made in decades, and today it's not the agile beast it was when it decided that "web thingie" in the nineties wasn't going anywhere.
Adobe is basicly delivering the same product with a few enhancements and bugfixes. The closest you get in gaming is expansion packs. As older games age, newer will come out. Would a customer pay $60 for every game? I know I wouldn't. I'm not even sure any game is worth that much to me anymore. But, yeah.
Did you know that Music filesharing is decreasing and has been for some time? Why do you think that is? Because finally, we have gotten decent legal services that meet the customers on their own terms!
So yes, the music industry has found models that work. That does not mean these exact models will work for the game industry. There are however quite a few promising models out there - Free2Play, Freemium, Kickstarter and many other successful business models already exist. Multiplayer has an easier time than singleplayer. Does that mean all singleplayer games are doomed? No, just look at Humble Indie Bundle for instance.
You can claim the same about virtually every other piece of DRM.
The problem is the following: You have Alice (the content producer), Bob (the viewer), and Charlie (the pirate). Alice wants to send Bob a message without Charlie getting any part of it. Only problem is Charlie is an alias for Bob. Bob and Charlie is, therefore, the same person. DRM is defective by design.
Instead of wasting time trying to perfect a fatally flawed design, why not simply come up with a business model that works?
If the engine source is open, how should the developer discourage users from casually infringing copyright by spreading copies of the non-free "art/music/map/skins/other data packages" through file sharing technologies?
By, for example, have a small binary blob for DRM stuff that is downloaded akin to the flash player is today. Though any attempt to prevent spreading unauthorized copying likely is doomed to fail, since, well... Pirates crack the DRM once, it's out there for everyone. It's better to try and find a good middle-ground and go for the paying pirates instead of those who would've bought the game only if it was not available through other means, because those other means will always exist. Make it simple to pay, and more will pay.
I seem to remember that some popular GNU/Linux distributions' primary repositories will not accept a package that relies on a non-free data package.
Non-free in the sense "depends on non-free libraries". Yes, this could be a potential problem but it is solvable, you could for example have Linux packages for those few specific bits. However, most neccessary libraries today come with a free license (OpenGL/AL/SDL), and there are free engines out there that are almost as good as non-free alternatives, like Moai. Double Fine Adventure has a good post up in their forums, unfortunately under the private backers, that explains why they chose Moai over, say, Unity.
Slashdot Mirror
Mario 64 is one heck of a platformer - for it's time. Just like Super Mario Bros 3 is a heck of a platformer for the NES, but today it's kinda sorta a bit dated.
However, playing it on an emulator is not quite the same, since you won't have quite as tight controls (controls are off by around 100ms or so). On the N64 the balance of the game is just right IMO, well designed puzzles, new-ish moves like backflips and longjumps, and epic moments like when you meet Bowser for the second time and he makes the ground almost flip you off. And the difficulty is just enough to be challenging without being frustrating, and the size of the game is just enough to make you want more without actuallly making you tire midway because it's so much. :)
I find Mario Galaxy 2 to be the game Mario64 should've been to be honest, except that I find it a bit *too* large... But to each to his own eh?
"why the fuck should they waste all that money? To make some license nazi happy?"
No. To not lose market share.
BSD. License. Is. Compatible. With. GPLv2.
Linux. Kernel. Is. Not. And. Cannot. Ever. Be. GPLv3.
"As for why they can't just "put those parts" into a binary...because it won't fricking work? you are talking about gutting the very HEART of the system, what would that accomplish?"
Spoken like a person who haven't ever refactored code. Yes you can move those business-critical parts into their own functions, and then move those specific functions into a binary blob. BSD allows for that. But seems you can't comprehend this, since it seems UMPOSSIBLE.
Now if the code is spagetthicoded all over the place and thus this isn't possible, then that's a whole other ballpark entirerly. And yes, OSS drivers just work while proprietary needs some love. Even though most of them suffer a bit of performance.
First off: Nvidia can choose any GPLv2 compatible license they want, including GPLv2 itself. It CANNOT choose GPLv3 because it's incompatible with GPLv2 (though not GPLv2+, but kernel is GPLv2 and not GPLv2+).
Secondly: Why can't those few, specific parts that must be closed be pushed into a binary blob with hooks in the more open source core? Sounds to me it should be possible especially with a BSD-style license. It could be possible, for instance, to just keep the encryption closed while everything else is open.
Thirdly: nVidia WAS the best choice for Linux. Now AMD and Intel "just works" on Linux (atleast with OSS drivers) while nVidia requires some maintenance. This gap will only widen further and further, the more nVidia persist with their closed source strategy. This is starting to translate to direct sales to both Intel and AMD. The fact that some nVidia fanboys are recommending the hardware does not change that fact.
Fourthly: Linux has gotten along just fine on servers and other types of devices. And no, I don't count Android as Linux because Android is a platform that happens to use the Linux kernel as it's base, but virtually everything above that is proprietary and/or reworked. Therefore one could rather easily replace the Linux kernel in Android for, say, BSD or Windows kernels.
You can use closed-source software in an open source ecosystem, whatever gave you the idea that you can't? Also, commercial is not the same as open source - look at Quake 1, 2 and 3, totally open yet the games themselves still cost money.
However, Nvidia is a special case - their drivers are NOT their core business model, and developing Open Source ones (or even better, join the Nouveau effort) would, in the long run, gain them so much. Right now it's a bit of a "Meh" situation - but imagine 10 years down the road, when the Nouveau drivers are up to par to the latest and greatest graphics. Where new hardware get full support within six months. And where the current drivers have been optimized out of the wazoo. Even now, the case for staying closed source for nVidia is shrinking, especially as their biggest competitors - Intel and AMD - already went FOSS. In a few years there will be rational reason left to stay closed source.
What Linux devs has said is that, if you develop hardware, and you want to play nice with Linux, then you must go Open Source drivers. However by going open source you do not need to worry too much about driver development in the first place, since 90% of your work will already be done.
Anything that uses windows.forms seemed to be struggling last I looked, but, that was a few years ago, so things might've improved. There are a few other proprietary extensions as well, like XNA. But, yeah...
Not really, Nouveau has come a long way and will get a competitive advantage by this. Though Nouveau is still slow, performance is increasing all the time. Last I heard power management was the final big hurdle to overcome and then a few smaller areas that need to be worked on (as well as performance ofc), so in another 3 years I'm expecting Nouveau to be fully up to par with the blob.
"And never focus on a language which can be only used for a single platform (Objective C - Apple)"
That would also rule out C#, since it's only available on the .NET platform (ok, technicly XBox too with XNA). And no, Mono is not .NET the same way Wine is not Windows.
That's a false misconception spread by the MAFIAA. If you can't compete with free, how come some people manage to do just that? Take bottled water for instance. Tap water is virtually free, still people pay a premium for bottled water.
While you can't really charge for digital media, you can charge for the access to it. That's why Steam and iTunes are so successful.
I mean, that particular markup would end up in the DOM as:
<p>Hello <b>my <i>beautiful</i></b><i> world</i></p>
Now, let's assume the original i-tag has an id, blue, with these rules:
#blue { color : #00F; }
However, only the first i tag would render as blue, not both! But as a designer you want both i tags to be blue. The malformed HTML plays an unintended consequence on you, which with XHTML you would've easily avoided - because XHTML forces you to fix your markup first.
Even so they will not catch every error, the way XHTML will. Incorrect HTML documents can still render fine. XHTML cannot. Consider this markup:
<p>Hello <b>my <i>beautiful</b> world</i>
Renders perfectly, and consistently, but will introduce errors in any eventual DOM-parsing. Consistent errors, but will still complicate matters.
Besides, there are three additional core rules in valid XHTML over valid HTML:
a) Add XML tag at top
b) Add a trailing slash at the end of empty elements
c) Don't escape any other characters than < > " and &.
That's it. a) is minimum hassle, really. It's one line in your header template. b) requires a slight bit of (advanced regexps and) find and replace on existing documents, but is otherwise easy to remember. And c) is extremely easy to adhere to if you just use Unicode, which like, all modern web development frameworks do.
Bottom line, it's no big deal to write XHTML over HTML, and if it helps you spot malformed HTML in an early stage of your project, then it's better to use XHTML. Or HTML5 with XHTML Mime type. Whatever rocks your boat. Please note that after you have developed your stuff, though, you should serve it with HTML Mime type, because serving as XHTML to the general public is not yet safe.
Dude, talk about missing the point entirerly.
What the grandparent said, was this: Windows solves the problem with COM. UNIX solves it with sockets and scripting/piping. Two different methods, neither is better than the other, both have advantages and drawbacks.
So, what's the point in introducing a piece of software which does not bring anything *new* to the table, in an Ecosystem that has been established and mature since the eighties?
I'd rather have a few more errors which are easy to correct in the development phase, than a bunch of tagsoup HTML causing JavaScript and CSS problems later on down the road. But hey, that's just me. :)
The only difference between well-formed HTML and well-formed XHTML are that the later is served with a strict XHTML MIME type.
Now, there are a few reasons you would not want this, but as a developer, you always want to get the HTML errors as soon as possible, therefore as a developer you always wish to write XHTML and then serve it as HTML.
Thing with piracy - it doesn't matter one bit if it's 9% or 90% that pirates your games. A download does not neccessarily equal a lost sale, I know many people whom have downloaded a copy only to buy the game afterwards, or downloaded a copy because it was easier than cracking the legit version from all the intrusive DRM crap. There are quite a few other (semi-)legitimate reasons for unauthorized downloading and burning.
The easier it is to go legitimate, the more people will refrain from piracy. That's the thing traditional publishers just can't understand.
To me both Kino and KDENLive seems like perfect for casual users. But hey, that's my opinion. You've honestly not even used them the last four or five years have you?
So what do you call Kino then? Dogshit?
Way to miss the entire point, buddy.
The fact is they are DECLINING, and lost 6%, mostly to Apple during a *four-year* period.
Meanwhile there is Wii, PS3, Linux, iOS and Android running OpenGL *or* OpenGL ES *or* a subset/superset of these. Thus, yes, OpenGL is very relevant today, and no, it's not any harder than Direct3D. But on the desktop it might very well be too late.
A five second Google search proves you wrong.
And what do you have on Windows then? Movie Maker? The program that has repeatedly eaten my friends video projects, and whenever I mention it they react the same way as if I'd mentioned a powerful vampire like count Dracula?
Blender is a great video editor for advanced stuff, and has been used to successfully create atleast three short movies with a very professional look, which isn't bad at all. And you can use it for special effects too! And there is also Cinelerra. For easy-to-use, there's Kino and there is Avidemux.
Now, if we're talking Creative Suite-level, where you get an entire pipeline, then you do have a point. There is nothing like it on Linux - but then again there is no competition on Windows either. So...
I find the Linux experience, as a whole, to be fully adequate for the most part.
Libre/OpenOffice is a fullgood substitution. I've even heard some people prefer it over newer additions of MS Office. GIMP needs more user friendlyness for sure, but is serviceable enough. For most small tasks though like red-eye removal the built in tool in the photo handler takes care of that. And the overall out-of-the-box experience, atleast in Ubuntu 12.04, *is* in many ways superior to Windows. As always, YMMV.
If the surface becomes a hit, then it *will* (probably) drive the adoption of Linux preinstalls. If it doesn't, then Microsoft has lost some (more?) faith with their OEM partners. It's a lose/lose, the question is will it be worth it?
No, what he prefers is that many OEMs move over to Linux, leaving Windows in the dust.
Think about it - today the only thing still keeping Microsoft in business is largely inertia, and the fact Windows comes preinstalled on virtually every PC sold. When Microsoft themselves enter the race with their own hardware, many OEMs (and maybe even Enterprise customers) will think "Whoa, wait wait wait... Linux can do all these things and more and total cost will be a lot less!" - Then they will jump ship and start offering Linux computers by default with an optional Windows upgrade for say, another $60-$100.
Fast-forward to four-five years later, and the Windows monopoly will be broken. Entering the race as an OEM is probably the worst decision Microsoft ever made in decades, and today it's not the agile beast it was when it decided that "web thingie" in the nineties wasn't going anywhere.
That's different though.
Adobe is basicly delivering the same product with a few enhancements and bugfixes. The closest you get in gaming is expansion packs. As older games age, newer will come out. Would a customer pay $60 for every game? I know I wouldn't. I'm not even sure any game is worth that much to me anymore. But, yeah.
Did you know that Music filesharing is decreasing and has been for some time? Why do you think that is? Because finally, we have gotten decent legal services that meet the customers on their own terms!
So yes, the music industry has found models that work. That does not mean these exact models will work for the game industry. There are however quite a few promising models out there - Free2Play, Freemium, Kickstarter and many other successful business models already exist. Multiplayer has an easier time than singleplayer. Does that mean all singleplayer games are doomed? No, just look at Humble Indie Bundle for instance.
You can claim the same about virtually every other piece of DRM.
The problem is the following: You have Alice (the content producer), Bob (the viewer), and Charlie (the pirate). Alice wants to send Bob a message without Charlie getting any part of it. Only problem is Charlie is an alias for Bob. Bob and Charlie is, therefore, the same person. DRM is defective by design.
Instead of wasting time trying to perfect a fatally flawed design, why not simply come up with a business model that works?
By, for example, have a small binary blob for DRM stuff that is downloaded akin to the flash player is today. Though any attempt to prevent spreading unauthorized copying likely is doomed to fail, since, well... Pirates crack the DRM once, it's out there for everyone. It's better to try and find a good middle-ground and go for the paying pirates instead of those who would've bought the game only if it was not available through other means, because those other means will always exist. Make it simple to pay, and more will pay.
Non-free in the sense "depends on non-free libraries". Yes, this could be a potential problem but it is solvable, you could for example have Linux packages for those few specific bits. However, most neccessary libraries today come with a free license (OpenGL/AL/SDL), and there are free engines out there that are almost as good as non-free alternatives, like Moai. Double Fine Adventure has a good post up in their forums, unfortunately under the private backers, that explains why they chose Moai over, say, Unity.