I see no difference in a standard imposed by the government and a standard imposed by a corporation with a "silent" governmental approbate.
What I mean is not that creating a "national OS" monopoly is a good thing (well, if they keep the source available - you never know - it might be), but rather that we all live in a world where there is an international OS monopoly and most people agree, or at least live silent with it. I don't know if I understood your intention well, but as far as I can see, your comment goes down to saying "It's gonna change into a tool of dictatorship because it's Russia". Well, yes, historically speaking you'll probably right, but how's Russia and it's yet-to-be national OS different from the whole "western world" and Windows? I see no difference at all.
In most countries Microsoft's OS is an "imposed standard" after all. It just might not be that obvious. I live in Poland, and in here basically all schools run Windows, most govt institutions do, and there is even an application you can only run on Windows that is the only way to manage your company's finance with the govt (I don't know the exact terms in english, but it's irrelevant) electronically. This IS an imposed standard. The only difference is that it's imposed by a foreign company, and just approved by the government. I don't know what's worse to be honest.
Heh, on the other hand, it's kinda funny and ironic, that the first governments to start introducing Linux nation-wide are the ones having historically not much to do with all the "Freedom"...
It's not a fully functional product - it's a fully functional product with a time limit. That's the difference.
And as for changing that file - is it ok with the end user license for World of Warcraft? I don't know (didn't play the game) but, considering there are "minor bugs in the server side code", it makes me think it's a pirate server in fact, so I don't think it's ok. In other words, it looks to me like driving away in that test drive Mercedes from my previous metaphor and never returning it to the dealer... But i might be wrong.
Well, as far as i can see, the site you've linked is about a free 10-day trial. So it's more like a demo. You get 10 days of fun for free and then, if you've liked it and want to keep playing, you have to buy the full version that has no time limit. So saying it's for free is like saying that on a test drive of a Mercedes at your local dealer you get a car for free. You get to TRY a car for free, no more and no less.
The better example however is Battlefield Heroes - a game where you get to play the full product, without time limits for free. However, even there it's not that simple (the game makers need to eat for crying out loud). You don't have to pay to get into the game initially, yes, but you can buy additional stuff and that's where micropayments step in. At the same time there will be adds in the game (not during the game itself though, which is nice of the devs and EA, but still).
Of course you could say that it's simply the way to go, right? I mean, put micropayments into every game, fill it with adverts (to some point where you both make money out of them while not changing your game into Times Square) and there you have it - a game that can be played for free. But that's good only for some games. Battlefield Heroes (and probably Quake Zero) is a great example of using the appropriate way to make money of a casualish (but still anticipated by hardcore gamers) ONLINE game. And I wrote online with capital letters for a reason, because that's the best (and in my opinion) the only segment that can benefit from adverts - being the smaller evil when compared to a subscription - and microtransactions - being the best way to make gamers want to be ripped off basically;). And they'll want to pay for new weapons and stuff because it's online competition, so they need to be better equipped than those they fight in order to get advantage on the... battlefield. And since the payments are... well, micro, they consider them harmless for their bank account balance. The effect is that the devs and publishers are happy, and so are the gamers. Although, as i said, that can only work for online multi player games and not single player. Why? Because in single player we have a story and to make the player able to get through the story they already need to have all the weapons and other gameplay elements in place available. In other words, while in multi the micropayments and stuff we buy for it can make the game more interesting, in singleplayer it would destroy the balance, because those who don't pay get a game that's virtually impossible, or at least very hard to play, while the others get a walk in a park because they had the cash and will to buy themselves a BFG 9000. The same applies to adds but for a different reason. The best way to put adds into a singleplayer game would be product placement. The character could have adidas shoes, use apple computers and there would be a big, blockbuster movie poster somewhere in the city where the game takes place. However, that would simply destroy the feeling of the game world. You have a Dark Knight billboard in your city, you don't really want it in your game because it simply won't fit there. Well, it won't fit there even if it's a "current time and world story" type of game, let alone the sci-fi or fantasy...
So my point is that you HAVE to make money some way in order to make next games. Of course you can give your potential gamers something for free so they can taste it - demos and trials are nothing new, but in the end you need to get money out of their wallets some way (either with a price tag in Wall Mart or Tesco or by using in-game adverts and micropayments if your game is a "cartoon shooter") or you're gonna starve to death.
Yes, the software was free both as in beer and even as in speech in the previous era, let's call it. But that was the time when software was typically made by the hardware manufacturers for their hardware specifically. Or it was made by hobbyists like Free Software is today (well, even that software today is made by corporations sometimes but that's a different thing).
That means that it was time when software was given away for free because it COULD be given away for free. People who made it made money for food, research and their future work from other sources like selling hardware. But that was also the time when software was fairly simple compared to what it is today, so making it was way easier than it is now.
I'm pretty confident that you have never made a piece of software, otherwise, i hope, you would not say it should be for free. Today the biggest and best software is made by companies which only purpose is to make software. That means they have nowhere else to make money. As a result they need to sell the software in order to pay their employees for siting at those computers and writing the unbelievable (for people from the all_softwere_is_for_free past) amount of code. And those people need to be paid because in order to ensure the quality of the software they need to be there 8+ hours a day. The same applies to the QA (the quality of the QA, especially in the game business recently, is another topic tho...).
Of course i have to admit that the prices for some software are too high but i'm not sure CAD is a good example here. If someone needs an uber-professional application like that, they should have the cash to pay for it - otherwise something's wrong.
Computer and video game prices are a different issue. Those prices should be lower, especially on Steam. However, saying that games should be for free or almost for free is stupid. One who says things like that, ought to try and make a game themselves.
The most interesting thing however - in the news this time, not in the parent comment - is that one of the things people blame for making them pirate games is... DRM (aside of the prices and overall quality of today's titles that is getting worse - combined with the fact that games are getting shorter and shorter, it really makes you wanna go to piratebay instead of the local game store...). That means putting even MORE DRM into games isn't gonna help.
What should be done however is education - people should be aware of what the developers want them to pay for. At the same time the quality should be assured and prices kept reasonable (but not two steps away from free...) but the most important thing is for the people to be aware how much work is needed to create a piece of software. I realize that very clearly when reading comments such as the one I'm replying to. Because software is something not material, unlike a house, a car or a computer basically, people tend to think that "software just happens". That the people who make it never feel tired after a day of work because there's nothing exhausting in that work. Or that developers drink gallons of coffee because they like it (in that amounts) and not because they're too tired to see the screen and the deadline is getting close so they need to stay awake even though it's 4:00 am. People simply think that making software is pure fun and pleasure which it isn't (or not always is).
Why is that? I guess it's because people don't know basically anything about how software is made. Everyone knows that cars are made on a production line by robots and guys who weld and screw stuff together; everyone knows that movies are made by actors and other staff members running around in a studio in Hollywood; everyone even knows that computer chips are made by people in white clothes in a NASA-like room full of newest technology (at least that's how it looks on National Geographic or Discovery Channel but it's enough to make you see the purpose in paying for it). But what do they know about making software?
Slashdot Mirror
I see no difference in a standard imposed by the government and a standard imposed by a corporation with a "silent" governmental approbate.
What I mean is not that creating a "national OS" monopoly is a good thing (well, if they keep the source available - you never know - it might be), but rather that we all live in a world where there is an international OS monopoly and most people agree, or at least live silent with it. I don't know if I understood your intention well, but as far as I can see, your comment goes down to saying "It's gonna change into a tool of dictatorship because it's Russia". Well, yes, historically speaking you'll probably right, but how's Russia and it's yet-to-be national OS different from the whole "western world" and Windows? I see no difference at all.
In most countries Microsoft's OS is an "imposed standard" after all. It just might not be that obvious. I live in Poland, and in here basically all schools run Windows, most govt institutions do, and there is even an application you can only run on Windows that is the only way to manage your company's finance with the govt (I don't know the exact terms in english, but it's irrelevant) electronically. This IS an imposed standard. The only difference is that it's imposed by a foreign company, and just approved by the government. I don't know what's worse to be honest.
Heh, on the other hand, it's kinda funny and ironic, that the first governments to start introducing Linux nation-wide are the ones having historically not much to do with all the "Freedom"...
It's not a fully functional product - it's a fully functional product with a time limit. That's the difference. And as for changing that file - is it ok with the end user license for World of Warcraft? I don't know (didn't play the game) but, considering there are "minor bugs in the server side code", it makes me think it's a pirate server in fact, so I don't think it's ok. In other words, it looks to me like driving away in that test drive Mercedes from my previous metaphor and never returning it to the dealer... But i might be wrong.
Well, as far as i can see, the site you've linked is about a free 10-day trial. So it's more like a demo. You get 10 days of fun for free and then, if you've liked it and want to keep playing, you have to buy the full version that has no time limit. So saying it's for free is like saying that on a test drive of a Mercedes at your local dealer you get a car for free. You get to TRY a car for free, no more and no less.
;). And they'll want to pay for new weapons and stuff because it's online competition, so they need to be better equipped than those they fight in order to get advantage on the... battlefield. And since the payments are... well, micro, they consider them harmless for their bank account balance. The effect is that the devs and publishers are happy, and so are the gamers. Although, as i said, that can only work for online multi player games and not single player. Why? Because in single player we have a story and to make the player able to get through the story they already need to have all the weapons and other gameplay elements in place available. In other words, while in multi the micropayments and stuff we buy for it can make the game more interesting, in singleplayer it would destroy the balance, because those who don't pay get a game that's virtually impossible, or at least very hard to play, while the others get a walk in a park because they had the cash and will to buy themselves a BFG 9000. The same applies to adds but for a different reason. The best way to put adds into a singleplayer game would be product placement. The character could have adidas shoes, use apple computers and there would be a big, blockbuster movie poster somewhere in the city where the game takes place. However, that would simply destroy the feeling of the game world. You have a Dark Knight billboard in your city, you don't really want it in your game because it simply won't fit there. Well, it won't fit there even if it's a "current time and world story" type of game, let alone the sci-fi or fantasy...
The better example however is Battlefield Heroes - a game where you get to play the full product, without time limits for free. However, even there it's not that simple (the game makers need to eat for crying out loud). You don't have to pay to get into the game initially, yes, but you can buy additional stuff and that's where micropayments step in. At the same time there will be adds in the game (not during the game itself though, which is nice of the devs and EA, but still).
Of course you could say that it's simply the way to go, right? I mean, put micropayments into every game, fill it with adverts (to some point where you both make money out of them while not changing your game into Times Square) and there you have it - a game that can be played for free. But that's good only for some games. Battlefield Heroes (and probably Quake Zero) is a great example of using the appropriate way to make money of a casualish (but still anticipated by hardcore gamers) ONLINE game. And I wrote online with capital letters for a reason, because that's the best (and in my opinion) the only segment that can benefit from adverts - being the smaller evil when compared to a subscription - and microtransactions - being the best way to make gamers want to be ripped off basically
So my point is that you HAVE to make money some way in order to make next games. Of course you can give your potential gamers something for free so they can taste it - demos and trials are nothing new, but in the end you need to get money out of their wallets some way (either with a price tag in Wall Mart or Tesco or by using in-game adverts and micropayments if your game is a "cartoon shooter") or you're gonna starve to death.
Yes, the software was free both as in beer and even as in speech in the previous era, let's call it. But that was the time when software was typically made by the hardware manufacturers for their hardware specifically. Or it was made by hobbyists like Free Software is today (well, even that software today is made by corporations sometimes but that's a different thing).
That means that it was time when software was given away for free because it COULD be given away for free. People who made it made money for food, research and their future work from other sources like selling hardware. But that was also the time when software was fairly simple compared to what it is today, so making it was way easier than it is now.
I'm pretty confident that you have never made a piece of software, otherwise, i hope, you would not say it should be for free. Today the biggest and best software is made by companies which only purpose is to make software. That means they have nowhere else to make money. As a result they need to sell the software in order to pay their employees for siting at those computers and writing the unbelievable (for people from the all_softwere_is_for_free past) amount of code. And those people need to be paid because in order to ensure the quality of the software they need to be there 8+ hours a day. The same applies to the QA (the quality of the QA, especially in the game business recently, is another topic tho...).
Of course i have to admit that the prices for some software are too high but i'm not sure CAD is a good example here. If someone needs an uber-professional application like that, they should have the cash to pay for it - otherwise something's wrong.
Computer and video game prices are a different issue. Those prices should be lower, especially on Steam. However, saying that games should be for free or almost for free is stupid. One who says things like that, ought to try and make a game themselves.
The most interesting thing however - in the news this time, not in the parent comment - is that one of the things people blame for making them pirate games is... DRM (aside of the prices and overall quality of today's titles that is getting worse - combined with the fact that games are getting shorter and shorter, it really makes you wanna go to piratebay instead of the local game store...). That means putting even MORE DRM into games isn't gonna help.
What should be done however is education - people should be aware of what the developers want them to pay for. At the same time the quality should be assured and prices kept reasonable (but not two steps away from free...) but the most important thing is for the people to be aware how much work is needed to create a piece of software. I realize that very clearly when reading comments such as the one I'm replying to. Because software is something not material, unlike a house, a car or a computer basically, people tend to think that "software just happens". That the people who make it never feel tired after a day of work because there's nothing exhausting in that work. Or that developers drink gallons of coffee because they like it (in that amounts) and not because they're too tired to see the screen and the deadline is getting close so they need to stay awake even though it's 4:00 am. People simply think that making software is pure fun and pleasure which it isn't (or not always is).
Why is that? I guess it's because people don't know basically anything about how software is made. Everyone knows that cars are made on a production line by robots and guys who weld and screw stuff together; everyone knows that movies are made by actors and other staff members running around in a studio in Hollywood; everyone even knows that computer chips are made by people in white clothes in a NASA-like room full of newest technology (at least that's how it looks on National Geographic or Discovery Channel but it's enough to make you see the purpose in paying for it). But what do they know about making software?