This sounds an awful lot like the Phantom, doesn't it? Except that they don't seem to be talking as much about DRM and content controls...
Sounds like it could swipe a lot of Phantom's market share, and Phantom needs a big market to be profitable.
Personally, I'm all for it. The idea of a market for PC games that don't work on actual PCs is offensive to me on many levels, but the idea that people buying a PC only for gaming should pay less than those buying one as a workstation seems to have a certain merit.
I have to agree with a post above, though, that I'm not sure how they're planning to make money. Oh, well.
With a DVD burner and everything right on there, this system seems like it would make a nice little Non-Linear Editting setup. If it includes FireWire (and my PS2 has FireWire, so I'd assume this thing will), they could hugely undercut the other platforms available for good quality video work - my PC based system was over $2k, a Mac is generally even more, and AVID has yet to drop bellow $50,000.
Now that would be convergence. You can bet I'd buy one.
In some respects, indie developers can have a better chance as startups, since in theory their overhead is lower. The games industry is a lot like the movie industry, in that the big budget titles, even if they're very popular, can often end up not making a lot of money.
Of course, there's always the need to define 'indie,' a problem that applies to games as much as music or movies. Just being small doesn't make you independent; if you've got a relationship with a publisher or larger company, that makes a big difference, even if your company/studio is only a handful of people.
Whether a truly 'indie' developer can survive depends a lot on the market they're going after. If they're doing a niche product, especially something a little retro, they've got a chance to make it on the quality of their product (or sometimes even lack of competition, although that's rare). If they embrace an alternative business model instead of vainly trying to get shelf space, they've got a shot. If, on the other hand, they want to actually compete with major developers and big publishers, they rarely stand much of a chance.
At least that's what I've seen. There are exceptions. There are a lot of ways to approach the games industry, for those with the will to do so.
Who modded the previous post up to 3 and marked it insightful? What's insightful about saying that socialism is the opposite of freedom? Capital-S Socialism is ownership of the means of production by the State. Lower-case-s socialism is essentially the idea that things should be managed in the public interest.
And to say that Capitalists value human life above all else is simply foolish. If this were true, then why are many of the wealthiest, and thus ostensibly most successful, Capitalists in or heavily invested in industries that either specifically seek to destroy, or as a side effect destroy, human life? The weapons used by the army are manufactured by private industry, sold to the government for profit; so are many of the weapons used by terrorists. And let us not forget tobacco, selling poison as a pastime, and the countless corporations who pressure the government to reduce or remove limits on how much they can pollute, because it's cheaper then not polluting?
In theory, you may be right. From the perspective of elightened self-interest, a Capitalist (and thus, a Capitalist society) should value human life more than anything else. In theory, the same should be true of Socialism, but it's rarely worked out that way in either case.
Quantum entanglement isn't nonsense, and I don't imagine that this teleportation experiment necessarily is either, but the article on The Australian site certainly seems to be. Am I the only one who found it to be incredibly poorly written? I'm somewhat familiar with the principles involved, but I couldn't make heads or tails of most of it.
More detailed my foot - it was gibberish. There were definite erorrs (a previous post already pointed out that the "spooky interactions" are instantaneous, not "at the speed of light"). It's a real shame, too - this may be near-sci-fi technology, but it really isn't so arcane that a little basic proof-reading couldn't be done on articles about it.
Maybe you should read it more carefully... That only applies to the software that's proprietary to Sony. Everything else is covered by a variety of licenses, including the GPL.
I should know, I read that bugger over pretty carefully before placing my preorder earlier today.;)
It seems like wearable computing is the ideal application for something like this, but also the one that isn't being pursued at all... In terms of just using it to carry data between your home and office, I agree that it's pretty useless. A small laptop with VGA and PS/2 ports fills that niche just fine.
Of course, exactly how usefull wearables really are is another debate entirely...
We've got a few P4 machines at my office, because we're writing software for Intel to use as demos at some kind of upcoming show (I'm not on that project, myself, but the guys across the hall from me are). So, I don't know about any problems with the machines, they seem to run fine...
Of course, the sorts of demos Intel's requested are pretty bogus... Full screen video, voice recognition, some networking stuff, none of which has much to do with the power of the processor...
Of course, the opposite would happen with German Perl. You'd create new words by concatenating existing ones, so you'd have a word 4,000 characters long which would do everything related to a specific task -- change one of the component phrases and the new word does something related yet different.
Rather than discussing the current crop of games in an adult way, perhaps a better approach would be to try to foster a generation of game creators who can think for themselves and want to distance themselves from what's expected of the so-called game "industry."
As a member of the current "so-called" games industry, I take a certain amount of offense at your statements, but also partially agree. As a gamer, I find them wholly idiotic. Rather then list games, or simply contradict you, I will refer to a previous post by someone else, which summed up the appropriate points nicely. A simplistic view of games and the games industry isn't any good, you're right. And that includes the 'let's nurture it into something we approve of and can understand' view. On a related point, it alwaus amazes me how many people feel qualified to make sweeping statements about video games. If people talked like this about film, or books, or radio, they'd be laughed at. Sure, there's a lot more books then games... But then, we've been writing a lot longer then we've been coding, eh?
The idea of some private enterprise or small, stable nation setting up a data haven and making some money while protecting people's free speech is a good one on the face of it (barring some potential practicality issues for the moment), but... Is it really free speech if it's only available to those who can pay? And if I can pay not to be shut down, why can't someone else pay more to shut me down? Bidding wars like that could get ugly. In the end, free speech is an issue that either needs to be properly solved (by actually having free speech in our nations of choice), or given up on. I, personally, can't stomach giving up on it quite yet.
Regarding the age differential (younger people want the term 'hackers' without the perjorative, old fogies don't mind;), I've noticed it too, but the other way around. When I did (and still on occaision do) insist on the hacker/cracker distinction, I'm told that I'm being 'old school', or words to that effect.
As far as conceding the debate, I did that a long time ago. As someone who's primarily a legitimate techie, but has sometimes engaged in cracking, I used to be very keen on telling the difference, but it really isn't worth it. (Though I'd be quite pleased if we could get the media to adopt 'Code Gods' as suggested earlier in this thread...)
As someone who works in the games industry, and is a big proponent of Open Source and Linux, I have to say that you're right in saying that it'll be hard to get people to switch over from DirectX, but I also have to say it's not for the technical reasons you make it sound like. Based on experience, DirectX slows down development, and most game programmers are familiar with libraries and architectures used in Linux - most of the people in my office have a Linux box at home. The real obstacle, even at a fairly good (from an employee perspective) company like the one I work at, is a pervasive corporate culture which has money and marketing people making the creative decisions.
What's really needed for Linux to become a realistic gaming platform isn't more ports (although I wouldn't discourage them), but more simultaneous development, similar to what is often done for titles which will be released for both console and PC. Without simultaneous development or games written exclusively for Linux, it will suffer the same fate gamers on the Mac have - You make less money porting then writing from scratch, and it's less appealing to the programmers and artists involved as well as management, so you'll never get done nearly as often.
Slashdot Mirror
This sounds an awful lot like the Phantom, doesn't it? Except that they don't seem to be talking as much about DRM and content controls...
Sounds like it could swipe a lot of Phantom's market share, and Phantom needs a big market to be profitable.
Personally, I'm all for it. The idea of a market for PC games that don't work on actual PCs is offensive to me on many levels, but the idea that people buying a PC only for gaming should pay less than those buying one as a workstation seems to have a certain merit.
I have to agree with a post above, though, that I'm not sure how they're planning to make money. Oh, well.
Bushi
With a DVD burner and everything right on there, this system seems like it would make a nice little Non-Linear Editting setup. If it includes FireWire (and my PS2 has FireWire, so I'd assume this thing will), they could hugely undercut the other platforms available for good quality video work - my PC based system was over $2k, a Mac is generally even more, and AVID has yet to drop bellow $50,000.
Now that would be convergence. You can bet I'd buy one.
Bushipunk
In some respects, indie developers can have a better chance as startups, since in theory their overhead is lower. The games industry is a lot like the movie industry, in that the big budget titles, even if they're very popular, can often end up not making a lot of money.
Of course, there's always the need to define 'indie,' a problem that applies to games as much as music or movies. Just being small doesn't make you independent; if you've got a relationship with a publisher or larger company, that makes a big difference, even if your company/studio is only a handful of people.
Whether a truly 'indie' developer can survive depends a lot on the market they're going after. If they're doing a niche product, especially something a little retro, they've got a chance to make it on the quality of their product (or sometimes even lack of competition, although that's rare). If they embrace an alternative business model instead of vainly trying to get shelf space, they've got a shot. If, on the other hand, they want to actually compete with major developers and big publishers, they rarely stand much of a chance.
At least that's what I've seen. There are exceptions. There are a lot of ways to approach the games industry, for those with the will to do so.
Bushi
Who modded the previous post up to 3 and marked it insightful? What's insightful about saying that socialism is the opposite of freedom? Capital-S Socialism is ownership of the means of production by the State. Lower-case-s socialism is essentially the idea that things should be managed in the public interest.
And to say that Capitalists value human life above all else is simply foolish. If this were true, then why are many of the wealthiest, and thus ostensibly most successful, Capitalists in or heavily invested in industries that either specifically seek to destroy, or as a side effect destroy, human life? The weapons used by the army are manufactured by private industry, sold to the government for profit; so are many of the weapons used by terrorists. And let us not forget tobacco, selling poison as a pastime, and the countless corporations who pressure the government to reduce or remove limits on how much they can pollute, because it's cheaper then not polluting?
In theory, you may be right. From the perspective of elightened self-interest, a Capitalist (and thus, a Capitalist society) should value human life more than anything else. In theory, the same should be true of Socialism, but it's rarely worked out that way in either case.
Quantum entanglement isn't nonsense, and I don't imagine that this teleportation experiment necessarily is either, but the article on The Australian site certainly seems to be. Am I the only one who found it to be incredibly poorly written? I'm somewhat familiar with the principles involved, but I couldn't make heads or tails of most of it.
More detailed my foot - it was gibberish. There were definite erorrs (a previous post already pointed out that the "spooky interactions" are instantaneous, not "at the speed of light"). It's a real shame, too - this may be near-sci-fi technology, but it really isn't so arcane that a little basic proof-reading couldn't be done on articles about it.
Maybe you should read it more carefully... That only applies to the software that's proprietary to Sony. Everything else is covered by a variety of licenses, including the GPL.
;)
I should know, I read that bugger over pretty carefully before placing my preorder earlier today.
It seems like wearable computing is the ideal application for something like this, but also the one that isn't being pursued at all... In terms of just using it to carry data between your home and office, I agree that it's pretty useless. A small laptop with VGA and PS/2 ports fills that niche just fine.
Of course, exactly how usefull wearables really are is another debate entirely...
We've got a few P4 machines at my office, because we're writing software for Intel to use as demos at some kind of upcoming show (I'm not on that project, myself, but the guys across the hall from me are). So, I don't know about any problems with the machines, they seem to run fine...
Of course, the sorts of demos Intel's requested are pretty bogus... Full screen video, voice recognition, some networking stuff, none of which has much to do with the power of the processor...
Of course, the opposite would happen with German Perl. You'd create new words by concatenating existing ones, so you'd have a word 4,000 characters long which would do everything related to a specific task -- change one of the component phrases and the new word does something related yet different.
Doesn't PERL work basically like that anyway?
Rather than discussing the current crop of games in an adult way, perhaps a better approach would be to try to foster a generation of game creators who can think for themselves and want to distance themselves from what's expected of the so-called game "industry."
As a member of the current "so-called" games industry, I take a certain amount of offense at your statements, but also partially agree. As a gamer, I find them wholly idiotic.
Rather then list games, or simply contradict you, I will refer to a previous post by someone else, which summed up the appropriate points nicely.
A simplistic view of games and the games industry isn't any good, you're right. And that includes the 'let's nurture it into something we approve of and can understand' view.
On a related point, it alwaus amazes me how many people feel qualified to make sweeping statements about video games. If people talked like this about film, or books, or radio, they'd be laughed at. Sure, there's a lot more books then games... But then, we've been writing a lot longer then we've been coding, eh?
The idea of some private enterprise or small, stable nation setting up a data haven and making some money while protecting people's free speech is a good one on the face of it (barring some potential practicality issues for the moment), but... Is it really free speech if it's only available to those who can pay? And if I can pay not to be shut down, why can't someone else pay more to shut me down? Bidding wars like that could get ugly. In the end, free speech is an issue that either needs to be properly solved (by actually having free speech in our nations of choice), or given up on. I, personally, can't stomach giving up on it quite yet.
Regarding the age differential (younger people want the term 'hackers' without the perjorative, old fogies don't mind;), I've noticed it too, but the other way around. When I did (and still on occaision do) insist on the hacker/cracker distinction, I'm told that I'm being 'old school', or words to that effect.
As far as conceding the debate, I did that a long time ago. As someone who's primarily a legitimate techie, but has sometimes engaged in cracking, I used to be very keen on telling the difference, but it really isn't worth it. (Though I'd be quite pleased if we could get the media to adopt 'Code Gods' as suggested earlier in this thread...)
As someone who works in the games industry, and is a big proponent of Open Source and Linux, I have to say that you're right in saying that it'll be hard to get people to switch over from DirectX, but I also have to say it's not for the technical reasons you make it sound like. Based on experience, DirectX slows down development, and most game programmers are familiar with libraries and architectures used in Linux - most of the people in my office have a Linux box at home. The real obstacle, even at a fairly good (from an employee perspective) company like the one I work at, is a pervasive corporate culture which has money and marketing people making the creative decisions.
What's really needed for Linux to become a realistic gaming platform isn't more ports (although I wouldn't discourage them), but more simultaneous development, similar to what is often done for titles which will be released for both console and PC. Without simultaneous development or games written exclusively for Linux, it will suffer the same fate gamers on the Mac have - You make less money porting then writing from scratch, and it's less appealing to the programmers and artists involved as well as management, so you'll never get done nearly as often.