(1) Sierra was creating Middle Earth MMORPG for several years before scrapping it. It couldn't straddle the Old and New Sierra eras (the latter being an era where Sierra Doesn't Exist, from the point of view of an old timer).
(2) Worldplay Games spent millions making Cyberpark, an online MMORPG and virtual environment. The project was bought by AOL which eventually cancelled it. The technology was functional and could house thousands of people, but which floundered over business model concerns at AOL and a related lack of direction. I still don't think that the current MMORPG have as good of a hosting architecture... but I'm biased.
Indeed, this is the frustrating thing about the game industy, there is a ton of work thrown away or spoiled.
hey, I resent that remark! Hawaii would also be a significant entitiy... luau baby!
I say, east coast, join the european union.
Texas, become independent (this will get the Dove's in California to support a big Defense Budget for a change) and the west coast can join the Pacific Rim Union, Hawaii can be a soveriegn nation again since the US government has admitted several times it was illegally annexed.
do you also say it is just a myth that consoles have often been sold below their manufacturing costs?
Point one: make that "initial cost".
I have read the Actsofgord page and I'm not that impressed. I remember people talking about this sort of a plan for computers long before Sony Playstation as the industry in general constantly buzzes about how to really make money, where to put the margins, etc. In consumer software you can make a load off volume software, and every title benefits from the wide base. Selling the machine for as little as possible is an obvious and good strategy.
I worked for The Sierra Network. I claim only that this is an industry myth if it's a myth at all, and not just some internet outsider myth, as implied. Further, I don't think it's a myth just because it's not an immutible law. It's common knowledge. It bears some accuracy to the way console economics have been set up so far.
I think the actsofgord answer is too pat. The analysis of where the profit on a million Playstation's might come from was simplistic. And it doesn't change the fact that the profit is driven up from below. If you start selling near cost or even below initially, you can be sure to get profit in proportion to your ability to optimize your processes. It's a great way to do techical capitalism because it's agressive and the reward becomes directly proportional to the technical improvements you can accomplish from increased efficiency.
It's just a little bit more factual than something you heard somewhere.
I worked as a software engineer in the game industry for six years at the senior and lead level.
The PlayStation 2 has been on the market for almost two years and has sold more than 30 million units worldwide, giving Sony plenty of time to rein in production costs.
this is how I described the situation, as happenening initially under cost, while reducing the cost of production to turn a profit. The short term profit is generated by game licencing and really is more important.
actsofgord is not up at the moment, so I'll have to read that later, although I believe I may have read it in the past.
It's common knowledge in the game business... 3D0 was said to have had the same plan. It may still be myth, but it's more than "something you heard somewhere". Especially if Gord is the only source you are basing this on. But I'll have to check it to reply.
try this: it's a PC that MS controls totally, where anyone that wants to make software for it has to pay MS... but it's a PC, it was designed by an open standard... it epitomizes decommoditization, which is a control technique. You gain nothing!
>The desire among the overzelous Linuxites for the Xbox to fail is palpatable at Slashdot. Just look all the posts advising people to buy a Xbox but not buy any games. Just so MS can lose money. Its pathetic and sad.
you are right... don't buy one and they lose the TOTAL cost of production!
I couldn't care less about "serious gaming", which is an oxymoron in my book anyway. The Xbox is Microsoft's attempt to get a digital hub in the home, the elusive set top box that is going to be the way 90% of people experience the net and digital automation (so they have been saying for 10 years). The Xbox, if it is good, is only good as bait. Frankly, if one fish tells another, "but it's the best tasting thing ever!", it's not a convincing argument.
iow, judging thing purely on the "techical merits" even if subjectivity is falsely assumed to not play a role, is NOT the most circumspect strategy. There is a bigger game. One that really is "serious".
the point however, is still that they are selling these things near cost, which means that sometimes it's a loss (when some cost temporarilly rises) and sometimes it is a gain (when they manage to cut some cost). The basic dynamic is still accurate. Profit from the games (and momentum) by controlling a platform that has critical mass. It's a lock in technique...which is why MS covets it. I think the time is coming for a commodotized set-top/console. Yep, should happen in the next 50 years! roflamoj
it's not a myth... initially they sell at a loss and they improve manufacturing techniques to eventually sell at a slim profit, at least everything I've read indicates that. It's a matter of anticipating what the true cost will be and smoothing your pricing... meaning initially, when manufacturing costs are higher, you sell under the cost. This is also why the game companies tend toward the draconian on requiring developers to pay up for the priviledge (which to me is insane... if I want to make an accessory that fits Fords... why should I have to pay ford for the priv?)
it's not "just as much" a theory. You are thinking, perhaps, that something is either a theory or it's not.... no, all knowledge is a theory, and they can be compared on whichever basis you care to define. Define one in which evolution is not more well founded as a theory.
Re:Next Up in the Obvious Category...
on
Design Patterns
·
· Score: 1
think of the children... they havn't heard this yet.
and besides, overexposure is how things become acknowledged classics. Really, this book should be mentioned yearly on any site where logicians might happen to wander by. I mean, think of the people that just by chance havn't heard of this (they were living in the underground cities, or the bottom of the sea or something)... and mostly, think of the children.
A bit dry? Old? Hmmm. These are logical patterns. It's about as likely that they will become obsolete in a decade as say the conditional of predicate logic will! Hmmm, first order logic...formal "and" and "or", uh oh, it's over 2000 years old, it's starting to show it's age! We need something new!
I know the review is positive, but I just couldn't avoid the new-is-better fallacy of that writing. To use a pattern or not, that's a question whose answer might change, but the only thing that would make Design Patterns obsolete is... well, nothing, the patterns could have errors, that's all. That doesn't mean they are the best solution to a given problem... but they are not presented as that. They are presented as logical abstractions for certain systems and they will always be logical abstraction for certain systems! They even mention that some of their patterns are not the efficient or best way to make the system under consideration (e.g. parsers), just like using logic isn't always the best way to make a compelling argument... but the logic does not thereby become obsolete!
from what you say it doesn't matter what your CMM auditor says anymore than Anderson saying Enron was it fit shape! You are at Level 1, because there is no lower level.
But nothing personal... it's a struggle. How annoying when a good system like that just becomes a buzz word to buy for yourself (as if it's not really important in fact...)
Re:I turned down a well paying job at Walgreens
on
Suit Up Or Ship Out?
·
· Score: 1
I have no CMM Level 5, you insensitive clod....
just a little/. joke/joke....:)
ah, if I could pull us kicking and screaming to CMM level 3 I'd be a happy man. At least I think I would.
Slashdot Mirror
(1) Sierra was creating Middle Earth MMORPG for several years before scrapping it. It couldn't straddle the Old and New Sierra eras (the latter being an era where Sierra Doesn't Exist, from the point of view of an old timer).
(2) Worldplay Games spent millions making Cyberpark, an online MMORPG and virtual environment. The project was bought by AOL which eventually cancelled it. The technology was functional and could house thousands of people, but which floundered over business model concerns at AOL and a related lack of direction. I still don't think that the current MMORPG have as good of a hosting architecture... but I'm biased.
Indeed, this is the frustrating thing about the game industy, there is a ton of work thrown away or spoiled.
hey, I resent that remark! Hawaii would also be a significant entitiy... luau baby!
I say, east coast, join the european union.
Texas, become independent (this will get the Dove's in California to support a big Defense Budget for a change) and the west coast can join the Pacific Rim Union, Hawaii can be a soveriegn nation again since the US government has admitted several times it was illegally annexed.
...but... but.... didn't you hear... newer is better.
====
Just kidding, I agree with you 100%, but then I'm not the newest thing myself any more.
> I hate to pick nits
hell... who doesn't?! but it's better than having lice!
if you think that a PR war is about being "fair" then you don't watch how MS wages one!
this makes no sense whatever.
as another poster pointed out...
you are thinking of the "free market" and competition within it. Capitalism is about "capital", and being able to make money from property rights.
define "sentient"
why do you ask?
do you also say it is just a myth that consoles have often been sold below their manufacturing costs?
Point one: make that "initial cost".
I have read the Actsofgord page and I'm not that impressed. I remember people talking about this sort of a plan for computers long before Sony Playstation as the industry in general constantly buzzes about how to really make money, where to put the margins, etc. In consumer software you can make a load off volume software, and every title benefits from the wide base. Selling the machine for as little as possible is an obvious and good strategy.
I worked for The Sierra Network. I claim only that this is an industry myth if it's a myth at all, and not just some internet outsider myth, as implied. Further, I don't think it's a myth just because it's not an immutible law. It's common knowledge. It bears some accuracy to the way console economics have been set up so far.
I think the actsofgord answer is too pat. The analysis of where the profit on a million Playstation's might come from was simplistic. And it doesn't change the fact that the profit is driven up from below. If you start selling near cost or even below initially, you can be sure to get profit in proportion to your ability to optimize your processes. It's a great way to do techical capitalism because it's agressive and the reward becomes directly proportional to the technical improvements you can accomplish from increased efficiency.
It's just a little bit more factual than something you heard somewhere.
I worked as a software engineer in the game industry for six years at the senior and lead level.
The PlayStation 2 has been on the market for almost two years and has sold more than 30 million units worldwide, giving Sony plenty of time to rein in production costs.
this is how I described the situation, as happenening initially under cost, while reducing the cost of production to turn a profit. The short term profit is generated by game licencing and really is more important.
actsofgord is not up at the moment, so I'll have to read that later, although I believe I may have read it in the past.
It's common knowledge in the game business... 3D0 was said to have had the same plan. It may still be myth, but it's more than "something you heard somewhere". Especially if Gord is the only source you are basing this on. But I'll have to check it to reply.
evidence? then.
try this: it's a PC that MS controls totally, where anyone that wants to make software for it has to pay MS... but it's a PC, it was designed by an open standard... it epitomizes decommoditization, which is a control technique. You gain nothing!
>The desire among the overzelous Linuxites for the Xbox to fail is palpatable at Slashdot. Just look all the posts advising people to buy a Xbox but not buy any games. Just so MS can lose money. Its pathetic and sad.
you are right... don't buy one and they lose the TOTAL cost of production!
I couldn't care less about "serious gaming", which is an oxymoron in my book anyway. The Xbox is Microsoft's attempt to get a digital hub in the home, the elusive set top box that is going to be the way 90% of people experience the net and digital automation (so they have been saying for 10 years). The Xbox, if it is good, is only good as bait. Frankly, if one fish tells another, "but it's the best tasting thing ever!", it's not a convincing argument.
iow, judging thing purely on the "techical merits" even if subjectivity is falsely assumed to not play a role, is NOT the most circumspect strategy. There is a bigger game. One that really is "serious".
the point however, is still that they are selling these things near cost, which means that sometimes it's a loss (when some cost temporarilly rises) and sometimes it is a gain (when they manage to cut some cost). The basic dynamic is still accurate. Profit from the games (and momentum) by controlling a platform that has critical mass. It's a lock in technique...which is why MS covets it. I think the time is coming for a commodotized set-top/console. Yep, should happen in the next 50 years! roflamoj
it's not a myth... initially they sell at a loss and they improve manufacturing techniques to eventually sell at a slim profit, at least everything I've read indicates that. It's a matter of anticipating what the true cost will be and smoothing your pricing... meaning initially, when manufacturing costs are higher, you sell under the cost. This is also why the game companies tend toward the draconian on requiring developers to pay up for the priviledge (which to me is insane... if I want to make an accessory that fits Fords... why should I have to pay ford for the priv?)
very funny.
the point, if you really missed it, is that downloading vs. uploading is NOT as significant a difference as the the one between a sink and a toilet.
I think it's more like a distinction that hardly matters at all...
The source: There is no power.
it's not "just as much" a theory. You are thinking, perhaps, that something is either a theory or it's not.... no, all knowledge is a theory, and they can be compared on whichever basis you care to define. Define one in which evolution is not more well founded as a theory.
think of the children... they havn't heard this yet.
and besides, overexposure is how things become acknowledged classics. Really, this book should be mentioned yearly on any site where logicians might happen to wander by. I mean, think of the people that just by chance havn't heard of this (they were living in the underground cities, or the bottom of the sea or something)... and mostly, think of the children.
A bit dry? Old? Hmmm. These are logical patterns. It's about as likely that they will become obsolete in a decade as say the conditional of predicate logic will! Hmmm, first order logic...formal "and" and "or", uh oh, it's over 2000 years old, it's starting to show it's age! We need something new!
I know the review is positive, but I just couldn't avoid the new-is-better fallacy of that writing. To use a pattern or not, that's a question whose answer might change, but the only thing that would make Design Patterns obsolete is... well, nothing, the patterns could have errors, that's all. That doesn't mean they are the best solution to a given problem... but they are not presented as that. They are presented as logical abstractions for certain systems and they will always be logical abstraction for certain systems! They even mention that some of their patterns are not the efficient or best way to make the system under consideration (e.g. parsers), just like using logic isn't always the best way to make a compelling argument... but the logic does not thereby become obsolete!
well done!
you are insane if you think you can weed out good programmers from bad by such a dress code!!! dream on, I say.
from what you say it doesn't matter what your CMM auditor says anymore than Anderson saying Enron was it fit shape! You are at Level 1, because there is no lower level.
But nothing personal... it's a struggle. How annoying when a good system like that just becomes a buzz word to buy for yourself (as if it's not really important in fact...)
I have no CMM Level 5, you insensitive clod....
/. joke/joke.... :)
just a little
ah, if I could pull us kicking and screaming to CMM level 3 I'd be a happy man. At least I think I would.