perhaps that was worded poorly, but the point is that the current markets do not benefit a company who invests in shared infrastructure. if i was on their board of directors - i wouldn't want them to either.
look at the foot dragging and the finger pointing following the NE blackout (and they still havent' definitively said whose fault it was). it highlights the fact that no company wants to take responsibility for the shared infrastructure (and incur repair costs that will hurt them agains their competition) -- and in the meantime the consumers suffer.
look at cities with monopolistic cable control. consumers pay exorbitant rates and suffer through undesireable outages. why? because the cable company -knows- there is no competition, so why would it pay for more maintenance staff, or take on more temps after a big storm?
their economics lead them to refine their staffing so they can keep service just barely above an absolute minimum level of quality (just enough to not get sued). Consumers don't want this, but again, they have no choice.
I'm not blaming business - again, if i was running these companies - i'd do the same thing. The government-sanctioned infrastructure monopoly and the ownerless-infrastructure utility markets are to blame.
Create a municipal infrastructure and consumers can vote via tax-increases on acceptable maintenance rates -independently- of their decision of which telecom provider offers the best long distance, or which cable company offers the best channel package.
quality products are created by the free market, only when the economics support the company's that create quality products. The economics of monopolies and ownerless-infrastructure utility markets do -not- reward companies who deliver the best quality.
By including the above notice in a Licensed Implementation, you will be deemed to have accepted the terms and conditions of this license.
If you put the 'i'm following the MS license' header in your code like they ask, you are explicitly stating that you accept the license.
You are not licensed to distribute a 'Licensed Implementation' under license terms and conditions, that prohibit the terms and conditions of this license.
You can't distribute any code using the licensed tools/specs that violates or circumvents the terms you are agreeing to.
You are not licensed to sublicense or transfer your rights.
You can't -sell- licenses in any way. Only Microsoft can.
I'm not entirely certain what you mean by 'open source implementation' but these two paragraphs don't preclude, for example, a word xml to open-office xml document conversion routine.
unless GPLing an implementation is specifically against the terms in another location. (i haven't carefully read the whole thing, but i didn't see that clause) In that case, the conversion code itself couldn't be released under the GPL, but a conversion module could still be created for open-office and distributed (for free) as closed-source.
it does also preclude anyone trying to -sell- a word document conversion routine - unless they purchase the rights to do so from Microsoft. So Sun would have to pay if Star-Office wanted to sell a bulk conversion routine widget. they may possibly even have to purchase licenses if they wanted to include any document conversion whatsoever. (again, i haven't gone over the whole thing carefully - but the exclusions only apply to commercial endeavors, not free software. )
This is all personal opinion. It ain't official legal advice. I ain't yer lawyer.
the author is simply saying there is nothing quantitative about RPG conventions that lead to 'good' games.
in actuality, all quantitative measurements of RPGs will show that they, by definition, -aren't- good games on average. Clicking doesn't make them fun, and neither does deciding whether you'll use swords or axes before you even start the game.
it's all about the qualitative story and character development - and keeping the player engaged. RPGs tend to have a much better, and deeper story, with real character attachment than the other games on the market. -That- undefinable aspect is what makes them RPGs, and what makes them fun.
The point is: when you break down an RPG, -nothing-else-matters- but the story and having a character the player likes. yet most traditional RPG developers haven't realized this, and are sticking with convention over and over again.
'save-die-reload' is a prominent 'bad for story' design decision that -keeps- getting made within the genre. why? simply because its convention, and designers are loath to shy away from what they think rpg gamers 'expect'. indeed they might be right. bioware may have had a hardcore PC gamer revolt if NWN had a KOTOR-style 'death' system. (console gamers seem to be much more open to make concessions to keep the fun coming)
blind, irreversable, character specialization is another bad design decision. it simply isn't fun (when you only have one PC), that before the game even begins, you decide to start as a rogue-type only to find out that the game is mostly hack and slash, with very little opportunity to skulk and surprise, and you're screwed. you tick of the gamer and essentially have added a -worthless- character option. Granted, this problem isn't a big one when you are controlling a group of characters, but this style of CRPG is quickly becoming the minority.
skill based advancement simply makes much more sense - where your character improves based on how you use him, or when you choose as you play how to improve your character's skills. it also jumps the player right into the game. you know - the fun part? why does the CRPG genre stick to the RPG convention of focused specialization? it works in p&p only because there's a -group- of players who can work together. in a single-PC CRPG, it's a ticket to frustration and indecision. Make a bad level-up decision and you may be screwed.
the 'core' RPG is dying out because it should. the renaissance is coming from other genre's that are co-opting the -good- aspects of rpgs. The rpg elements in GTA:Vice City, Freedom Fighters, and the Sims are -preferable- to games like Dark Alliance, D&D Heroes, and NWN.
that's the whole point. the conventions that have been co-opted from group-centric, GM-hand-tuned gameplay of pen and paper -dont- work in single-player focused CRPGs.
(pen & paper rules only work because the GM can fudge things to keep the game fun for the players. a CRPG can't do that, it can't tell when a player is getting pissed at a 'cheap' fight.)
It's when developers throw out the preconceived notion of what RPGs -are- that they will truly be able to move these games forward.
I personally think this is the appopriate way to move forward with public infrastructure. The community pools together resources from taxes to pay for its own infrastructure - and then allow service providers to pay for access (to help defray up-front infrastructure costs) and actually compete for consumer dollars.
Create a municipal digital network, and allow cable/telecom companies to actually compete. If anything, people should have learned their lesson -- when Comcast offers to build your infrastructure 'for free', its monopoly is going to cost more than the upfront cost to have done it publicly.
Similarly with power lines and water/sewer. There is a basic conflict of interest between a corporations who are focused on profit above all else, and the public good which is focused on dependability and quality above all else. for example: consider the power transmission infrastructure.
sure, if the consumer cares about quality and dependability, the free-market should bear out those providers who manage such standards. However, the shared infrastruture -punishes- companies who invest (all its competitors benefit from the increased quality, only the investor takes the financial hit and then has to charge -more-, pricing itself out of the game).
The logical step is simply taking jurisdiction of the local lines back on the local level, and the long-haul lines on the federal level (think US highway/road system).
it's not like our infrastructure couldn't use a nice big upgrade anyway. and the telecom industry could certainly benefit from some public works projects to bid on.
slander and libel have laws that govern a similar -civil- infraction regarding -possible- but -unproveable- economic losses due to a non-physically damaging action.
and we don't put people in federal prison for that.
see that's funny - story in my mind is easy in a video game when you're not allowed to do anything.
games are about gameplay, and imo everything after IV had progressively less gameplay. though they've all had pretty good combat - but that's what tactics is for, right?
maybe it's just my preference for western dynamic-story open gameplay rpgs as opposed to the more eastern solid compressed story, linear progression, linear gameplay rpgs.
I must be getting to old. i thought I and II were great, III and IV were questionable, and everything after that was right out.
and what's with gamespot? one week it's 'uh oh, something leaked from a magazine, we have morals, we won't link or post to copyrighted materials'. now it's 'sweet, a leak! here's some pics!'
oh, when they say 2005 - they mean christmas 2005, which is the broad release estimate that all 3 console makers have been giving for the nextgen gear.
but anyway, this coming out exactly 1 year before the nextgen strongly suggests that it is a refresher for the line. perhaps simply just a repackaged gamecube (here's wishing they add 64/snes backwards compat).
but the one year lead is inline with sony's demonstration of the success of restructuring your existing console to take advantage of lower manufacturing and component costs, and shipping the old product in a new sleek design at lower cost a year before your new design. Nintendo may be trying to bring their costs down to mitigate production losses at their current price. The Gamecube may have made money for nintendo on each sale at $200, but it's very unlikely that it's still a direct profit item at its $100 price.
it has long been rumored that MS is indeed planning the same thing for the xbox, and sony's announced pvr/digital tv tuner/ps2 certainly sounds like they aren't bucking the trend.
Releasing the next gen nintendo box now would be a -bad- move. developer support for the gamecube has been evaporating - but the trend may reverse itself due to the GC's strong sales with its new superlow price. if they keep to the official schedule, they have a shot at getting developers back on board with their refresh product, and actually have some 3rd party games for their next console.
besides, if it was the nextgen console - there'd already have to have been developer kits sent out, and someone would've leaked something - one does not crank out games for nintendo in 10 months. (nintendo not being a fan of shovelware)
hardcore gamers make up the majority of the xbox numbers. naturally you'd expect to find more of them in a college setting.
ps2 sales have predominately been to casual gamers. why else could the ps2 have 4x the installed base and yet there's still an actual competition on the game sales chart each month? one would expect even a halfway decent title for the ps2 to have 2x the numbers as a good xbox game, and yet that doesn't happen.
because xbox gamers buy more games. because they have more hardcore gamers - and hardcore gamers buy more games.
hell, alot of the ps2 installed base was solely due to the dvd playback functionality. that and 'playstation' was the name on the tongues of parents come the holiday season. 'xbox' is relatively new, and parents are always buying last generation's winnner. (note strong n64 console sales despite ps1 overall dominance)
but frankly, i could care less whether there are 'more' people on one service or not. pc gaming taught me that you're better off -not- playing than playing against HPBs. it just isn't fun to try to shoot someone with a 400ms ping. xbl does its damndest to minimize lag, and for that i applaud it. (though they'd do better to have more highbandwidth dedicated servers like unreal has)
microsoft had the foresight to realize that a consistant, quality experience was the way to bring console gamers online to stay.
Sony's just trying to keep up, and as the original poster pointed out - is leading due to their raw numbers. keep in mind, their lead isn't that significant, and their product is -free-. microsoft can not only charge for their better product - but they can charge -and- compete with free.
Trespasser may have been patently unfun - but he obviously knew something about console design and specification.
The xbox, hands down, has the best hardware package for consumers and the most attractive tools for developers.
any negative statements you may have about him, you have to grant him that much. the only things they could've done better, was streaming media capability from network shares -> xbox -> tv/audio (mp3/divx/avi/etc), and using the -standard- usb interface for controllers/memory devices. (even with the xbox-specific plug it would've been fine. why did they bother to change the specs?)
I just hope people don't confuse CEG for an actual independent game distribution channel. as you pointed out - it seemed more like a john romero-type cult of personality for sale.
i'd think it'd be due to the fact that linux geeks are more likely to be part of the hard-core segment.
no offense to the poster, but their fairly good massmog is still fairly obscure. that's mostly due to independents having a hell of a time with marketing - and combines with no retail box on the shelf.
no box in best buy limits your exposure to the mass MS PC market, and all that's left is hardcore gamers who find most of their games through word of mouth or surfing.
then there's the gameplay. Atitd is really skewed toward the player-created-content segment (which is great) which one would expect is a natural fit for the linux/hacker mentality.
of course, given all that, i'm surprised the linux adoption rate isn't higher - though i'd bet that has more to do with the monthly price.
which imo, still intending no offense to the poster, is still a bit steep for anyone with only casual-gamer levels of free-time. linux fans being hardcore hackers - they could generally be expected to code just as much in their free time as play games. and then its all a matter of personal economics.
(naturally i know nothing of the actual economics of massmog production, so the price may be absolutely necessary. i do recognize that the price is on par with other massmogs, and combined with the no up-front box cost the game comes out dramatically cheaper - so its certainly reasonable. but i do however know my personal economics. and $13/mo for ~20-30 hours of play isn't in the budget. of course, that's why no massmog is in my budget, but i digress)
there's something to be said for limited application resubmissions.
the current malicious patent application process is to submit as broad and vague a patent as possible (particularly in software) and resubmit over and over, narrowing it down only as much as the particular examiner requires. (not all patent applying company's do this - but the ones who do, -always- do).
at some point there should be a mechanism to prevent such obvious and disingenuous 'gaming' of the system.
the patent idea is supposed to be cooperative: a limited monopoly for an inventor in return for public disclosure of the invention (provided it meets the qualifications for being patentable), with the intent of enriching the public domain.
the business practice of filing patents for litigation purposes (sue your competitors out of business because they can't even afford to -defend- themselves) - is equal parts sickening and maddening.
Patent litigation should have to go through a review process at the USPTO to determine fitness of the claim (paid for by the sue-er, reimbursed by the infringer in the event of guilt).
instead we wind up having vague patents that are pushed across a reviewer's desk as fast as possible, being enforced in a court of law that does not and should not have the technical expertise to determine veracity of the claim.
If there was an internal USPTO review process prior to litigation - then they'd have the authority to revoke, suspend, or demand more specific clarification of overly broad patents that slipped through.
but for some reason there's never a call to restructure the procedures for established government bureaus. even when disaster strikes, and the problems hit the forefront, the solution always seems to be simply to create yet-another-layer of bureaucracy.
the romanized spelling of their mission is simply 'change'. (Chang'e I)
guess we oughta get used to the idea that only china has something left to prove politically in space, and the resources to do it.
combine their drive, resources, and that they learned from the US situation and are sticking with proven technology specifically designed for the mission at hand -- and China will either meltdown or raise the bar outside our atmosphere.
it's gonna be a different world when you have to learn Mandarin to vacation on the moon.
This is precisely the problem. Do independent, innovative games -need- to make any money? I mean, doubtlessly even mild success in a download environment can manage to sustain a dedicated game maker. and sustenance is about all one can hope for.
But i don't believe consoles will ever be open to independent game makers. the companies demand too much trust between themselves and the developer (to avoid supplying a digital certificate to someone who is only going to release a solder-less hack of their hardware). They're more the big market cineplex - whereas independents need to focus on the PC, which by sales, is more like the art house cinemas. sure they run hits - but they're the only place you'll find independent work.
in short, i think the quest to find money for a 'professional' development of any insanely great new innovative game idea is unlikely to ever succeed, and based on a false premise.
innovation is not tied to commercial success. if you innovate, you -can- create, define and dominate a genre that goes mainstream. but you don't have to have 'EA' on the label, or make piles of money to do so (wolfenstein and triad being modest successes at best) but the odds are even greater that you won't - and overwhelmingly against you being able to offset a $15m budget.
even if one innovative game makes its money back, all it takes is one more to fail, to make the whole concept a business loss to a suit. and like it or not, they run the companies - because they have good business sense. do you really want someone gambling on ideas with the jobs of 100+ employees in the balance?
parappa and other 'innovative' mainstream titles are almost always created due to the track record of the designers behind them. even EA thought 'the Sims' was a bomb waiting to happen, but because it was will wright, they gave him a modest budget. Similarly with games like Pikmin.
And Parappa was not made on the cheap. It was -relatively- cheap, because it didn't require the numerous models and maps of a typical console sports/fps/racer game. It was more puzzle-game-ish in scope. but it got mainstream funding because of Masaya Matsuura.
If you want a big budget to innovate you first have to -prove- yourself. And that means that somewhere along the line, you have to bite the bullet and accept that your first innovative game can not and perhaps should not be a big budget endeavor.
but as we all know, making -all- your customers jump through hoops that at best slow the criminals down by a few weeks, is not good business.
and their revenue model is predicated upon illegal vertical, -and- horizontal collusion, monopolistic practices, and price fixing (proven guilty on all counts, remember the class action suit?).
seeing as how the reported sales decline is certainly representing the minority of music purchasers, and does seem to at least correlate with the rise of consumer embracing of digital distribution - it's fair to assume we're talking primarily about meeting the needs the technical minority of their consumers, whilst avoiding making things more complicated for the nontechnical majority.
the cost/benefit of these schemes is not in their interests. instead of fighting the impossible fight (whether it's the Good Fight(tm) or not) - is pointless. You can compete with free (see: bottled water).
legit online music services continue to grow and flourish, even though DRM-less mp3s are free and theoretically just as many clicks away. but it turns out that consumers would rather -not- break the law if they can get a product for a non-fixed price.
combine that with the fact that p2p apps will never actually be able to compete on quality, convenience, or consistancy. they involve too much client trust, which is too easy to abuse (low quality, mislabelled content, or outright deceptive practices and flooding with junk ).
in the end, i get the feeling they're spending more on PR, lawsuits and copy protection to crack down on this single-digit decline, than on getting on-board with digital distribution (which seems to be precisely what the downloading market segment wants).
but the RIAA realizes that the artists and consumers are not morons and not happy about the last few decades of their monopolistic practices. digital distribution -will- catch on, and their control over the entire scheme will fail. so they are sticking to DRM, lawsuits and FUD - not just to protect their revenue model - but to protect their -monopolistic- revenue model.
regardless of image and reality being what they are, if MS doesn't drop prices a wee bit for this holiday season (i kinda figured 3rd week of november too, maybe leak the price drop a few days before thanksgiving, feed the frenzy) then they may well not have the installed base at the end of 04 for xboxnext to matter. it'd likely be released and struggle without 3rd party support like the dreamcast.
although, sony also has its pvr/satellite/ps2 box releasing soon in japan. one would wonder if MS has an answer for that, should it come to america in 04.
i think it a foregone conclusion that MS will have pvr and tv tuning in xbox next - but it'd be interesting to see if they could cram it into the xbox refresh. the necessary larger hard drive might totally break their heat specs and current designs though.
one of the few things that makes sole cell ownership preferable to a landline is that the cell companies don't (or can't) sell their registries to telemarketers.
since i've gone land-line-less... hell i didn't even -need- the do-not-call registry.
but if i took my landline number onto my cell service - man i'd be doubly infuriated at any telemarketing - even if it was restricted to traffic allowed by the do-not-call registry.
(non-profits, political advocacy, and any company who has sold you products or services in the last 18 months -- all cleared to bother you as much as they want.)
if sony plans on a holiday 05 launch, and MS plans to beat them to market (as has been claimed) MS has to be ready at least for an 05 launch. which means the redesign, ideally, should be up for a christmas 04 launch.
but the absurdly low price of the GC has changed the landscape a bit.
currently the xbox is the number 2 system (at least in the minds of developers) - but if the GC continues to sell red-hot at firesale prices, that may all change before christmas 04. You may see developer support shifting back toward the GC.
as such i was half expecting a holiday US price cut to $150 w/2 games and the redesign at $100 at least by summer 04. (which means more rumors and leaked specs/designs should be circulating right about now )
but really, i'm only asking because it's all more interesting to me than a japanese price cut, which simply brings their price on par with the fairly longstanding US/european pricing.
THOSE people who are ripping CDs to post to file sharing networks -will-not- be stopped by DRM or copy protection schemes.
at best you will slow them down on your initial CD release. but in easily under a month, your scheme will be cracked and every CD you produce will be just as available. the difference is that they are still doing it for free (just time investment) whereas the labels spend big money on such schemes, that ultimately -has- to either result in lost jobs, lost profits, or higher prices.
rest assured they won't be posting the DRM'd copies.
At the absolute best the studios could ever hope for, the current CD rippers will resort to the analog loophole, and plug the lineout from a discman into their sound card and rip that way.
the smaller, lighter, cheaper one that's been rumored?
if MS is going to beat Sony's ps3 to market with their xbox next, they're running short on their window to release a refresher product.
particularly with their less-than-dominant market share, one wouldn't expect it to be worth the investment to redesign the thing if it's only going to be on sale a few months ahead of the xb2.
i'm thinking that the redesign is the only hope for further US price cuts.
... don't make innovative games cost $15m to develop.
innovative games, like independent film -should- stay in the background and away from big money publishers whose sole goal is to make games that appeal to established genres.
the film/game metaphor is also appropriate because the current economics of getting a game onto the shelf at Best Buy or Wal Mart are comparable to getting a film on a reel at an AMC or Lowes cineplex. The primary difference being of course - games don't have to be limited in distribution channels.
Should online distribution take off, it's just a matter of word of mouth. the key of course, is online distribution. if you want innovative games to be 'popular' that is. Which personally, i don't think is even necessary for gaming culture to remain healthy.
Lets face it, most of the independent films that are out there don't appeal to all your family or friends like Pirates of the Carribean. They can't. They're edgy and quirky on purpose, whereas Pirates was designed ground-up to appeal to anyone and everyone. This doesn't mean that mass market games or films are less-good, just that they're not innovative by design. If an independent film hits a chord in the hardcore audience, it influences mainstream film.
Similarly, if the hardcore gaming audience downloads an innovative game and talks it up - it will doubtlessly influence mainstream gaming. the shareware days of id pretty much -created- the first person shooter genre through word of mouth. and rise of the triad and wolfenstein were certainly not mainstream. (of course, nothing really was)
but it's simple economics. why -should- publishers take risks on unproven designs? why throw a full budget behind a game that may not appeal to -anyone-? risks should be taken on small scales, and capitalized on when successful.
I mean, innovation and originality isn't vindicated solely by mass appeal, so why demand that?
All you need is an established 'independent' gaming forum and distribution channel. the IGF is good, but it needs to partner with a news/review source that can pay some lip service to more than just the 5 'best' games. combine that with an online distribution mechanism to let these games get purchased for reasonable prices (think $5-10) and lets get on with the game playing.
of course once you do that I think you'll find out what many of us already know. There isn't an independent gaming culture, because there aren't enough independent games. and this is entirely the fault of the current crop of independent developers.
most independent game developers need to realize that they can't compete with carmack and sweeney on glitz. they don't have the budgets or the QA resources to make sure their shader programs work properly on every machine. similarly, independents can never make more maps than ritual or more zones than sony. and they really can't demand top-of-the-line system requirements, as most innovative game enthusiasts aren't hardware enthusiasts. they get what they need to play games, and certainly don't rush out to buy a p4 or gf4 just to play the latest big budget fps.
look at puzzle games: 'independent' is an unnecessary clause because of the extremely broad array of producers. the simplistic scope of such games makes it a fertile genre - precisely because no-one is trying to push the graphics envelope or the 'content' envelope. just as independent films can't show up big studio effects, or number of exotic locations.
once again proving nothing online is private...
on
Google Expanding To IRC?
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
like archiving email, usenet, and web traffic before it - this is simply a reminder that nothing you type through an open network is -private-. this is a lesson most of us should have learned a long time ago.
but this isn't an invasion of privacy. there's no expectation of privacy when you log onto a public chat board. just as there's no expectation of privacy should you decide to walk naked through a park.
the best you can hope for online is pseudonymity. but that's out the window with the combined power of google. which is quickly becoming the internet's inadvertant Big Brother.
the primary difference being, google works -for- the people just as much as it works -against- the people.
Slashdot Mirror
perhaps that was worded poorly, but the point is that the current markets do not benefit a company who invests in shared infrastructure. if i was on their board of directors - i wouldn't want them to either.
look at the foot dragging and the finger pointing following the NE blackout (and they still havent' definitively said whose fault it was). it highlights the fact that no company wants to take responsibility for the shared infrastructure (and incur repair costs that will hurt them agains their competition) -- and in the meantime the consumers suffer.
look at cities with monopolistic cable control. consumers pay exorbitant rates and suffer through undesireable outages. why? because the cable company -knows- there is no competition, so why would it pay for more maintenance staff, or take on more temps after a big storm?
their economics lead them to refine their staffing so they can keep service just barely above an absolute minimum level of quality (just enough to not get sued). Consumers don't want this, but again, they have no choice.
I'm not blaming business - again, if i was running these companies - i'd do the same thing. The government-sanctioned infrastructure monopoly and the ownerless-infrastructure utility markets are to blame.
Create a municipal infrastructure and consumers can vote via tax-increases on acceptable maintenance rates -independently- of their decision of which telecom provider offers the best long distance, or which cable company offers the best channel package.
quality products are created by the free market, only when the economics support the company's that create quality products. The economics of monopolies and ownerless-infrastructure utility markets do -not- reward companies who deliver the best quality.
If you put the 'i'm following the MS license' header in your code like they ask, you are explicitly stating that you accept the license.
You can't distribute any code using the licensed tools/specs that violates or circumvents the terms you are agreeing to.
You can't -sell- licenses in any way. Only Microsoft can.
I'm not entirely certain what you mean by 'open source implementation' but these two paragraphs don't preclude, for example, a word xml to open-office xml document conversion routine.
unless GPLing an implementation is specifically against the terms in another location. (i haven't carefully read the whole thing, but i didn't see that clause) In that case, the conversion code itself couldn't be released under the GPL, but a conversion module could still be created for open-office and distributed (for free) as closed-source.
it does also preclude anyone trying to -sell- a word document conversion routine - unless they purchase the rights to do so from Microsoft. So Sun would have to pay if Star-Office wanted to sell a bulk conversion routine widget. they may possibly even have to purchase licenses if they wanted to include any document conversion whatsoever. (again, i haven't gone over the whole thing carefully - but the exclusions only apply to commercial endeavors, not free software. )
This is all personal opinion. It ain't official legal advice. I ain't yer lawyer.
the author is simply saying there is nothing quantitative about RPG conventions that lead to 'good' games.
in actuality, all quantitative measurements of RPGs will show that they, by definition, -aren't- good games on average. Clicking doesn't make them fun, and neither does deciding whether you'll use swords or axes before you even start the game.
it's all about the qualitative story and character development - and keeping the player engaged. RPGs tend to have a much better, and deeper story, with real character attachment than the other games on the market. -That- undefinable aspect is what makes them RPGs, and what makes them fun.
The point is: when you break down an RPG, -nothing-else-matters- but the story and having a character the player likes. yet most traditional RPG developers haven't realized this, and are sticking with convention over and over again.
'save-die-reload' is a prominent 'bad for story' design decision that -keeps- getting made within the genre. why? simply because its convention, and designers are loath to shy away from what they think rpg gamers 'expect'. indeed they might be right. bioware may have had a hardcore PC gamer revolt if NWN had a KOTOR-style 'death' system. (console gamers seem to be much more open to make concessions to keep the fun coming)
blind, irreversable, character specialization is another bad design decision. it simply isn't fun (when you only have one PC), that before the game even begins, you decide to start as a rogue-type only to find out that the game is mostly hack and slash, with very little opportunity to skulk and surprise, and you're screwed. you tick of the gamer and essentially have added a -worthless- character option. Granted, this problem isn't a big one when you are controlling a group of characters, but this style of CRPG is quickly becoming the minority.
skill based advancement simply makes much more sense - where your character improves based on how you use him, or when you choose as you play how to improve your character's skills. it also jumps the player right into the game. you know - the fun part? why does the CRPG genre stick to the RPG convention of focused specialization? it works in p&p only because there's a -group- of players who can work together. in a single-PC CRPG, it's a ticket to frustration and indecision. Make a bad level-up decision and you may be screwed.
the 'core' RPG is dying out because it should. the renaissance is coming from other genre's that are co-opting the -good- aspects of rpgs. The rpg elements in GTA:Vice City, Freedom Fighters, and the Sims are -preferable- to games like Dark Alliance, D&D Heroes, and NWN.
that's the whole point.
the conventions that have been co-opted from group-centric, GM-hand-tuned gameplay of pen and paper -dont- work in single-player focused CRPGs.
(pen & paper rules only work because the GM can fudge things to keep the game fun for the players. a CRPG can't do that, it can't tell when a player is getting pissed at a 'cheap' fight.)
It's when developers throw out the preconceived notion of what RPGs -are- that they will truly be able to move these games forward.
I personally think this is the appopriate way to move forward with public infrastructure. The community pools together resources from taxes to pay for its own infrastructure - and then allow service providers to pay for access (to help defray up-front infrastructure costs) and actually compete for consumer dollars.
Create a municipal digital network, and allow cable/telecom companies to actually compete. If anything, people should have learned their lesson -- when Comcast offers to build your infrastructure 'for free', its monopoly is going to cost more than the upfront cost to have done it publicly.
Similarly with power lines and water/sewer. There is a basic conflict of interest between a corporations who are focused on profit above all else, and the public good which is focused on dependability and quality above all else. for example: consider the power transmission infrastructure.
sure, if the consumer cares about quality and dependability, the free-market should bear out those providers who manage such standards. However, the shared infrastruture -punishes- companies who invest (all its competitors benefit from the increased quality, only the investor takes the financial hit and then has to charge -more-, pricing itself out of the game).
The logical step is simply taking jurisdiction of the local lines back on the local level, and the long-haul lines on the federal level (think US highway/road system).
it's not like our infrastructure couldn't use a nice big upgrade anyway. and the telecom industry could certainly benefit from some public works projects to bid on.
Definitely agree.
slander and libel have laws that govern a similar -civil- infraction regarding -possible- but -unproveable- economic losses due to a non-physically damaging action.
and we don't put people in federal prison for that.
see that's funny - story in my mind is easy in a video game when you're not allowed to do anything.
games are about gameplay, and imo everything after IV had progressively less gameplay. though they've all had pretty good combat - but that's what tactics is for, right?
maybe it's just my preference for western dynamic-story open gameplay rpgs as opposed to the more eastern solid compressed story, linear progression, linear gameplay rpgs.
I must be getting to old. i thought I and II were great, III and IV were questionable, and everything after that was right out.
and what's with gamespot? one week it's 'uh oh, something leaked from a magazine, we have morals, we won't link or post to copyrighted materials'. now it's 'sweet, a leak! here's some pics!'
oh, when they say 2005 - they mean christmas 2005, which is the broad release estimate that all 3 console makers have been giving for the nextgen gear.
but anyway, this coming out exactly 1 year before the nextgen strongly suggests that it is a refresher for the line. perhaps simply just a repackaged gamecube (here's wishing they add 64/snes backwards compat).
but the one year lead is inline with sony's demonstration of the success of restructuring your existing console to take advantage of lower manufacturing and component costs, and shipping the old product in a new sleek design at lower cost a year before your new design. Nintendo may be trying to bring their costs down to mitigate production losses at their current price. The Gamecube may have made money for nintendo on each sale at $200, but it's very unlikely that it's still a direct profit item at its $100 price.
it has long been rumored that MS is indeed planning the same thing for the xbox, and sony's announced pvr/digital tv tuner/ps2 certainly sounds like they aren't bucking the trend.
Releasing the next gen nintendo box now would be a -bad- move. developer support for the gamecube has been evaporating - but the trend may reverse itself due to the GC's strong sales with its new superlow price. if they keep to the official schedule, they have a shot at getting developers back on board with their refresh product, and actually have some 3rd party games for their next console.
besides, if it was the nextgen console - there'd already have to have been developer kits sent out, and someone would've leaked something - one does not crank out games for nintendo in 10 months. (nintendo not being a fan of shovelware)
i got halfway through my reply before i caught the joke.
i'm an idiot.
hardcore gamers make up the majority of the xbox numbers. naturally you'd expect to find more of them in a college setting.
ps2 sales have predominately been to casual gamers. why else could the ps2 have 4x the installed base and yet there's still an actual competition on the game sales chart each month?
one would expect even a halfway decent title for the ps2 to have 2x the numbers as a good xbox game, and yet that doesn't happen.
because xbox gamers buy more games. because they have more hardcore gamers - and hardcore gamers buy more games.
hell, alot of the ps2 installed base was solely due to the dvd playback functionality. that and 'playstation' was the name on the tongues of parents come the holiday season. 'xbox' is relatively new, and parents are always buying last generation's winnner. (note strong n64 console sales despite ps1 overall dominance)
but frankly, i could care less whether there are 'more' people on one service or not. pc gaming taught me that you're better off -not- playing than playing against HPBs. it just isn't fun to try to shoot someone with a 400ms ping. xbl does its damndest to minimize lag, and for that i applaud it. (though they'd do better to have more highbandwidth dedicated servers like unreal has)
microsoft had the foresight to realize that a consistant, quality experience was the way to bring console gamers online to stay.
Sony's just trying to keep up, and as the original poster pointed out - is leading due to their raw numbers. keep in mind, their lead isn't that significant, and their product is -free-. microsoft can not only charge for their better product - but they can charge -and- compete with free.
that's an achievement.
Trespasser may have been patently unfun - but he obviously knew something about console design and specification.
The xbox, hands down, has the best hardware package for consumers and the most attractive tools for developers.
any negative statements you may have about him, you have to grant him that much. the only things they could've done better, was streaming media capability from network shares -> xbox -> tv/audio (mp3/divx/avi/etc), and using the -standard- usb interface for controllers/memory devices. (even with the xbox-specific plug it would've been fine. why did they bother to change the specs?)
I just hope people don't confuse CEG for an actual independent game distribution channel.
as you pointed out - it seemed more like a john romero-type cult of personality for sale.
i'd think it'd be due to the fact that linux geeks are more likely to be part of the hard-core segment.
no offense to the poster, but their fairly good massmog is still fairly obscure. that's mostly due to independents having a hell of a time with marketing - and combines with no retail box on the shelf.
no box in best buy limits your exposure to the mass MS PC market, and all that's left is hardcore gamers who find most of their games through word of mouth or surfing.
then there's the gameplay. Atitd is really skewed toward the player-created-content segment (which is great) which one would expect is a natural fit for the linux/hacker mentality.
of course, given all that, i'm surprised the linux adoption rate isn't higher - though i'd bet that has more to do with the monthly price.
which imo, still intending no offense to the poster, is still a bit steep for anyone with only casual-gamer levels of free-time. linux fans being hardcore hackers - they could generally be expected to code just as much in their free time as play games. and then its all a matter of personal economics.
(naturally i know nothing of the actual economics of massmog production, so the price may be absolutely necessary. i do recognize that the price is on par with other massmogs, and combined with the no up-front box cost the game comes out dramatically cheaper - so its certainly reasonable.
but i do however know my personal economics. and $13/mo for ~20-30 hours of play isn't in the budget. of course, that's why no massmog is in my budget, but i digress)
there's something to be said for limited application resubmissions.
the current malicious patent application process is to submit as broad and vague a patent as possible (particularly in software) and resubmit over and over, narrowing it down only as much as the particular examiner requires.
(not all patent applying company's do this - but the ones who do, -always- do).
at some point there should be a mechanism to prevent such obvious and disingenuous 'gaming' of the system.
the patent idea is supposed to be cooperative: a limited monopoly for an inventor in return for public disclosure of the invention (provided it meets the qualifications for being patentable), with the intent of enriching the public domain.
the business practice of filing patents for litigation purposes (sue your competitors out of business because they can't even afford to -defend- themselves) - is equal parts sickening and maddening.
Patent litigation should have to go through a review process at the USPTO to determine fitness of the claim (paid for by the sue-er, reimbursed by the infringer in the event of guilt).
instead we wind up having vague patents that are pushed across a reviewer's desk as fast as possible, being enforced in a court of law that does not and should not have the technical expertise to determine veracity of the claim.
If there was an internal USPTO review process prior to litigation - then they'd have the authority to revoke, suspend, or demand more specific clarification of overly broad patents that slipped through.
but for some reason there's never a call to restructure the procedures for established government bureaus. even when disaster strikes, and the problems hit the forefront, the solution always seems to be simply to create yet-another-layer of bureaucracy.
the romanized spelling of their mission is simply 'change'. (Chang'e I)
guess we oughta get used to the idea that only china has something left to prove politically in space, and the resources to do it.
combine their drive, resources, and that they learned from the US situation and are sticking with proven technology specifically designed for the mission at hand -- and China will either meltdown or raise the bar outside our atmosphere.
it's gonna be a different world when you have to learn Mandarin to vacation on the moon.
This is precisely the problem.
Do independent, innovative games -need- to make any money?
I mean, doubtlessly even mild success in a download environment can manage to sustain a dedicated game maker. and sustenance is about all one can hope for.
But i don't believe consoles will ever be open to independent game makers. the companies demand too much trust between themselves and the developer (to avoid supplying a digital certificate to someone who is only going to release a solder-less hack of their hardware). They're more the big market cineplex - whereas independents need to focus on the PC, which by sales, is more like the art house cinemas. sure they run hits - but they're the only place you'll find independent work.
in short, i think the quest to find money for a 'professional' development of any insanely great new innovative game idea is unlikely to ever succeed, and based on a false premise.
innovation is not tied to commercial success. if you innovate, you -can- create, define and dominate a genre that goes mainstream. but you don't have to have 'EA' on the label, or make piles of money to do so (wolfenstein and triad being modest successes at best) but the odds are even greater that you won't - and overwhelmingly against you being able to offset a $15m budget.
even if one innovative game makes its money back, all it takes is one more to fail, to make the whole concept a business loss to a suit. and like it or not, they run the companies - because they have good business sense. do you really want someone gambling on ideas with the jobs of 100+ employees in the balance?
parappa and other 'innovative' mainstream titles are almost always created due to the track record of the designers behind them. even EA thought 'the Sims' was a bomb waiting to happen, but because it was will wright, they gave him a modest budget. Similarly with games like Pikmin.
And Parappa was not made on the cheap. It was -relatively- cheap, because it didn't require the numerous models and maps of a typical console sports/fps/racer game. It was more puzzle-game-ish in scope. but it got mainstream funding because of Masaya Matsuura.
If you want a big budget to innovate you first have to -prove- yourself. And that means that somewhere along the line, you have to bite the bullet and accept that your first innovative game can not and perhaps should not be a big budget endeavor.
but as we all know, making -all- your customers jump through hoops that at best slow the criminals down by a few weeks, is not good business.
and their revenue model is predicated upon illegal vertical, -and- horizontal collusion, monopolistic practices, and price fixing (proven guilty on all counts, remember the class action suit?).
seeing as how the reported sales decline is certainly representing the minority of music purchasers, and does seem to at least correlate with the rise of consumer embracing of digital distribution - it's fair to assume we're talking primarily about meeting the needs the technical minority of their consumers, whilst avoiding making things more complicated for the nontechnical majority.
the cost/benefit of these schemes is not in their interests. instead of fighting the impossible fight (whether it's the Good Fight(tm) or not) - is pointless. You can compete with free (see: bottled water).
legit online music services continue to grow and flourish, even though DRM-less mp3s are free and theoretically just as many clicks away. but it turns out that consumers would rather -not- break the law if they can get a product for a non-fixed price.
combine that with the fact that p2p apps will never actually be able to compete on quality, convenience, or consistancy. they involve too much client trust, which is too easy to abuse (low quality, mislabelled content, or outright deceptive practices and flooding with junk ).
in the end, i get the feeling they're spending more on PR, lawsuits and copy protection to crack down on this single-digit decline, than on getting on-board with digital distribution (which seems to be precisely what the downloading market segment wants).
but the RIAA realizes that the artists and consumers are not morons and not happy about the last few decades of their monopolistic practices. digital distribution -will- catch on, and their control over the entire scheme will fail. so they are sticking to DRM, lawsuits and FUD - not just to protect their revenue model - but to protect their -monopolistic- revenue model.
regardless of image and reality being what they are, if MS doesn't drop prices a wee bit for this holiday season (i kinda figured 3rd week of november too, maybe leak the price drop a few days before thanksgiving, feed the frenzy) then they may well not have the installed base at the end of 04 for xboxnext to matter. it'd likely be released and struggle without 3rd party support like the dreamcast.
although, sony also has its pvr/satellite/ps2 box releasing soon in japan. one would wonder if MS has an answer for that, should it come to america in 04.
i think it a foregone conclusion that MS will have pvr and tv tuning in xbox next - but it'd be interesting to see if they could cram it into the xbox refresh. the necessary larger hard drive might totally break their heat specs and current designs though.
::shrug::
it's the price of connectedness. people want to be connected, and digital connections can be logged.
you could always turn the phone off when you're not using it, and only use it to make phone calls and return voicemails.
i've got a foil-hat'd friend who already does just that.
then they'd only know where you were while you were actively using it, but they wouldn't be able to log your every move.
are you mad?!?
... hell i didn't even -need- the do-not-call registry.
one of the few things that makes sole cell ownership preferable to a landline is that the cell companies don't (or can't) sell their registries to telemarketers.
since i've gone land-line-less
but if i took my landline number onto my cell service - man i'd be doubly infuriated at any telemarketing - even if it was restricted to traffic allowed by the do-not-call registry.
(non-profits, political advocacy, and any company who has sold you products or services in the last 18 months -- all cleared to bother you as much as they want.)
cell phone tracking for 911 services is fully functional in europe, and as i understand, nearing rollout in the states.
hell in europe they're discussing whether parents can use cell phone location technology to track their kids.
if sony plans on a holiday 05 launch, and MS plans to beat them to market (as has been claimed) MS has to be ready at least for an 05 launch. which means the redesign, ideally, should be up for a christmas 04 launch.
but the absurdly low price of the GC has changed the landscape a bit.
currently the xbox is the number 2 system (at least in the minds of developers) - but if the GC continues to sell red-hot at firesale prices, that may all change before christmas 04. You may see developer support shifting back toward the GC.
as such i was half expecting a holiday US price cut to $150 w/2 games and the redesign at $100 at least by summer 04. (which means more rumors and leaked specs/designs should be circulating right about now )
but really, i'm only asking because it's all more interesting to me than a japanese price cut, which simply brings their price on par with the fairly longstanding US/european pricing.
THOSE people who are ripping CDs to post to file sharing networks -will-not- be stopped by DRM or copy protection schemes.
at best you will slow them down on your initial CD release. but in easily under a month, your scheme will be cracked and every CD you produce will be just as available. the difference is that they are still doing it for free (just time investment) whereas the labels spend big money on such schemes, that ultimately -has- to either result in lost jobs, lost profits, or higher prices.
rest assured they won't be posting the DRM'd copies.
At the absolute best the studios could ever hope for, the current CD rippers will resort to the analog loophole, and plug the lineout from a discman into their sound card and rip that way.
CD quality sound, slightly less convenient.
the smaller, lighter, cheaper one that's been rumored?
if MS is going to beat Sony's ps3 to market with their xbox next, they're running short on their window to release a refresher product.
particularly with their less-than-dominant market share, one wouldn't expect it to be worth the investment to redesign the thing if it's only going to be on sale a few months ahead of the xb2.
i'm thinking that the redesign is the only hope for further US price cuts.
... don't make innovative games cost $15m to develop.
innovative games, like independent film -should- stay in the background and away from big money publishers whose sole goal is to make games that appeal to established genres.
the film/game metaphor is also appropriate because the current economics of getting a game onto the shelf at Best Buy or Wal Mart are comparable to getting a film on a reel at an AMC or Lowes cineplex. The primary difference being of course - games don't have to be limited in distribution channels.
Should online distribution take off, it's just a matter of word of mouth. the key of course, is online distribution. if you want innovative games to be 'popular' that is. Which personally, i don't think is even necessary for gaming culture to remain healthy.
Lets face it, most of the independent films that are out there don't appeal to all your family or friends like Pirates of the Carribean. They can't. They're edgy and quirky on purpose, whereas Pirates was designed ground-up to appeal to anyone and everyone. This doesn't mean that mass market games or films are less-good, just that they're not innovative by design. If an independent film hits a chord in the hardcore audience, it influences mainstream film.
Similarly, if the hardcore gaming audience downloads an innovative game and talks it up - it will doubtlessly influence mainstream gaming. the shareware days of id pretty much -created- the first person shooter genre through word of mouth. and rise of the triad and wolfenstein were certainly not mainstream. (of course, nothing really was)
but it's simple economics. why -should- publishers take risks on unproven designs? why throw a full budget behind a game that may not appeal to -anyone-? risks should be taken on small scales, and capitalized on when successful.
I mean, innovation and originality isn't vindicated solely by mass appeal, so why demand that?
All you need is an established 'independent' gaming forum and distribution channel. the IGF is good, but it needs to partner with a news/review source that can pay some lip service to more than just the 5 'best' games. combine that with an online distribution mechanism to let these games get purchased for reasonable prices (think $5-10) and lets get on with the game playing.
of course once you do that I think you'll find out what many of us already know. There isn't an independent gaming culture, because there aren't enough independent games. and this is entirely the fault of the current crop of independent developers.
most independent game developers need to realize that they can't compete with carmack and sweeney on glitz. they don't have the budgets or the QA resources to make sure their shader programs work properly on every machine. similarly, independents can never make more maps than ritual or more zones than sony. and they really can't demand top-of-the-line system requirements, as most innovative game enthusiasts aren't hardware enthusiasts. they get what they need to play games, and certainly don't rush out to buy a p4 or gf4 just to play the latest big budget fps.
look at puzzle games: 'independent' is an unnecessary clause because of the extremely broad array of producers. the simplistic scope of such games makes it a fertile genre - precisely because no-one is trying to push the graphics envelope or the 'content' envelope. just as independent films can't show up big studio effects, or number of exotic locations.
like archiving email, usenet, and web traffic before it - this is simply a reminder that nothing you type through an open network is -private-. this is a lesson most of us should have learned a long time ago.
but this isn't an invasion of privacy. there's no expectation of privacy when you log onto a public chat board. just as there's no expectation of privacy should you decide to walk naked through a park.
the best you can hope for online is pseudonymity.
but that's out the window with the combined power of google. which is quickly becoming the internet's inadvertant Big Brother.
the primary difference being, google works -for- the people just as much as it works -against- the people.