The skills in gaming are more specialized than in many other fields, yes. If we need a senior graphics guy, we need somebody who lives, eats and breathes graphics. Yes, you can quickly pick up the foundations - but making graphics work (fast enough) is an art. Same goes for physics. Same goes for AI. So we're left with the problem that for senior guys, we need to stay in-industry. For entry-level positions, we could probably post on monster - but entry-level is the one thing we can probably get enough off.
That's why I was saying the H1B problem is different from case to case. We need very specialized developers, and there are only so many to go round. (The industry is small enough that you'll meet everybody again in your career, sooner or later). It might very well be different in other areas. Simply saying that H1B is evil doesn't cut the mustard, though.
It is posted on the equivalent of monster/careerbuilder for our industry. It's not just a random comment, it's right in the "job offers" section. You know, paid-for ad and all. And since those ads cost money, we're limited to in-industry sites/publications.
It's not exactly rinky-dinky. And it's the same for *all* games companies. We can't find enough qualified hires. That means yes, I'll (grudgingly) accept working through a mountain of paperwork for an H1B if that gives me a qualified person.
This is actually about showing interest in your particular field of business. If you can't be bothered to read the top sites in your field, I've got some doubts you're actually interested in the work you do.
Apart from that, how do you propose we actually reach people, if not through those web sites?
Tort reform does not necessarily mean reducing or abolishing punitive damages. One possible alternative is to have the punitive damages go to a not-for-profit. Still hurts the guilty party, but neither plaintiff nor lawyers have a chance to enrich themselves.
If it were only at my company, maybe you would be right. It's industry-wide though. Every single project lead I know is desperate for additional good people. Heck, junior guys in the industry get weekly calls by recruiters right now.
Hardly see the reason for that. I'm working for a games company in L.A., and we advertise on our own site, Gamasutra, and several others. If people are incapable of reading job posts on the major industry sites, I don't think they are qualified for the job.
If there are hundreds of *qualified* people out there, I'd like to see them. We're trying to hire, and so far not much luck. I certainly don't see hundreds of resumes.
I'm not saying that's true for all areas of the market - but that's why the H1B issue is so complicated. Some areas really need foreign workers, because there's not enough domestic talents. Others experience a glut of workers, and the H1Bs there kill the job market - in that specific area.
There is no simple answer to this.
(Disclosure: I'm an ex-H1B myself - but the company that hired me certainly didn't get a bargain price. If they could've filled the job domestically, they probably would have.)
Re:The Size was incredible
on
Quake is 10
·
· Score: 5, Funny
Times haven't really changed - quake091.zip is still 9 MB in size.
The problem is in your premises. It's the same as asking "If I get free money, why would I work?".
The basic assumption of pro-net-neutrality is that ISPs will not create the tiers by providing better level of service to the people who pay extra - they will provide lesser service to those who don't pay extra. In other words, it will worsen your connection, or money will be paid. And that money will come at least partially out of your pocket.
Furthermore, without net neutrality, the actual quality of your service is completely beyond your control. Even if you paid your ISP for excellent service, if *any* of the hops on the way didn't pay for that level of service, you're toast.
Apart from that, most telco's are bandwidth *and* content providers. There is a huge potential for conflict of interest.
This all wouldn't be a problem if there was a free market on connectivity, but at least for end users, there isn't. Most of us, at least in the US, get to pick between ONE cable company and ONE DSL company. (At least in terms of physical lines). If the telco argument is "it's a free market", let's really make it one.
There's also the point to be made that telco's already make a lot of money off public property. They get for example "eminent domain" rights when they have to string new lines. They get use of the publicly owned airwaves. So at some point, they need to share. Either we guarantee net neutrality, or they need to guarantee other companies access to the same lines at cost.
And really, not much more to read in the article. If he actually were a picky sysadmin, he'd have looked at such points as "can the VM access the host drive, and how can I stop that". If he had a more than cursory interest in it, he would've looked at DirectX support. He couldn't even be bothered to figure out if his Mac supports certain features.
(Don't get me wrong - that's an indicator that Parallels is fairly good. He doesn't even have to care if some things work or not. But that's certainly not "in-depth")
It was the same in the eighties. You just tend to forget the crap. If I remember my C64 days correctly, people had collections with literally thousands of games - and would play 20 or 30.
So yes, the crap was there. It's just nowadays we get sequels of crap;)
If you're not this crowd then you have to accept that some parts of the games might not be to your taste.
That would be fine - if I didn't have to pay for it, either. I'm a gamer WITH A JOB too, and I don't have time for that crap either. So why exactly should I have to pay for content that's only for people who still live in Mom's basement and don't have any social life?
Why DX is better than OGL? Have you *looked* at the mess that is vendor extensions? That's *worse* than caps bits, and caps bits are completely gone with DX10. Not to mention the debacle that is OGL shaders. Cg is simply not as good as HLSL. (Let's not even go into the whole issue of unified shaders)
In other words, OGL is more work to write to.
As for "every computer supports OGL" - in theory, yes. Usually, the drivers get less attention than the DX drivers, so you'll have to work around extra bugs. Not to mention vendor extensions....
And sorry, Wikipedia is no authority on the issue. The people working in the games industry are the authority on it, and they have spoken. And it's not the insane profits that drove us. (Profits? What profits? If I worked at a bank, I'd make about twice the money!)
You know what? We use the Fisher-Price platform because it has actually evolved into something decent. In fact, with newer hardware, there is a point to be made that DX is better than OGL. (When's the last time there were significant changes to OGL? )
Add to that the fact that DX gives you 95% of the computer market, and 30% of the console market, while OGL gives you 5% of the computer market and none of the console market, and you'll start seeing the reasons.
Yes, OGL is picking up again. And maybe, one day, the console manufacturers that are not MS are smart enough to actually provide a decent OGL implementation. Until then, I'm shallow enough to pick the solution that gets stuff done and pays the bills. You're free to spend your money on a different approach.
As soon as we agree on well-established methodologies. Quick, agile or Waterfall? SCRUMM? RUP? CMM? ISO certification? What's the well-established methodology to decide if you use Boost, STL, etc? Where are the estimation guidelines that everybody agrees on? Is test-first the right methodology, or do you require post-production QA? What is proper QA?
The point is, we don't have any well-established guidelines. So all certification would solve at the moment is the question "how do we line the pockets of the certifiers?"
Yeah. That's it. The scary plastic cover. Not the fact that the engine is compacted into the smalles possible space, many functions are controlled by a microprocessor, and getting the engine accessible takes about a half-day.
Heck, changing *brakelights* on some cars (VW Golf, e.g.) takes removing half the chassis. Modern cars have been compacted to hell and back, and working on the innards is not as easy as it used to be.
So if everything is connected through power lines, what would happen if those lines carried a signal?
Less wires, and no need for wireless transmission, obviously. Couple more decades, and they'll figure it out.... Now all we need is a bus system, and we're good to go.
Slashdot Mirror
The skills in gaming are more specialized than in many other fields, yes. If we need a senior graphics guy, we need somebody who lives, eats and breathes graphics. Yes, you can quickly pick up the foundations - but making graphics work (fast enough) is an art. Same goes for physics. Same goes for AI. So we're left with the problem that for senior guys, we need to stay in-industry. For entry-level positions, we could probably post on monster - but entry-level is the one thing we can probably get enough off.
That's why I was saying the H1B problem is different from case to case. We need very specialized developers, and there are only so many to go round. (The industry is small enough that you'll meet everybody again in your career, sooner or later). It might very well be different in other areas. Simply saying that H1B is evil doesn't cut the mustard, though.
http://www.pandemicstudios.com/jobs_la.php
No guarantees, but sending in a resume can't hurt. Prepare for a tough interview.
(Not speaking for the company, opinions are my own, yadda yadda...)
It is posted on the equivalent of monster/careerbuilder for our industry. It's not just a random comment, it's right in the "job offers" section. You know, paid-for ad and all. And since those ads cost money, we're limited to in-industry sites/publications.
It's not exactly rinky-dinky. And it's the same for *all* games companies. We can't find enough qualified hires. That means yes, I'll (grudgingly) accept working through a mountain of paperwork for an H1B if that gives me a qualified person.
This is actually about showing interest in your particular field of business. If you can't be bothered to read the top sites in your field, I've got some doubts you're actually interested in the work you do.
Apart from that, how do you propose we actually reach people, if not through those web sites?
Tort reform does not necessarily mean reducing or abolishing punitive damages. One possible alternative is to have the punitive damages go to a not-for-profit. Still hurts the guilty party, but neither plaintiff nor lawyers have a chance to enrich themselves.
If it were only at my company, maybe you would be right. It's industry-wide though. Every single project lead I know is desperate for additional good people. Heck, junior guys in the industry get weekly calls by recruiters right now.
Hardly see the reason for that. I'm working for a games company in L.A., and we advertise on our own site, Gamasutra, and several others. If people are incapable of reading job posts on the major industry sites, I don't think they are qualified for the job.
Very funny. We do train people - but if I need an experienced person now, I can hardly insta-train her, can I now?
If there are hundreds of *qualified* people out there, I'd like to see them. We're trying to hire, and so far not much luck. I certainly don't see hundreds of resumes.
I'm not saying that's true for all areas of the market - but that's why the H1B issue is so complicated. Some areas really need foreign workers, because there's not enough domestic talents. Others experience a glut of workers, and the H1Bs there kill the job market - in that specific area.
There is no simple answer to this.
(Disclosure: I'm an ex-H1B myself - but the company that hired me certainly didn't get a bargain price. If they could've filled the job domestically, they probably would have.)
Times haven't really changed - quake091.zip is still 9 MB in size.
The problem is in your premises. It's the same as asking "If I get free money, why would I work?".
The basic assumption of pro-net-neutrality is that ISPs will not create the tiers by providing better level of service to the people who pay extra - they will provide lesser service to those who don't pay extra. In other words, it will worsen your connection, or money will be paid. And that money will come at least partially out of your pocket.
Furthermore, without net neutrality, the actual quality of your service is completely beyond your control. Even if you paid your ISP for excellent service, if *any* of the hops on the way didn't pay for that level of service, you're toast.
Apart from that, most telco's are bandwidth *and* content providers. There is a huge potential for conflict of interest.
This all wouldn't be a problem if there was a free market on connectivity, but at least for end users, there isn't. Most of us, at least in the US, get to pick between ONE cable company and ONE DSL company. (At least in terms of physical lines). If the telco argument is "it's a free market", let's really make it one.
There's also the point to be made that telco's already make a lot of money off public property. They get for example "eminent domain" rights when they have to string new lines. They get use of the publicly owned airwaves. So at some point, they need to share. Either we guarantee net neutrality, or they need to guarantee other companies access to the same lines at cost.
Way to prove your point!
And really, not much more to read in the article. If he actually were a picky sysadmin, he'd have looked at such points as "can the VM access the host drive, and how can I stop that". If he had a more than cursory interest in it, he would've looked at DirectX support. He couldn't even be bothered to figure out if his Mac supports certain features.
(Don't get me wrong - that's an indicator that Parallels is fairly good. He doesn't even have to care if some things work or not. But that's certainly not "in-depth")
Judging from the buginess of some recent games, being a bug finder is not a requirement any more
Now run it on an Escher picture!
It was the same in the eighties. You just tend to forget the crap. If I remember my C64 days correctly, people had collections with literally thousands of games - and would play 20 or 30.
;)
So yes, the crap was there. It's just nowadays we get sequels of crap
That would be fine - if I didn't have to pay for it, either. I'm a gamer WITH A JOB too, and I don't have time for that crap either. So why exactly should I have to pay for content that's only for people who still live in Mom's basement and don't have any social life?
Why DX is better than OGL? Have you *looked* at the mess that is vendor extensions? That's *worse* than caps bits, and caps bits are completely gone with DX10. Not to mention the debacle that is OGL shaders. Cg is simply not as good as HLSL. (Let's not even go into the whole issue of unified shaders)
In other words, OGL is more work to write to.
As for "every computer supports OGL" - in theory, yes. Usually, the drivers get less attention than the DX drivers, so you'll have to work around extra bugs. Not to mention vendor extensions....
And sorry, Wikipedia is no authority on the issue. The people working in the games industry are the authority on it, and they have spoken. And it's not the insane profits that drove us. (Profits? What profits? If I worked at a bank, I'd make about twice the money!)
You know what? We use the Fisher-Price platform because it has actually evolved into something decent. In fact, with newer hardware, there is a point to be made that DX is better than OGL. (When's the last time there were significant changes to OGL? )
Add to that the fact that DX gives you 95% of the computer market, and 30% of the console market, while OGL gives you 5% of the computer market and none of the console market, and you'll start seeing the reasons.
Yes, OGL is picking up again. And maybe, one day, the console manufacturers that are not MS are smart enough to actually provide a decent OGL implementation. Until then, I'm shallow enough to pick the solution that gets stuff done and pays the bills. You're free to spend your money on a different approach.
As soon as we agree on well-established methodologies. Quick, agile or Waterfall? SCRUMM? RUP? CMM? ISO certification? What's the well-established methodology to decide if you use Boost, STL, etc? Where are the estimation guidelines that everybody agrees on? Is test-first the right methodology, or do you require post-production QA? What is proper QA?
The point is, we don't have any well-established guidelines. So all certification would solve at the moment is the question "how do we line the pockets of the certifiers?"
Yeah. That's it. The scary plastic cover. Not the fact that the engine is compacted into the smalles possible space, many functions are controlled by a microprocessor, and getting the engine accessible takes about a half-day.
Heck, changing *brakelights* on some cars (VW Golf, e.g.) takes removing half the chassis. Modern cars have been compacted to hell and back, and working on the innards is not as easy as it used to be.
Marvellous joke. Have you ever *tried* accessing the engine on a newer car?
Well, yes, that too - I was simplifying. You'd like to keep redundancy in an airplane, I think ;)
And different media for the same bus data definitely would increase that redundancy.
So if everything is connected through power lines, what would happen if those lines carried a signal?
Less wires, and no need for wireless transmission, obviously. Couple more decades, and they'll figure it out.... Now all we need is a bus system, and we're good to go.