Thats goofy!!! Why not just let them write papers and grade them. I dont see why you must work on sentence structure, spelling and grammar when most people have computers to do this.
But ok lets say you want them to do it without a computer, make it a one page paper and do it in class, give them all a dictionary, a pen and some paper, they can then work on sentence structure, grammar and spelling. I dont think theres any reason to teach this however when we have the word processor, just like it was and is useless to teach good handwriting in the typewriter age.
The best thing I like about it is our grades get posted on it, I also like the fact that things like the syllbus and notes from the teacher are posted up there.
I dont like when I lose a paper and have to struggle to get another copy of it, I dont like forgetting about a test. Blackboard will be very useful to me until I manage to get a PDA.
interactivity among students (and instructor) that can extend beyond class time.
This could be useful if we have a teacher who wants to teach beyond class time, most dont.
online exercises of various kinds that lead directly to reports.
Waste of time.
Do people "write better" when they use computers? Probably not. However, I'm not going to use a typewriter or pencil and paper because of the convenience of editing, revisiong, conflating files that computers make possible.
Its not the tool, its how you use it. Its alot faster to spellcheck from a program than to look through the dictionary and check every word you think might be spelled wrong (this could take hours). Its also easier to fix technical errors when you have a program to point it out for you, no more paying the english major $1 per page to fix your technical errors.
I'd suggest you go slow in trying new things in your new teaching environment. Too many new things at once can be confusing and exhausting. And the concern some posters expressed about your students adapting to the computers is good. How much will you have to teach the students so that they can use the technology? When I began using email in classes, I had to teach them how to use Elm and WordPerfect. Now they come into class with much more knowledge.
Your students were just slow, I mean really if someone cannot figure out Word Perfect in the year 2003 they must have been living in a Cave. In Japan middleschool kids are getting online with their little smartphones and emailing each other, hell most of them even know alittle about programming, you can only make so many excuses, if the japanese can do it, our kids can too, I dont see why we need some kinda buffer to allow our kids to slowly adapt when Japan can release something and within the same year everyones using it.
The way to do it is to just give kids an assignment, tell them they must write a certain paper, allow them to do it by computer or pen and paper, the kids who do the extra research it takes to learn how to properly use Word Perfect will get an A and the ones who are too lazy to do so will get a B, unless they are so good at writing with pen and paper or whatever method to not need computer software.
The average college class is a lecture, internet connections actually HELP the lecturer because someone can look up on the net something they dont understand, you can also give them URLs to websites which they can view in realtime.
This could actually help. Of course you have ignorant students who dont want to learn and who are lazy, who will be playing quake, who cares about them? Let them get an F so people like me stand out from the pack.
It sucks to have a bunch of lazy students who dont study get a grade as good or better than mine simply because they showed up to every class and I was late to each class, or because they have perfect attendence, or are friends with the teacher.
What the hell happened to people getting good grades because they write the best paper?
Some people do study harder than me, but its usually only one person in the class, usually someone older and more mature, the people my age seem to slack off in school.
Yes I suppose a computer built into every desk, this is good and theres only benefits to this. As far as using this to actually using the internet to teach English, I think its a stupid idea.
Look, we should allow the internet in class, kids should be able to research via the net what the teacher is talking about in their lecture. We should also allow computers, we shouldnt use the internet to teach english. It doesnt make sense.
What advantage does the internet offer when teaching English? If you can name one, then I'll concede.
Using the net can work to improve a persons writing, if these are highschool students, on the college level however, how is a person supposed to seriously learn writing by putting blogs on the internet?
This is the problem with current English classes, this isnt create writing, its English, we should focus on the technical aspects of writing. This means proper grammer, indent every 4-5 sentences, proper structure of a paper complete with coverpage, introduction, table of contents, as well as citing every source and properly following a strict format if its a scientific paper or if its not scientific it must be based on overall quality of grammar.
A person should get a grade based on how many errors they make. A paper should not get an A unless its technically perfect, meaning no spelling errors, no grammar mistakes, etc. This teaches a person how to write properly.
Blogging while it could be useful to a highschool student, for a college student you should focus on teaching them the technical writing skills they will need later on when it comes time to write their research papers.
Peer review is good, but you can peer review without blogs and without the internet, you can use blogs or not, it doesnt really matter. Second students must learn to write by writing alot of papers very often, over time they will become more accurate at writing, their spelling will improve, they'll learn to properly use word, and understand the formula involved in writing a good paper.
This means the best way to teach writing is to make them write a 10 page paper every week, they submit the draft at the end of the week, the teacher reviews the drafts gives it back and then they write it again for their grade.
Before anyone tells me that my grammar isnt perfect, this is slashdot, so dont even try it. Grammar is not important unless you are getting graded.
The fastest computer ever? Please. I want to see the powerbook version, it could make a fast laptop but thats about it. Pentium 4, Itanium, AMD Clawhammer all smoke this new computer.
Freedom of speech is protected by the fact that you can say anything you want online, meaning you can send any 1s and 0s you want out, but what you recieve, who says censorship is unconstitutional if the school agrees to it?
I think this is pretty fair to me, I dont really think public schools and libraries should have access to the true internet.
Filters do not block access to the internet, it filters, like it says, and I think its good to filter kids from the net as a whole, because a library or school should not decide if a kid can or cant access the unfiltered internet, this is a parents job.
I do think however the law should be adapted to work in a more realistic way, an Adult with ID should be able to access the unfiltered internet. If I go with my adult library card I should be able to access the whole internet. If I am in college, in an adult library, I should have access to the whole net including porn sites.
I agree with the purpose of this law, I just dont like the solution.
Another good point Microsoft might just keep the money, my point is when they do need to hire more people, such as tech support for the buggy Longhorn or whatever new Windows they will release, it wont be us thsat they hire.
Republicans advocate an accross the board tax cuts, they do not care about the workers, they care about executives, I'm for republicans but I havent seen a single republican do or even have ideas to do anythinng.
Dick Gephardt has plans to pressure the international community to accept a Global Minimum Wage, while I dont think this will automatically solve the problem at least hes trying.
I think its a complicated problem, but you see republicans are known for supporting big business, this is a fact, tax cuts they have given under the reagan admin was to mainly big business, and while it did some good in that Microsoft had enough money to make Windows95, now we are paying the price.
A Tax cut is good when its to individuals and small growing business. Its just like the stockmarket, it makes no sense to invest in a company which has no potential for growth, sure you can get your money increased short term but 5 years later the economy will tank, we had people over investing in Microsoft and other tech businesses during the dot com bubble.
Tax cuts are a gamble, like an investment that the government makes(yes I know its our money in the first place), to stimulate the economy.
Honestly tax cuts arent the only way to stimulate the economy, you can stimulate the economy by raising taxes, you can stimulate the economy by cutting taxes, you can stimulate the economy by building infastructure, you can stimulate the economy by giving consumers more money to increase demand.
However one solution stimulates the economy on the supply side with no guarentee of increasing jobs. The other methods stimulate the economy on the side of the workers by creating Jobs.
Reagan stimulated the supply side, and Clinton created the jobs.
You need a strong supply side, the supply must have enough money to hire people and invest in new ideas, but you also need a strong demand/consumer, and the only way to truely balance things is to go through phases where you raise and lower taxes over and over.
Say you run a company, your company has a good future, lets call your company Redhat.
Lets say I'm the president, I allow you to operate almost tax free, knowing your company is in a completely new industry and I want your company to grow. You go 5 years without paying any taxes, you expand and grow your business, and now its my re-election and theres a bunch of companies who like yours have been gathering a ton of money, people have been investing, taxes have been low.
Now I get re-elected and as I see the industry has matured, now I begin to switch sides, I slowly begin to support the worker, I raise the minimum wage, I threaten to raise taxes, this gets you to hire more workers.
You see, what I'd do if I were president is set up a committe(sp?) which reviews a company, and sees how much money they have in the bank. I will base taxes on how much free money a company has in the bank.
Lets say your company has 10 billion dollars in money in the bank, what I'd do is I'd examine your hiring practices, and tax you based on this, if you hire lots of workers and you seem to be using this money to innovate, like the case with Apple, I'd give you certain tax breaks,
Heres an example, to raise the minimum wage I'd give tax breaks to all companies who hire people above the liveable wage. This means your company has the choice to pay workers better with their extra money, or pay taxes.
I'd try to set up laws so a company always has the choice to do the right thing, before I force them to. For an economy to be strong money must circulate, its like bloodflow, if you have little clogs, or if you have areas in the body which consume and hold all the blood, the body gets sick and you die.
I know you are, Im against accross the board tax cuts because big companies and overly rich individuals who get tax cuts, spend their money investing in or expanding their business to other countries.
Bill Gates does not need a tax cut, you and I do. I'm for tax cuts for the middle class, and the working class.
Tax cuts help our economy when they are targetted, Clinton did a good job at this, even though people assume the myth that democrats dont cut taxes and spend through the roof, Clinton balanced the budget, and cut spending, he also cut taxes and somehow im not really sure how, kept outsourcing from becoming popular in the tech industry.
Ok say I run a company, lets say I have a monopoly and lets call my company Microsoft.
You are an Indian worker, lets say the President just gave me a huge tax break, suddenly I get millions of dollars thrown at my company, with this money I now hire you, the Indian worker.
India taxes you the Indian worker, so what really goes on is.
US Gov---> Microsoft--->Indian Worker--->Indian Government.
This is the path that our money goes. The Indian government can this use this money to build a Nuclear bomb to sell to Bin Laden, and make even more money.
Companies like Microsoft should have taxes raised on them, but we give them plenty of tax breaks.
I suggest you do some research before you make another comment, if you do your research and still think tax cuts to big companies who outsource are good, I'll prove you wrong by showing you my research.
So by giving Microsoft tax breaks, you allow them to hire more Indians to work for them.
I'm not against tax cuts for individuals, I'm talking about tax breaks companies get.
Although giving Bill Gates a tax cut is ridiculous. When big companies dont pay taxes they hire people from other countries, when these people are hired they pay taxes to their government not ours, so by giving big companies tax breaks of any sort its just like directly giving money to other governments.
Wrong, we have tons of different Window managers, and tons of different software, while most of this software uses the exact same libraries and all of this software runs using the Xfree core.
Now I'm not saying that the current commercial model is at all successful in making original games (practically everything is either an FPS, an RTS, or a graphical mud - though there's the odd exception), but it seems to me that code reuse would only result in games that all look and feel the same.
Considering look and feel depends on the artists work and not the engine behind it, I'm not so sure you are right.
Alot of people would say Halflife looks nothing like Quake. Both are FPS but people dont consider those two games the same.
You are right most games are the same type of games, thats why we only need a few good graphics engine backends.
Also, if we get some open source projects in development, we should allow the subscribers who are paying to decide who the lead developer is and what kinda game it becomes.
The problem isnt the engine, you dont really need a new graphics engine for the same type of game, all RPGs and FPS's could use the same engine, its the gameplay that seperates them.
ID should be able to sue every company who makes a first person shooter who has the name Q, D, or W in their name simply because they created the genre and have patent rights to any game which even looks like it.
You should support the open source game development industry, instead of just not buying games, you should buy games which are open source or games like neverwinter nights.
I want to punish their parent company in an attempt to get them to sell Blizzard off. If you keep supporting Blizzard they'll own Blizzard forever.
Starcraft Battle Chest: $20
Diablo II: $20 each for the main game and expansion.
Warcraft II: $11.99
Battle.net: Completely free.
Yep, they're sure being greedy alright.
Every one of those games were made before Universal purchased Blizzard, World of Warcraft will not be free.
So you're saying that games without monthly fees are outdated? Thanks, but no thanks. I have enough monthly fees to pay already.
No I'm saying the gaming industry should go open source. Imagine if you could pay $5 a month, or $60 a year and get hundreds of free games, vs just one game for $60 each.
How is this possible? Heres how, CODE REUSE. The hardest part of making a game is writing the code, not the artwork, not the music, its the code. By paying for the actual development of code creation instead of the whole package, we allow hundreds of thousands if not millions of talented artists and fans to create their own versions.
This worked fine with Doom, mods appear when you give people access to the Engine, and new games are created based on the old engine. Open source would take this to the next level where all games would use the same engines, the difference in games will be the storyline, the art, the music, and the gameplay.
Theres dozens, theres a few that are pretty good, no they arent as good as Doom3(until ID releases the source) or Turbines engine, but they dont have to be, they just have to be good enough to make PS2 quality games.
Most of these games would look better than anything on the PS2. There is an open source game repository but are you willing to donate money to make these games good? Or will you complain about quality when you dont pay?
Slashdot Mirror
If students want to play quake and touch the keyboard, why should the teacher treat them like a baby "Stop touching the keyboard! Bad!! BAD BOY!" nooo
its not the teachers job to do this, the teachers job is to lecture, give assignments, and review and grade our work. Discussions are also good.
Thats goofy!!! Why not just let them write papers and grade them. I dont see why you must work on sentence structure, spelling and grammar when most people have computers to do this.
But ok lets say you want them to do it without a computer, make it a one page paper and do it in class, give them all a dictionary, a pen and some paper, they can then work on sentence structure, grammar and spelling. I dont think theres any reason to teach this however when we have the word processor, just like it was and is useless to teach good handwriting in the typewriter age.
The best thing I like about it is our grades get posted on it, I also like the fact that things like the syllbus and notes from the teacher are posted up there.
I dont like when I lose a paper and have to struggle to get another copy of it, I dont like forgetting about a test. Blackboard will be very useful to me until I manage to get a PDA.
interactivity among students (and instructor) that can extend beyond class time.
This could be useful if we have a teacher who wants to teach beyond class time, most dont.
online exercises of various kinds that lead directly to reports.
Waste of time.
Do people "write better" when they use computers? Probably not. However, I'm not going to use a typewriter or pencil and paper because of the convenience of editing, revisiong, conflating files that computers make possible.
Its not the tool, its how you use it. Its alot faster to spellcheck from a program than to look through the dictionary and check every word you think might be spelled wrong (this could take hours). Its also easier to fix technical errors when you have a program to point it out for you, no more paying the english major $1 per page to fix your technical errors.
I'd suggest you go slow in trying new things in your new teaching environment. Too many new things at once can be confusing and exhausting. And the concern some posters expressed about your students adapting to the computers is good. How much will you have to teach the students so that they can use the technology? When I began using email in classes, I had to teach them how to use Elm and WordPerfect. Now they come into class with much more knowledge.
Your students were just slow, I mean really if someone cannot figure out Word Perfect in the year 2003 they must have been living in a Cave. In Japan middleschool kids are getting online with their little smartphones and emailing each other, hell most of them even know alittle about programming, you can only make so many excuses, if the japanese can do it, our kids can too, I dont see why we need some kinda buffer to allow our kids to slowly adapt when Japan can release something and within the same year everyones using it.
The way to do it is to just give kids an assignment, tell them they must write a certain paper, allow them to do it by computer or pen and paper, the kids who do the extra research it takes to learn how to properly use Word Perfect will get an A and the ones who are too lazy to do so will get a B, unless they are so good at writing with pen and paper or whatever method to not need computer software.
The average college class is a lecture, internet connections actually HELP the lecturer because someone can look up on the net something they dont understand, you can also give them URLs to websites which they can view in realtime.
This could actually help. Of course you have ignorant students who dont want to learn and who are lazy, who will be playing quake, who cares about them? Let them get an F so people like me stand out from the pack.
It sucks to have a bunch of lazy students who dont study get a grade as good or better than mine simply because they showed up to every class and I was late to each class, or because they have perfect attendence, or are friends with the teacher.
What the hell happened to people getting good grades because they write the best paper?
Some people do study harder than me, but its usually only one person in the class, usually someone older and more mature, the people my age seem to slack off in school.
Yes I suppose a computer built into every desk, this is good and theres only benefits to this. As far as using this to actually using the internet to teach English, I think its a stupid idea.
Look, we should allow the internet in class, kids should be able to research via the net what the teacher is talking about in their lecture. We should also allow computers, we shouldnt use the internet to teach english. It doesnt make sense.
What advantage does the internet offer when teaching English? If you can name one, then I'll concede.
Using the net can work to improve a persons writing, if these are highschool students, on the college level however, how is a person supposed to seriously learn writing by putting blogs on the internet?
This is the problem with current English classes, this isnt create writing, its English, we should focus on the technical aspects of writing. This means proper grammer, indent every 4-5 sentences, proper structure of a paper complete with coverpage, introduction, table of contents, as well as citing every source and properly following a strict format if its a scientific paper or if its not scientific it must be based on overall quality of grammar.
A person should get a grade based on how many errors they make. A paper should not get an A unless its technically perfect, meaning no spelling errors, no grammar mistakes, etc. This teaches a person how to write properly.
Blogging while it could be useful to a highschool student, for a college student you should focus on teaching them the technical writing skills they will need later on when it comes time to write their research papers.
Peer review is good, but you can peer review without blogs and without the internet, you can use blogs or not, it doesnt really matter. Second students must learn to write by writing alot of papers very often, over time they will become more accurate at writing, their spelling will improve, they'll learn to properly use word, and understand the formula involved in writing a good paper.
This means the best way to teach writing is to make them write a 10 page paper every week, they submit the draft at the end of the week, the teacher reviews the drafts gives it back and then they write it again for their grade.
Before anyone tells me that my grammar isnt perfect, this is slashdot, so dont even try it. Grammar is not important unless you are getting graded.
Theres no way someone can post something once and get labeled redundant
I'm sure this post will be labeled flamebait or underrated
The fastest computer ever? Please. I want to see the powerbook version, it could make a fast laptop but thats about it. Pentium 4, Itanium, AMD Clawhammer all smoke this new computer.
Freedom of speech is protected by the fact that you can say anything you want online, meaning you can send any 1s and 0s you want out, but what you recieve, who says censorship is unconstitutional if the school agrees to it?
I think this is pretty fair to me, I dont really think public schools and libraries should have access to the true internet.
Filters do not block access to the internet, it filters, like it says, and I think its good to filter kids from the net as a whole, because a library or school should not decide if a kid can or cant access the unfiltered internet, this is a parents job.
I do think however the law should be adapted to work in a more realistic way, an Adult with ID should be able to access the unfiltered internet. If I go with my adult library card I should be able to access the whole internet. If I am in college, in an adult library, I should have access to the whole net including porn sites.
I agree with the purpose of this law, I just dont like the solution.
World of Warcraft?
Diablo2 was not made under Universal.
Another good point Microsoft might just keep the money, my point is when they do need to hire more people, such as tech support for the buggy Longhorn or whatever new Windows they will release, it wont be us thsat they hire.
Republicans advocate an accross the board tax cuts, they do not care about the workers, they care about executives, I'm for republicans but I havent seen a single republican do or even have ideas to do anythinng.
Dick Gephardt has plans to pressure the international community to accept a Global Minimum Wage, while I dont think this will automatically solve the problem at least hes trying.
I think its a complicated problem, but you see republicans are known for supporting big business, this is a fact, tax cuts they have given under the reagan admin was to mainly big business, and while it did some good in that Microsoft had enough money to make Windows95, now we are paying the price.
A Tax cut is good when its to individuals and small growing business. Its just like the stockmarket, it makes no sense to invest in a company which has no potential for growth, sure you can get your money increased short term but 5 years later the economy will tank, we had people over investing in Microsoft and other tech businesses during the dot com bubble.
Tax cuts are a gamble, like an investment that the government makes(yes I know its our money in the first place), to stimulate the economy.
Honestly tax cuts arent the only way to stimulate the economy, you can stimulate the economy by raising taxes, you can stimulate the economy by cutting taxes, you can stimulate the economy by building infastructure, you can stimulate the economy by giving consumers more money to increase demand.
However one solution stimulates the economy on the supply side with no guarentee of increasing jobs. The other methods stimulate the economy on the side of the workers by creating Jobs.
Reagan stimulated the supply side, and Clinton created the jobs.
You need a strong supply side, the supply must have enough money to hire people and invest in new ideas, but you also need a strong demand/consumer, and the only way to truely balance things is to go through phases where you raise and lower taxes over and over.
Say you run a company, your company has a good future, lets call your company Redhat.
Lets say I'm the president, I allow you to operate almost tax free, knowing your company is in a completely new industry and I want your company to grow. You go 5 years without paying any taxes, you expand and grow your business, and now its my re-election and theres a bunch of companies who like yours have been gathering a ton of money, people have been investing, taxes have been low.
Now I get re-elected and as I see the industry has matured, now I begin to switch sides, I slowly begin to support the worker, I raise the minimum wage, I threaten to raise taxes, this gets you to hire more workers.
You see, what I'd do if I were president is set up a committe(sp?) which reviews a company, and sees how much money they have in the bank. I will base taxes on how much free money a company has in the bank.
Lets say your company has 10 billion dollars in money in the bank, what I'd do is I'd examine your hiring practices, and tax you based on this, if you hire lots of workers and you seem to be using this money to innovate, like the case with Apple, I'd give you certain tax breaks,
Heres an example, to raise the minimum wage I'd give tax breaks to all companies who hire people above the liveable wage. This means your company has the choice to pay workers better with their extra money, or pay taxes.
I'd try to set up laws so a company always has the choice to do the right thing, before I force them to. For an economy to be strong money must circulate, its like bloodflow, if you have little clogs, or if you have areas in the body which consume and hold all the blood, the body gets sick and you die.
You have to make su
I know you are, Im against accross the board tax cuts because big companies and overly rich individuals who get tax cuts, spend their money investing in or expanding their business to other countries.
Bill Gates does not need a tax cut, you and I do. I'm for tax cuts for the middle class, and the working class.
Tax cuts help our economy when they are targetted, Clinton did a good job at this, even though people assume the myth that democrats dont cut taxes and spend through the roof, Clinton balanced the budget, and cut spending, he also cut taxes and somehow im not really sure how, kept outsourcing from becoming popular in the tech industry.
Ok say I run a company, lets say I have a monopoly and lets call my company Microsoft.
You are an Indian worker, lets say the President just gave me a huge tax break, suddenly I get millions of dollars thrown at my company, with this money I now hire you, the Indian worker.
India taxes you the Indian worker, so what really goes on is.
US Gov---> Microsoft--->Indian Worker--->Indian Government.
This is the path that our money goes. The Indian government can this use this money to build a Nuclear bomb to sell to Bin Laden, and make even more money.
Microsoft hires 70% of its workforce from India.
Companies like Microsoft should have taxes raised on them, but we give them plenty of tax breaks.
I suggest you do some research before you make another comment, if you do your research and still think tax cuts to big companies who outsource are good, I'll prove you wrong by showing you my research.
So by giving Microsoft tax breaks, you allow them to hire more Indians to work for them.
I'm not against tax cuts for individuals, I'm talking about tax breaks companies get.
Although giving Bill Gates a tax cut is ridiculous. When big companies dont pay taxes they hire people from other countries, when these people are hired they pay taxes to their government not ours, so by giving big companies tax breaks of any sort its just like directly giving money to other governments.
Maybe if you pay more money or convince others to vote on that series they'll port it.
We arent? what about the price we paid when they purchased the game?
Also if Blizzard isnt making any money hosting these networks they can let us host them ourselves.
Theres some free ones, the 4th coming, diablo2, and a few of them allow you to run the server yourself.
All linux software is the same?
Wrong, we have tons of different Window managers, and tons of different software, while most of this software uses the exact same libraries and all of this software runs using the Xfree core.
Now I'm not saying that the current commercial model is at all successful in making original games (practically everything is either an FPS, an RTS, or a graphical mud - though there's the odd exception), but it seems to me that code reuse would only result in games that all look and feel the same.
Considering look and feel depends on the artists work and not the engine behind it, I'm not so sure you are right.
Alot of people would say Halflife looks nothing like Quake. Both are FPS but people dont consider those two games the same.
You are right most games are the same type of games, thats why we only need a few good graphics engine backends.
Also, if we get some open source projects in development, we should allow the subscribers who are paying to decide who the lead developer is and what kinda game it becomes.
The problem isnt the engine, you dont really need a new graphics engine for the same type of game, all RPGs and FPS's could use the same engine, its the gameplay that seperates them.
Yes, that one.
ID should be able to sue every company who makes a first person shooter who has the name Q, D, or W in their name simply because they created the genre and have patent rights to any game which even looks like it.
Right? Thats fair?
Freeforge haha thats perfect.
You should support the open source game development industry, instead of just not buying games, you should buy games which are open source or games like neverwinter nights.
I want to punish their parent company in an attempt to get them to sell Blizzard off. If you keep supporting Blizzard they'll own Blizzard forever.
Starcraft Battle Chest: $20
Diablo II: $20 each for the main game and expansion.
Warcraft II: $11.99
Battle.net: Completely free.
Yep, they're sure being greedy alright.
Every one of those games were made before Universal purchased Blizzard, World of Warcraft will not be free.
So you're saying that games without monthly fees are outdated? Thanks, but no thanks. I have enough monthly fees to pay already.
No I'm saying the gaming industry should go open source. Imagine if you could pay $5 a month, or $60 a year and get hundreds of free games, vs just one game for $60 each.
How is this possible? Heres how, CODE REUSE. The hardest part of making a game is writing the code, not the artwork, not the music, its the code. By paying for the actual development of code creation instead of the whole package, we allow hundreds of thousands if not millions of talented artists and fans to create their own versions.
This worked fine with Doom, mods appear when you give people access to the Engine, and new games are created based on the old engine. Open source would take this to the next level where all games would use the same engines, the difference in games will be the storyline, the art, the music, and the gameplay.
Theres dozens, theres a few that are pretty good, no they arent as good as Doom3(until ID releases the source) or Turbines engine, but they dont have to be, they just have to be good enough to make PS2 quality games.
Most of these games would look better than anything on the PS2. There is an open source game repository but are you willing to donate money to make these games good? Or will you complain about quality when you dont pay?
Well here are some engines.
Genesis3d
Nooface
WorldForge
Reality FactoryM
Ogre
Obsidian
More at LinuxGames