Why shouldn't shareware authors expect to make a profit? Because you say so?
No, because for the most part it's a silly distribution model. They can expect anything they want, but that doesn't mean they're going to get it.
Sure, most people will take advantage of the situation and never register software that they decide to use beyond the trial period, but some people are more honest and will happily pony up $20 for a package that does the job they want done.
Or in other words, they shouldn't expect to turn a real profit, because only a few people are actually going to plunk down $20 for their crappy utility.
See, the problem with shareware is that people want $5-$20 for something that's usually inane and/or poorly written, and people are either going to use the trial version for as long as they want (if that's an option), find a crack (for the less-ethical), or find a different solution. Buying it would make people feel ripped-off, and most people don't like to feel like that.
There are exceptions of course, as id software and others have shown in the past. Heck, I paid for the Crossover plugin, because it did what I wanted and the money is supporting a decent cause. (I don't know the numbers for how many others have bought it though... this would be interesting to know.)
But otherwise, people shouldn't expect to write their first VB app that does some inane thing (crappy address book or take a screenshot or something) and expect people to pay $5 for it. They have no right to make money. That's not how the system works. (Although many businesses would like to think they're guaranteed such a right, from the CueCat people to the RIAA and MPAA.)
If you've got a good business model, plan, product, and your target market actually exists, you can expect to make money (although there are no guarantees... your competitor may still be one better.) But if you've got a crappy product, silly business model, and a target audience who isn't going to pay, don't expect a profit to come your way.
Am I the only one who saw the headline and wondered whether P3P was some new file distribution fad?;-) I can see it now. P3P: Share music with two friends at once!
Square basically stabbed Nintendo in the back, telling game makers not to develop for the N64.
Nintendo has done more than their share of backstabbing too, and they've caused most of their own problems. First they backstabbed Sony with the N64 CDROM deal. They backstabbed Square by refusing to move from the outmoded cartridge game format, keeping Square from being able to create Final Fantasy VII. (They started in this direction, see the
Final Fantasy SGI demo. In the end, Square said they could have done FF7 for the N64, it just would have cost $7k for the cartridge.)
Thus the rise and domination of Sony. It's interesting to note that every platform Square has seriously developed for has been the dominant platform: NES, GameBoy, SNES, PlayStation, PS2.
I have to admit, I'm surprised Yamamuchi is putting money into Square for this project.
Nintendo can say what they want, but after the fiasco that was the N64, and the pressure from Sony and Microsoft, Nintendo needs Square a lot more than they'll let on. Excluding Square is not really an option. They need third-party games; first-party games just aren't enough (as the N64 showed).
That said, I don't mean to imply I'm upset in any manner at this news. This is great! I've wanted to see Square and Nintendo get back together for awhile... I want to see Square stuff on my GBA, and getting a GCN I'd love to get Square games on that.
Plus, as history has shown (see: Dreamcast), Square leads the majority of buyers, and this is probably a nail in the coffin of the XBOX.;-)
Did you read the part of the log which said another way to look at the subscription thing is as a tip jar?
This is sooooo irrelevant. If it were truly a "tip jar" in the first place, I could go and pay 10c or 50c a day to get my daily quota of ad-free pages. (Whatever happened to micropayments, people?) This might even be kinda neat. People could pay a few cents and see what it's like, and get hooked. What's a few cents after all? But it adds up... (Current subscription rates are half a cent per page view, so.)
As it stands though, this is just a poorly-devised, poorly-designed shot in the dark. You'd have thought they'd learn from all the dot-coms. Common sense here. My trained pet USB cable has better suggestions.;-)
"Here's the reality: You block ads. You cost us money. Ultimately, I mean."
This is complete BS, actually. Number one fallacy is a false dichotomy: either there are ads, or we make no money. Take a look at IGN. They are a partially-free, partially-pay site (although they're moving more toward for-pay), and I subscribe to them for $20 a year. And I'm happy to do it, because they have the kind of extra content for subscribers I'm willing to pay for (in addition to just supporting a site that I really like and frequent).
This plan is complete BS. Assuming people will go for paying for not getting something is stupid. Paying for exclusion is stupid, because I can limit the signal myself, there's no service there. Supporting a site I like or not, I can't help but feel ripped off.
Now if they moved slashdot to mostly-pay-for-stories, added some good original content, and did some bloody editing, I'd be happy to pay. I mean, slashdot is their only job, right? What exactly the heck do they do all day? Click a story and add a few halfway-literate comments without even checking? This is all fine and I have no complaints if I'm getting it for free. But if you want me to pay, shape up. That's all there is to it.
I'm probably going to get Hauppauge WinTV cards. Despite the name, they work great in Linux, and I think they're the most well-supported. I've got one now I picked up a year or so ago for $70. (This has "all the features", that is FM tuner interface, etc. They had them as low as $50 at the time.) I've also gotten an ATI one going (I believe), but I forget the details there.
That said, I'm also in the market for some cards with onboard mpeg encoding, because that'll take a load off the bus and the CPU and my wallet (given they're reasonable, of course). I've seen one mpeg-2 encoder that works under linux, but it was rather ridiculous (330 EUR).
With the PVR, not only are they going to know I like XYZ show, they're going to know I like ZYX commerical. Talk about sticking a target on my head.
Well, this of course assumes they can collect this information. With a homebrew PVR (which costs a bit more, but does more, too), they can't. Even if they are getting the information, I'm not terribly concerned. Let them. I think I'm with CmdrTaco on this one; if they want to show me commercials I like to watch (amusing ones, cool ones, etc.), more power to them. I like watching commercials that are (truly) humorous, or use cool technology, or play music I like. Heck, if they instituted a commercial rating system, I'd probably use it, and they'd get even more valuable information.
(As I said in my initial post, I encode TV and watch it already. Skipping commercials is great. However, I don't always skip all commercials. Ones that catch my eye, I rewind and watch. Movie previews, etc. With mpeg, I can even catch informational details I'd otherwise miss.)
The technology really could benefit both sides. Networks just need to figure this out, and figure it out now, as I said in another post. If they can't, they'll suffer. If they can, we'll all be a little happier.
No, but they will pay ad timeslots during the most popular shows. It's a matter of shifting the TV scheduling "system" to accomodate PVRs. However, morons like you want to dictate to the networks how and when this will take place. Back off a tad and let them analyze how PVRs fit into the bigger picture (pardon the pun).
I realize your comment was flamebait, but you do suggest a good thing in paying for things according to show, not timeslot. That's what should be done. As for me dictating that they need to make this change now or lose profits... well, that's how the market works, son. I'm not here just to figure out how to make someone else more money. I don't care.
Great, so now everyone will have to deal with split screen advertisements and large advertisement bugs running along the bottom corners because you thought you could stick it to them.
This is quite silly. I'll just edit them out, in realtime if need be.:-) I can make various encoders encode only blocks of the input video as it is, and making them overlay other portions would be pretty easy. If you're like me and you want to archive stuff, you're willing to spend a little "postproduction" time editing stuff out, too (I'm sure not going to archive commercials).
Again, I'm not here so I can make someone else money. I pay for cable, and there's no law forcing me to watch ads (yet...). With a PVR, I could easily add +/- buttons to a remote to drop scanlines from the top or bottom of the image and stretch the picture. This would take care of annoying stations like TNN.
The technology is there, and it's easy. People are going to use it. Networks need to adapt now, or suffer. That's how life works.
It's called Prime Time. It's what advertisers pay them bigtime for, and when all the most popular shows get scheduled. After all, this is the time the largest target audience is going to be watching.
Now, VCRs aren't such a big deal, because they're clunky and inconvenient. Programming them is a pain. Manually recording defeats most of the point, since you still have to be there.
Throw into the mix PVRs, though, and Prime Time becomes any time. If everyone has a PVR (and they could eventually... they're cheap, and so convenient), there's no reason to schedule a show during any particular hour, since that's probably not when it'll get watched. There will be no time-based competition. Advertisers won't see the point in paying extra for any particular timeslot. By controlling the horizontal and vertical, they're getting more money, and now they see PVRs taking that away.
So everyone go get/build a PVR if you want to stick it to them.
On a somewhat on-topic note, it's really easy to build one of these things, too. The software is already there in parts, it just needs a little glue. Check out mp1e for encoding, or anything else you like such as low-bitrate DivX. Combine this with mplayer or something and a little at, cron, or various web-based TV recording stuff on freshmeat and there you've got it. I already do this all manually and it works better than TV (skipping ads is really worth it, not to mention not missing shows), and I'm planning on putting together a box with 3-4 TV cards to do this in a dedicated manner. Go PVRs.
This is wisdom for the ages, here. Seriously. Don't write software because 'it's cool'. That only leads to burnout. Write it for money. At least you get something back and don't ruin the market for the rest of us.
I am somewhat indignant at this remark. I write software because it is useful to me, and because I feel it might be useful to others. I release it as Free Software because I feel the this is the way people will get the most use out of it, and possibly improve it for everyone else, as well.
As for Fallacy 10.2 and 10.4, it's easily shown to be invalid via counterexample. Linux, gcc, XFree86, etc., are all case in point here.
Fallacy 10.3 is my own personal business. Who are you to tell me my motivation is inappropriate? I think the sole desire to make money is an inappropriate motivation. Should I tell you to stop writing software for money? Of course not.
As for F10.1, I consider this highly irrelevant. I don't give two hoots about Open Source or Free Software as an economic model. (In fact, if my Free Software ruins your market, I'd be more than apathetic, I'd be somewhat gleeful.;-))
Of course mounting drives read-only, operating out of a ramdisk is still not as secure as this approach if you can afford a very static set of firewall rules.
And in addition, as others have said, you can afford not to log it, and if---just when you think you can "afford a very static set of firewall rules"---you reboot, you can afford network downtime. This sucks.
In this state, the system is incapable of even offering a shell without a full reboot. Once you give it the ability to offer a running process to hijack and potentially have a shell open, the read-only mount only lasts until the equivalent of mount -o remount rw is executed, and then all bets are off.
OK, now this is a kind of straw man and slippery slope. Just because you "offer a shell", doesn't mean anyone can get it. Running a getty off the serial port isn't going to be susceptible to remote attacks. Only stuff you put on the network is a problem. And if they've got physical access, all bets are off anyway. Just because you're running processes doesn't make you vulnerable.
All this being said, if you have a system dedicated to firewalling by itself, and you are worth your salt as a network administrator, setting up a tight firewall is child's play.
It isn't necessarily the case it'll be "child's play," but it will be possible. If you're not experienced, you shouldn't let this novelty solution lull you into thinking you're secure. Ask or hire someone with experience to help.
And if someone untrusted can get into your network and come over the trusted interface into your firewall, well, your network has a lot more problems than a less than perfect firewall.
This might be fine for a firewall whose rules never change, but if you want to actually do something to it, you can't have it halted, and rebooting will just cause downtime.
Why don't you just run with drives mounted read-only, or have everything copied to a ramdisk? Surely you can verify a rule to allow remote access from only certain locations if this is your problem, or even require serial console access.
The probability of this happening is about zero. Any network programmer worth half a grain of salt would know about the problems inherent in using UDP, and for general MP3 file sharing, etc, they would integrate a TCP based transport (AIMster already does this, as do many others. Think/dcc for IM clients)
Ah, but you assume AOL or Microsoft has a network programmer worth half a grain of salt.
Companies don't just write a game VM because, while it may be cheaper for the company, a console is cheaper for most people. Hardcore PC gamers may have a GHz athlon with a top-of-the-line video card, DVD-ROM, etc., but a sizeable portion of the console population does not.
Heck, I do Linux development, and I only have a dual p2-350 with a gf2mx. Having a really fast system might be nice, but what I've got is sufficient for what I do. The fact I prefer console games coupled with the fact that the cost upgrading my box to something sufficiently new would be many times more than a $300 unit (a PS2 in my case) pretty much ties it up. (I like avoiding the Microsoft tax, too.;-))
For most families, upgrading their box doesn't happen often, if ever. If they have a sufficiently new machine, it may have what it takes to play current-generation games. If not, the idea of opening up their box and finding the necessary parts to play a game is probably not something they want to hassle with. On the other hand, spending $200-300 on a drop-in solution where they can pick any game off the shelf and know it works is quite desirable. After all, they probably did the same thing with the rest of their "home entertainement system" (DVD player, stereo system, TV, etc.).
Since most of the time companies actually make money on their consoles, this is all just icing on the cake. People want a simple product, they want the games, and companies profit on both and get a wider audience to boot. Developers like it for all the reasons that have been discussed repeatedly (single uniform platform, optimized for gaming), thus line up to make games.
In the end, having a VM would be nice for users who already have high-end machines, but that's just not a large enough audience. Doing both would be nice, but supporting a VM on a wide range of platforms would be a major cost with little revenue. (Mostly support costs, theoretically you could make up what a console would profit you from off-the-shelf prices, but there's also "piracy" to contend with.) Arguably, you'd never get the same level of optimization, either. (Developers like having low-level hardware access.)
Console hardware is just a better business decision for most places.
But there aren't any PS2 games that aren't available elsewhere that make the PS2 a must buy.
This has got to be a troll or just another GCN fanboy. Try the following unique games that are really great (and these are just the ones I've got):
Twisted Metal Black
Gran Turismo 3
Klonoa 2
Gauntlet: Dark Legacy
Kinetica
Jak and Daxter
Ico
Devil May Cry
Frequency
Final Fantasy X
Now how about the ones that are apparently will eventually be ported, but I already have them:
Silent Hill 2
Grand Theft Auto III
Metal Gear Solid 2
This of course doesn't include some of the lesser titles, the upcoming titles, and the ones I don't have and didn't include (like SSX Tricky and THPS3, the latter of which I know is available on the GCN already).
Now, maybe you think some of these aren't worth it. Maybe. But for most of us, these are all great reasons to get a PS2.
I'm no Sony fanboy. I've already got a GBA, and as soon as some of the scheduled GCN titles arrive (Mario, Zelda, and some of the RPGs), I'm getting a GCN too.
But there's no way you're going to get my PS2.
I agree somewhat, but this is apples and oranges
on
Textmode Quake 2
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
The government is obtrusive enough as it is. I don't want the government to be able to force anyone to release information that they don't want to, just because some arbitrarily chosen timer has run out.
I agree, but this isn't the same thing. It's not really different from, say, copyrights expiring after a reasonable period of time (read: a few years, 7 max for software, just like when copyright law was originally enacted). The limit on software should probably be 3-4 years due to the extremely short lifespan.
In fact, it could be made a part of software copyright law that for a copyright to be granted on a piece of software, it as well as the source must be released into the public domain after the 4-year copyright period.
This is a far stretch from requiring private, personal information from individuals. It's just the original spirit of the copyright law returned. But don't expect to see something so sane get passed, large corporations are making too much off the laws as they are, and pushing for even worse ones like the DMCA and SSSCA.
(Personally I think corporations should be required to disclose all information publically at all times, except for "trade secret" information, which can stay secret for at most a year or two. Patents should not be applicable against individuals or non-commercial entities, only against commercial corporations. Copyrights should also be reduced to 7 years again. But then I might as well wish for world peace or something.:-P)
This article is pretty much a glorified troll, complete with reasonably-stated FUD. You can tell the difference though because you get that weird gut feeling that something is wrong. Let's analyze just the quote:
"Perhaps Linux shouldn't be regarded as an operating system at all, but more as a sophisticated multi-player game with a large number of enthusiastic players."
Wow, this is a good one. Linux isn't really an OS---just a game. Read: it may be good for entertainment value, but is not something a business would use. This sounds like something out of a Microsoft spin factory.
"You can lose yourself in Linux for hours, tweaking here, updating there. It's great fun if you like that sort of thing."
Read: it takes forever to configure the thing, it's not just point and click.
"But if you need to produce a document, spreadsheet or presentation, you're still likely to be able to do it faster and better by sticking with the Microsoft devil you know."
Read: I'm too dumb to figure out StarOffice, because it doesn't say "Microsoft" on the side of the box. (Or one of the countless alternatives. I'm preaching to the choir here, of course, and you know what's out there already.)
Just a product of your typical FUD factory. Some of these might have been valid concerns 5-10 years ago, but come on. Quit trolling. Even the "popular" news rags don't spout this stuff anymore.
There are too many competitors out there who'll just blatantly use every line of your source code in a knock-off box.
I've known firmware developers personally who've copied binary driver code illegally and used it in commercial products. Open sourcing your own work is just like handing those crooks the keys.
I fail to overlook your blatant contradiction here. If a crook is a crook, they're going to use your code either way. Obviously security by obscurite doesn't work here either. Now, I can hear you saying "but open sourcing it just makes it easier for them!"
You might as well give up your whole business model and go do something else.
If your whole business model revolves around writing binary drivers for something, maybe you should go do something else. Reverse engineering is still legal. Hiding your code just makes it tough to figure out where it's broken. If your competitors are using your code, then you can force them under the GPL to open up their code as well.
Now I can see the real finger pointing, "see, see, there's the viral GPL in action!" Let's get this straight: your competitors took your code, your code is not an airborne disease that forced itself on them. This is the GPL protecting you. And again, if your whole business model relies on merely writing some drivers for something, it's not a very good one. If you're actually manufacturing a product, your product should be the thing worth something.
I don't know why video game companies think they can go off and make a movie becuase they produced some cut scenes for their last title, in the same way I don't know why Hollywood thinks they can produce video games.
If you've ever played a Final Fantasy game (and liked it: plenty of people don't, it's purely a matter of taste), I'm sure you've thought "wouldn't it be cool to see a movie?"
From FF4 and on, the epic storylines and character developments just beg for something like a movie. They scream "think of what a movie with all this stuff would be like!"
Unfortunately for Square, they seemed to work on the movie like they did their games: going for technological masterpiece as well as brilliant storytelling. The problem seems to be that since there aren't any real technological bounds but time on a movie (unlike a console, where you're pushing the limits of hardware, but you still have limits), limitless time went into this area. Now, I liked the story, and the characters, and the plot, and the setting, and the themes. I tend to like anime, though, and am very forgiving of problems when there is at least some merit to a film.
Personally I thought the graphics were great, but I would have been very satisfied if they'd done a live-action film of greater length, and brought out their storyline more. One of the real problems with doing a Final Fantasy movie is that while you've got 80 hours of game to develop characters, setting, and plot, even a 3-hour movie doesn't do justice. It's not that Square is bad at these things, they're just not too experienced yet at writing short stories.
Why video game companies are willing to risk large sums on a traditionally low yield business (movie making) when their own video game market is already larger than the revenue stream for movies.
This is really what I wanted to address. Not everything is done solely for money, and it's a sad state of affairs that these things should be determined on how much money it will bring in. Square has shown repeatedly in the past that it is willing to take a risk: just look at Vagrant Story or Legend of Mana. They don't like to lose, of course; sadly the teams that don't produce high-yield titles don't usually do well. But at least they're willing to take the risk.
The Final Fantasy movie was pretty bad. It had great hair and lighting effects, true, but who gives a rats ass when the story lopes along and the characters are 2 dimensional and sterile. Hollywood is already very good at delivering this type of garbage, I wouldn't recommend trying to compete.
I disagree. I think the movie was actually pretty good all things considered. I've seen (and enjoyed) much worse anime and other movies, both TV and big-screen. The movie was too short to go into fleshing out the characters, but it is quite easy to imagine how things would be if this were, say, a trilogy or better. Instead of starting in a nearly-dead world, we could have seen a pre-apocalyptic world, and then have it ravaged. Instead of merely telling about the first six spirits, we could have seen Aki finding them, watch her sadness as the little girl died, etc.
The story wasn't bad, the movie was just a bit too short. Instead of dismissing it as not being perfect the first time, we need to acknowledge its potential. Who would have thought that there could be a decent movie when watching the first cheesy silent movie? Or a truly emotional animated story after seeing the first corny cartoon? Just give it time. Someone has to be the pioneer. In this case, it's Square.
When I'm sitting in front of my monitor, with the notebook sitting on the MIDI keyboard for irc, while watching a DivX of LotR and playing FFX via a TV card on my PS2, and waiting for email about the latest kernel release, how will I be away from my computer?;-)
(Oh yeah, and just kidding about the DivX thing. Honest!;-))
Sony MAKES money on each PS2--quite a bit, in fact
on
Sony vs Modchips
·
· Score: 5, Informative
More actsofgord links. People should read this site---in addition to being funny and evil, he really knows what he's talking about. In this case, console
manufacturers typically do not lose money on each console. This includes Sony and Nintendo right now. Only Microsoft is losing money on each XBOX. According to his calculations, Sony is making a pretty penny, too. If you really want to hurt them, buy an XBOX (but do you really want to help MS?), or a GameCube (same applies to Nintendo, really).
They're pretty much all evil, I guess. Maybe I'll visit the bookstore.;-)
THESE MODCHIPS ARE NOT FOR PIRACY
on
Sony vs Modchips
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
You really should read actsofgord, which explains this nicely. There are two sorts of modchips: the ones that defeat copy protection, and the ones that defeat region protection. The latter are what we're talking about; the only use for them is playing legitimate, bought-and-paid-for games from different regions.
There is only one reason to have region "protection", and that's simply control. The only thing I can see this gains for companies is by letting them use this artificial monopoly to increase the price in certain regions. Technological controls keep them from importing. This is not a copyright-protection issue. It is only an issue of control and artificial price inflation.
I have a PS2 (not to mention lots of peripherals and 15 legitimate games I paid full price for, not to mention the load of legitimate PSX games I also bought), and I love the games, and I'd love to import stuff. Sony's wanting to rip another $400+ out of me for an import PS2 is just pure greed. They lost against Bleem, I hope they lose here, too.
I love the games. I want the games. But this is ridiculous.
Flamebait is typically written to elicit strong emotional response and name-calling from the target audience... this falls under the "troll" category which gives a more subtle feeling of disturbance, saying something usually inaccurate or incorrect in a seemingly reasonable manner to generate lots of "discussion". Let's go point-by-point:
Remember Michael's over-the-top misinformed rant about this 3 days ago?
Seeing as michael's story was neither misinformation nor an over-the-top rant (read the story), this plays on the popular opinion that slashdot gets a lot of stuff wrong all the time, as well as our obvious anti-Microsoft bias, to pretend that it was in fact an over-the-top misinformed rant.
... they refuse to provide any information about when a patch might be made available, if ever.
I'm surprised he posted this fix, kinda points out how far off base/. was a short 3 days ago.
Did they provide information about when a patch was available? At the time, they did not, so this is hardly misinformation. Whether they release a patch today or three months from now, "no information" is still "no information".
Hey, I'm no M$ fan and I kinda expect some opinion on/. posts... but there comes a point when it turns into yellow journalism and becomes childish M$ name calling.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe "M$" is childish name calling. "If it agrees with me, it's opinion, otherwise it's bias": This just about sums it up. There is nothing wrong with bias; there is no way to avoid it, claiming something is unbiased is a great indication that something is trying to be intentionally misleading. I read slashdot because the bias mostly agrees with my own. Perhaps your time would be better spent looking for a more agreeable forum, instead of trolling on this one.
Slashdot Mirror
No, because for the most part it's a silly distribution model. They can expect anything they want, but that doesn't mean they're going to get it.
Or in other words, they shouldn't expect to turn a real profit, because only a few people are actually going to plunk down $20 for their crappy utility.
See, the problem with shareware is that people want $5-$20 for something that's usually inane and/or poorly written, and people are either going to use the trial version for as long as they want (if that's an option), find a crack (for the less-ethical), or find a different solution. Buying it would make people feel ripped-off, and most people don't like to feel like that.
There are exceptions of course, as id software and others have shown in the past. Heck, I paid for the Crossover plugin, because it did what I wanted and the money is supporting a decent cause. (I don't know the numbers for how many others have bought it though... this would be interesting to know.)
But otherwise, people shouldn't expect to write their first VB app that does some inane thing (crappy address book or take a screenshot or something) and expect people to pay $5 for it. They have no right to make money. That's not how the system works. (Although many businesses would like to think they're guaranteed such a right, from the CueCat people to the RIAA and MPAA.)
If you've got a good business model, plan, product, and your target market actually exists, you can expect to make money (although there are no guarantees... your competitor may still be one better.) But if you've got a crappy product, silly business model, and a target audience who isn't going to pay, don't expect a profit to come your way.
Am I the only one who saw the headline and wondered whether P3P was some new file distribution fad? ;-) I can see it now. P3P: Share music with two friends at once!
OK, sue me, it's been a long day...
Nintendo has done more than their share of backstabbing too, and they've caused most of their own problems. First they backstabbed Sony with the N64 CDROM deal. They backstabbed Square by refusing to move from the outmoded cartridge game format, keeping Square from being able to create Final Fantasy VII. (They started in this direction, see the Final Fantasy SGI demo. In the end, Square said they could have done FF7 for the N64, it just would have cost $7k for the cartridge.)
Thus the rise and domination of Sony. It's interesting to note that every platform Square has seriously developed for has been the dominant platform: NES, GameBoy, SNES, PlayStation, PS2.
Nintendo can say what they want, but after the fiasco that was the N64, and the pressure from Sony and Microsoft, Nintendo needs Square a lot more than they'll let on. Excluding Square is not really an option. They need third-party games; first-party games just aren't enough (as the N64 showed).
That said, I don't mean to imply I'm upset in any manner at this news. This is great! I've wanted to see Square and Nintendo get back together for awhile... I want to see Square stuff on my GBA, and getting a GCN I'd love to get Square games on that.
Plus, as history has shown (see: Dreamcast), Square leads the majority of buyers, and this is probably a nail in the coffin of the XBOX. ;-)
This is sooooo irrelevant. If it were truly a "tip jar" in the first place, I could go and pay 10c or 50c a day to get my daily quota of ad-free pages. (Whatever happened to micropayments, people?) This might even be kinda neat. People could pay a few cents and see what it's like, and get hooked. What's a few cents after all? But it adds up... (Current subscription rates are half a cent per page view, so.)
As it stands though, this is just a poorly-devised, poorly-designed shot in the dark. You'd have thought they'd learn from all the dot-coms. Common sense here. My trained pet USB cable has better suggestions. ;-)
This is complete BS, actually. Number one fallacy is a false dichotomy: either there are ads, or we make no money. Take a look at IGN. They are a partially-free, partially-pay site (although they're moving more toward for-pay), and I subscribe to them for $20 a year. And I'm happy to do it, because they have the kind of extra content for subscribers I'm willing to pay for (in addition to just supporting a site that I really like and frequent).
This plan is complete BS. Assuming people will go for paying for not getting something is stupid. Paying for exclusion is stupid, because I can limit the signal myself, there's no service there. Supporting a site I like or not, I can't help but feel ripped off.
Now if they moved slashdot to mostly-pay-for-stories, added some good original content, and did some bloody editing, I'd be happy to pay. I mean, slashdot is their only job, right? What exactly the heck do they do all day? Click a story and add a few halfway-literate comments without even checking? This is all fine and I have no complaints if I'm getting it for free. But if you want me to pay, shape up. That's all there is to it.
But do we have to have John Edward there to get the full truth?
I'm probably going to get Hauppauge WinTV cards. Despite the name, they work great in Linux, and I think they're the most well-supported. I've got one now I picked up a year or so ago for $70. (This has "all the features", that is FM tuner interface, etc. They had them as low as $50 at the time.) I've also gotten an ATI one going (I believe), but I forget the details there.
That said, I'm also in the market for some cards with onboard mpeg encoding, because that'll take a load off the bus and the CPU and my wallet (given they're reasonable, of course). I've seen one mpeg-2 encoder that works under linux, but it was rather ridiculous (330 EUR).
HTH.
Well, this of course assumes they can collect this information. With a homebrew PVR (which costs a bit more, but does more, too), they can't. Even if they are getting the information, I'm not terribly concerned. Let them. I think I'm with CmdrTaco on this one; if they want to show me commercials I like to watch (amusing ones, cool ones, etc.), more power to them. I like watching commercials that are (truly) humorous, or use cool technology, or play music I like. Heck, if they instituted a commercial rating system, I'd probably use it, and they'd get even more valuable information.
(As I said in my initial post, I encode TV and watch it already. Skipping commercials is great. However, I don't always skip all commercials. Ones that catch my eye, I rewind and watch. Movie previews, etc. With mpeg, I can even catch informational details I'd otherwise miss.)
The technology really could benefit both sides. Networks just need to figure this out, and figure it out now, as I said in another post. If they can't, they'll suffer. If they can, we'll all be a little happier.
I realize your comment was flamebait, but you do suggest a good thing in paying for things according to show, not timeslot. That's what should be done. As for me dictating that they need to make this change now or lose profits... well, that's how the market works, son. I'm not here just to figure out how to make someone else more money. I don't care.
This is quite silly. I'll just edit them out, in realtime if need be. :-) I can make various encoders encode only blocks of the input video as it is, and making them overlay other portions would be pretty easy. If you're like me and you want to archive stuff, you're willing to spend a little "postproduction" time editing stuff out, too (I'm sure not going to archive commercials).
Again, I'm not here so I can make someone else money. I pay for cable, and there's no law forcing me to watch ads (yet...). With a PVR, I could easily add +/- buttons to a remote to drop scanlines from the top or bottom of the image and stretch the picture. This would take care of annoying stations like TNN.
The technology is there, and it's easy. People are going to use it. Networks need to adapt now, or suffer. That's how life works.
It's called Prime Time. It's what advertisers pay them bigtime for, and when all the most popular shows get scheduled. After all, this is the time the largest target audience is going to be watching.
Now, VCRs aren't such a big deal, because they're clunky and inconvenient. Programming them is a pain. Manually recording defeats most of the point, since you still have to be there.
Throw into the mix PVRs, though, and Prime Time becomes any time. If everyone has a PVR (and they could eventually... they're cheap, and so convenient), there's no reason to schedule a show during any particular hour, since that's probably not when it'll get watched. There will be no time-based competition. Advertisers won't see the point in paying extra for any particular timeslot. By controlling the horizontal and vertical, they're getting more money, and now they see PVRs taking that away.
So everyone go get/build a PVR if you want to stick it to them.
On a somewhat on-topic note, it's really easy to build one of these things, too. The software is already there in parts, it just needs a little glue. Check out mp1e for encoding, or anything else you like such as low-bitrate DivX. Combine this with mplayer or something and a little at, cron, or various web-based TV recording stuff on freshmeat and there you've got it. I already do this all manually and it works better than TV (skipping ads is really worth it, not to mention not missing shows), and I'm planning on putting together a box with 3-4 TV cards to do this in a dedicated manner. Go PVRs.
I am somewhat indignant at this remark. I write software because it is useful to me, and because I feel it might be useful to others. I release it as Free Software because I feel the this is the way people will get the most use out of it, and possibly improve it for everyone else, as well.
As for Fallacy 10.2 and 10.4, it's easily shown to be invalid via counterexample. Linux, gcc, XFree86, etc., are all case in point here.
Fallacy 10.3 is my own personal business. Who are you to tell me my motivation is inappropriate? I think the sole desire to make money is an inappropriate motivation. Should I tell you to stop writing software for money? Of course not.
As for F10.1, I consider this highly irrelevant. I don't give two hoots about Open Source or Free Software as an economic model. (In fact, if my Free Software ruins your market, I'd be more than apathetic, I'd be somewhat gleeful. ;-))
And in addition, as others have said, you can afford not to log it, and if---just when you think you can "afford a very static set of firewall rules"---you reboot, you can afford network downtime. This sucks.
OK, now this is a kind of straw man and slippery slope. Just because you "offer a shell", doesn't mean anyone can get it. Running a getty off the serial port isn't going to be susceptible to remote attacks. Only stuff you put on the network is a problem. And if they've got physical access, all bets are off anyway. Just because you're running processes doesn't make you vulnerable.
It isn't necessarily the case it'll be "child's play," but it will be possible. If you're not experienced, you shouldn't let this novelty solution lull you into thinking you're secure. Ask or hire someone with experience to help.
"And if you're screwed, you're screwed." Duh.
This might be fine for a firewall whose rules never change, but if you want to actually do something to it, you can't have it halted, and rebooting will just cause downtime.
Why don't you just run with drives mounted read-only, or have everything copied to a ramdisk? Surely you can verify a rule to allow remote access from only certain locations if this is your problem, or even require serial console access.
Ah, but you assume AOL or Microsoft has a network programmer worth half a grain of salt.
Companies don't just write a game VM because, while it may be cheaper for the company, a console is cheaper for most people. Hardcore PC gamers may have a GHz athlon with a top-of-the-line video card, DVD-ROM, etc., but a sizeable portion of the console population does not.
Heck, I do Linux development, and I only have a dual p2-350 with a gf2mx. Having a really fast system might be nice, but what I've got is sufficient for what I do. The fact I prefer console games coupled with the fact that the cost upgrading my box to something sufficiently new would be many times more than a $300 unit (a PS2 in my case) pretty much ties it up. (I like avoiding the Microsoft tax, too. ;-))
For most families, upgrading their box doesn't happen often, if ever. If they have a sufficiently new machine, it may have what it takes to play current-generation games. If not, the idea of opening up their box and finding the necessary parts to play a game is probably not something they want to hassle with. On the other hand, spending $200-300 on a drop-in solution where they can pick any game off the shelf and know it works is quite desirable. After all, they probably did the same thing with the rest of their "home entertainement system" (DVD player, stereo system, TV, etc.).
Since most of the time companies actually make money on their consoles, this is all just icing on the cake. People want a simple product, they want the games, and companies profit on both and get a wider audience to boot. Developers like it for all the reasons that have been discussed repeatedly (single uniform platform, optimized for gaming), thus line up to make games.
In the end, having a VM would be nice for users who already have high-end machines, but that's just not a large enough audience. Doing both would be nice, but supporting a VM on a wide range of platforms would be a major cost with little revenue. (Mostly support costs, theoretically you could make up what a console would profit you from off-the-shelf prices, but there's also "piracy" to contend with.) Arguably, you'd never get the same level of optimization, either. (Developers like having low-level hardware access.)
Console hardware is just a better business decision for most places.
This has got to be a troll or just another GCN fanboy. Try the following unique games that are really great (and these are just the ones I've got):
Now how about the ones that are apparently will eventually be ported, but I already have them:
This of course doesn't include some of the lesser titles, the upcoming titles, and the ones I don't have and didn't include (like SSX Tricky and THPS3, the latter of which I know is available on the GCN already).
Now, maybe you think some of these aren't worth it. Maybe. But for most of us, these are all great reasons to get a PS2.
I'm no Sony fanboy. I've already got a GBA, and as soon as some of the scheduled GCN titles arrive (Mario, Zelda, and some of the RPGs), I'm getting a GCN too.
But there's no way you're going to get my PS2.
I agree, but this isn't the same thing. It's not really different from, say, copyrights expiring after a reasonable period of time (read: a few years, 7 max for software, just like when copyright law was originally enacted). The limit on software should probably be 3-4 years due to the extremely short lifespan.
In fact, it could be made a part of software copyright law that for a copyright to be granted on a piece of software, it as well as the source must be released into the public domain after the 4-year copyright period.
This is a far stretch from requiring private, personal information from individuals. It's just the original spirit of the copyright law returned. But don't expect to see something so sane get passed, large corporations are making too much off the laws as they are, and pushing for even worse ones like the DMCA and SSSCA.
(Personally I think corporations should be required to disclose all information publically at all times, except for "trade secret" information, which can stay secret for at most a year or two. Patents should not be applicable against individuals or non-commercial entities, only against commercial corporations. Copyrights should also be reduced to 7 years again. But then I might as well wish for world peace or something. :-P)
This article is pretty much a glorified troll, complete with reasonably-stated FUD. You can tell the difference though because you get that weird gut feeling that something is wrong. Let's analyze just the quote:
Wow, this is a good one. Linux isn't really an OS---just a game. Read: it may be good for entertainment value, but is not something a business would use. This sounds like something out of a Microsoft spin factory.
Read: it takes forever to configure the thing, it's not just point and click.
Read: I'm too dumb to figure out StarOffice, because it doesn't say "Microsoft" on the side of the box. (Or one of the countless alternatives. I'm preaching to the choir here, of course, and you know what's out there already.)
Just a product of your typical FUD factory. Some of these might have been valid concerns 5-10 years ago, but come on. Quit trolling. Even the "popular" news rags don't spout this stuff anymore.
I fail to overlook your blatant contradiction here. If a crook is a crook, they're going to use your code either way. Obviously security by obscurite doesn't work here either. Now, I can hear you saying "but open sourcing it just makes it easier for them!"
If your whole business model revolves around writing binary drivers for something, maybe you should go do something else. Reverse engineering is still legal. Hiding your code just makes it tough to figure out where it's broken. If your competitors are using your code, then you can force them under the GPL to open up their code as well.
Now I can see the real finger pointing, "see, see, there's the viral GPL in action!" Let's get this straight: your competitors took your code, your code is not an airborne disease that forced itself on them. This is the GPL protecting you. And again, if your whole business model relies on merely writing some drivers for something, it's not a very good one. If you're actually manufacturing a product, your product should be the thing worth something.
If you've ever played a Final Fantasy game (and liked it: plenty of people don't, it's purely a matter of taste), I'm sure you've thought "wouldn't it be cool to see a movie?" From FF4 and on, the epic storylines and character developments just beg for something like a movie. They scream "think of what a movie with all this stuff would be like!"
Unfortunately for Square, they seemed to work on the movie like they did their games: going for technological masterpiece as well as brilliant storytelling. The problem seems to be that since there aren't any real technological bounds but time on a movie (unlike a console, where you're pushing the limits of hardware, but you still have limits), limitless time went into this area. Now, I liked the story, and the characters, and the plot, and the setting, and the themes. I tend to like anime, though, and am very forgiving of problems when there is at least some merit to a film.
Personally I thought the graphics were great, but I would have been very satisfied if they'd done a live-action film of greater length, and brought out their storyline more. One of the real problems with doing a Final Fantasy movie is that while you've got 80 hours of game to develop characters, setting, and plot, even a 3-hour movie doesn't do justice. It's not that Square is bad at these things, they're just not too experienced yet at writing short stories.
This is really what I wanted to address. Not everything is done solely for money, and it's a sad state of affairs that these things should be determined on how much money it will bring in. Square has shown repeatedly in the past that it is willing to take a risk: just look at Vagrant Story or Legend of Mana. They don't like to lose, of course; sadly the teams that don't produce high-yield titles don't usually do well. But at least they're willing to take the risk.
I disagree. I think the movie was actually pretty good all things considered. I've seen (and enjoyed) much worse anime and other movies, both TV and big-screen. The movie was too short to go into fleshing out the characters, but it is quite easy to imagine how things would be if this were, say, a trilogy or better. Instead of starting in a nearly-dead world, we could have seen a pre-apocalyptic world, and then have it ravaged. Instead of merely telling about the first six spirits, we could have seen Aki finding them, watch her sadness as the little girl died, etc.
The story wasn't bad, the movie was just a bit too short. Instead of dismissing it as not being perfect the first time, we need to acknowledge its potential. Who would have thought that there could be a decent movie when watching the first cheesy silent movie? Or a truly emotional animated story after seeing the first corny cartoon? Just give it time. Someone has to be the pioneer. In this case, it's Square.
When I'm sitting in front of my monitor, with the notebook sitting on the MIDI keyboard for irc, while watching a DivX of LotR and playing FFX via a TV card on my PS2, and waiting for email about the latest kernel release, how will I be away from my computer? ;-)
(Oh yeah, and just kidding about the DivX thing. Honest! ;-))
More actsofgord links. People should read this site---in addition to being funny and evil, he really knows what he's talking about. In this case, console manufacturers typically do not lose money on each console. This includes Sony and Nintendo right now. Only Microsoft is losing money on each XBOX. According to his calculations, Sony is making a pretty penny, too. If you really want to hurt them, buy an XBOX (but do you really want to help MS?), or a GameCube (same applies to Nintendo, really).
They're pretty much all evil, I guess. Maybe I'll visit the bookstore. ;-)
You really should read actsofgord, which explains this nicely. There are two sorts of modchips: the ones that defeat copy protection, and the ones that defeat region protection. The latter are what we're talking about; the only use for them is playing legitimate, bought-and-paid-for games from different regions.
There is only one reason to have region "protection", and that's simply control. The only thing I can see this gains for companies is by letting them use this artificial monopoly to increase the price in certain regions. Technological controls keep them from importing. This is not a copyright-protection issue. It is only an issue of control and artificial price inflation.
I have a PS2 (not to mention lots of peripherals and 15 legitimate games I paid full price for, not to mention the load of legitimate PSX games I also bought), and I love the games, and I'd love to import stuff. Sony's wanting to rip another $400+ out of me for an import PS2 is just pure greed. They lost against Bleem, I hope they lose here, too.
I love the games. I want the games. But this is ridiculous.
I stand corrected. :-)
Flamebait is typically written to elicit strong emotional response and name-calling from the target audience... this falls under the "troll" category which gives a more subtle feeling of disturbance, saying something usually inaccurate or incorrect in a seemingly reasonable manner to generate lots of "discussion". Let's go point-by-point:
Seeing as michael's story was neither misinformation nor an over-the-top rant (read the story), this plays on the popular opinion that slashdot gets a lot of stuff wrong all the time, as well as our obvious anti-Microsoft bias, to pretend that it was in fact an over-the-top misinformed rant.
Did they provide information about when a patch was available? At the time, they did not, so this is hardly misinformation. Whether they release a patch today or three months from now, "no information" is still "no information".
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe "M$" is childish name calling. "If it agrees with me, it's opinion, otherwise it's bias": This just about sums it up. There is nothing wrong with bias; there is no way to avoid it, claiming something is unbiased is a great indication that something is trying to be intentionally misleading. I read slashdot because the bias mostly agrees with my own. Perhaps your time would be better spent looking for a more agreeable forum, instead of trolling on this one.