For cable TV, it's a corrupt deal. The cable company pays for exclusivity by collecting a lot of taxes from their subscribers. They funnel this money into the city's coffers to be spent on goodies (essentially vote-buying for the city council).
City councils should cut those taxes and allow cable companies to compete, offering subscribers better TV service at lower prices. But people see the new municipal goodies and credit their city councilman then they blame the cable company for the size of the bill.
Dvorak is wrong if he thinks a WGA failure is an example of a "software as a service" failure.
WGA isn't a service or a feature. WGA is a license enforcement mechanism. The purpose of license enforcement mechanisms is to prevent you from using features or services. If it didn't work the way you wanted it to work, that's normal -- it isn't supposed to. It's not there to help you. It's there to limit you.
Google Reader and Google Maps are a good example of "software as a service". You can buy shrink-wrap versions of these applications from competitors -- at least you could in the past. Does anyone really think that these apps are going back to the desktop?
Since anyone can sue anyone else without regard to any merit or wrongdoing, lawsuits indicate nothing. Anyone who has a lot of money will be sued. Repeatedly.
Lawsuits indicate nothing -- nothing except that lack of lawsuits indicates you're too poor for it to be worthwhile for someone to sue you.
---
How many false rootkit stories will it take for Slashdot readers to "get it into their head" that Slashdot-news=uncertainty? Any news story posted on Slashdot may or may not be true. The more hyped, news-worthy or interesting, the less likely it is to be factual.
Some of us think opinions and points of view can contribute to the fun and entertainment, whereas you dismiss creators who wish to do so.
Why are games based on movies almost always bad?
Games based on movies are bad because the game makers are motivated artificially. They didn't have a brilliant idea for a game. They had a marketing opportunity, and had to find a way to make a game that would exploit that opportunity. When it's not about the game, the game doesn't turn out well.
Putting game-makers' opinions in games is similar. They're not about the game. More than likely, the game isn't going to be any good if it focuses on them.
---
There are, no doubt, niche opportunities to create games that appeal to small segments of gamers. Even the strangest things have some appeal to someone. But it makes limited sense for game companies to spend money chasing such tiny segments of the market.
And I'm not sure what everyone's point is. "Art is good" is a fine opinion, but it's not much of a counterpoint to "games should be fun".
"Some people find sitting perfectly still fun" is a poor argument for making games about sitting perfectly still. And someone who did make such a game might expect a certain amount of ridicule.
So I think people are still trying pretty hard to miss the point.
---
No one has tried arguing "games don't always have to be fun" yet. Why couldn't we have games that are designed to annoy the game player? To punish him? To cause him sadness? To give him a headache? Why not? Why does everything have to fit in your happy little Disney mold, man? Why can't it be different?
I'm a little disappointed, actually.
It's similar to the other arguments. The answer is the same, only more obvious.
But many successful games exist and none have focused on Micheal Moore-style propaganda. So it's clearly not a proven business model. But fun continues to succeed.
I feel sorry for you, that people with such fucked up moralities exist.
I'm not sure why you're bringing up "moralities". What are you even talking about? No one mentioned anything about "moralities" except for you. Can you explain how "moralities" are even a relevant part of the discussion?
I think you need to read the words and stop responding to the voices in your head.
You don't even know what these game and film makers' opinions would be, yet you are ready to insult them all without knowing them by labeling those opinions ridiculous. Is every opinion ridiculous?
No. The thing that makes them ridiculous is their attitude toward the audience. They look down on the audience.
No one asked them their opinions. The need that these people have to tell us what they think is ridiculous. They think their opinions matter. A lot. More than yours and mine. That's what makes them ridiculous. Even when they're right.
(And for lots of opinions, there are other things that make them even more ridiculous.)
After all, the guy saying this is working on a game about being a huge super-cool dragon that flies through the skies and burns up cities, and armies, and and other dragons!
If only that big dragon could have a gay affair with the other dragons and then stop breathing fire because it pollutes the atmosphere and kills the polar bears. He could stay home and make a peace quilt to give to the enemy troops and write op-ed pieces about his feelings.
Does that sound more fun?
No one has answered the basic question: How is it fun? Explain. Make a case that your "vision" for games is fun. Convince people -- or at least try.
Saying "I think it's entertaining" doesn't really cut it. Games aren't made for "I". Games are made for an audience. If you can't make the case that some scenario is entertaining -- if you can't even make a good try -- then how can you appeal to an audience?
I'm telling game makers to make fun, entertaining games. I'm saying that's what people want. I'm not sure why anyone would want to argue against that. Some people enjoy missing the point of things, I guess.
The rest of your post argues against things I didn't say. You should consider going and finding someone who did say those things and argue with that him.
BTW: No one has come up with an answer to the basic question: What's fun about the big conversation about homosexual subjects these guys want to have?
Because no one has shown any ability to make any money doing it for games. And because 2 hours of propaganda is one thing, but modern games usually last for 10+ hours. That stuff wears out its welcome after a while, even if you agree with it.
Also, Moore makes his movies specifically with his audience in mind. His audience is a distinct subculture. He has a goal to appeal to them.
There are countless examples of other movies that have similar political or cultural motives but don't attempt to appeal to their audience. Those projects end up as failures.
I would be happy if in games we could talk about homosexuality...
And how would that conversation be fun exactly? How would it entertain your audience? Have the gamers of the world been asking for games that "talk about homosexuality"?
The game industry is facing a new threat. It's this Hollywood-ization factor. Game makers are starting to forget their audience and their mission, just as many film-makers have forgotten.
To game and film makers: You are in the entertainment business. No one wants to hear about your ridiculous opinions on politics, culture, or anything else. No one wants to play a videogame where the object of the game is to maximize the game-creators' social climbing.
Tell a story. Show us some nice graphics and animation. Challenge us. Focus on game play.
Leave your teaching, preaching, whining, awareness-building, and all the rest of your nonsense -- anything that's about you and not about the audience -- for your blog entries that no one reads.
I just made the same argument for different sized metal bearings as you made for different nanometer threading.
Ok. But the main difference is that the argument is actually correct when applied to 45nm chips. They aren't doing the same things smaller. They invented new devices and processes to make 45nm work -- hundreds of new inventions based on billions of dollars of research.
Slashdot Mirror
There's a partially empty set of results.
How about when it's not operating?
...so if you sell it in another state you are basically taking tax dollars away from California residents...
I thought Californians loved that. That's why they keep voting for it.
Yes, but only a little bit.
Exactly.
The day the Catholic Church starts paying taxes is the first day anyone should listen to them on tax questions.
Actually, since it's not even out yet, it can't even be said to be exclusive to the PS3 yet. Not in actual reality anyway.
It has been exclusively "announced" for the PS3. As for the availability in retail stores, they have as many copies for the 360 as for the PS3: zero.
For cable TV, it's a corrupt deal. The cable company pays for exclusivity by collecting a lot of taxes from their subscribers. They funnel this money into the city's coffers to be spent on goodies (essentially vote-buying for the city council).
City councils should cut those taxes and allow cable companies to compete, offering subscribers better TV service at lower prices. But people see the new municipal goodies and credit their city councilman then they blame the cable company for the size of the bill.
Dvorak is wrong if he thinks a WGA failure is an example of a "software as a service" failure.
WGA isn't a service or a feature. WGA is a license enforcement mechanism. The purpose of license enforcement mechanisms is to prevent you from using features or services. If it didn't work the way you wanted it to work, that's normal -- it isn't supposed to. It's not there to help you. It's there to limit you.
Google Reader and Google Maps are a good example of "software as a service". You can buy shrink-wrap versions of these applications from competitors -- at least you could in the past. Does anyone really think that these apps are going back to the desktop?
Since anyone can sue anyone else without regard to any merit or wrongdoing, lawsuits indicate nothing. Anyone who has a lot of money will be sued. Repeatedly.
Lawsuits indicate nothing -- nothing except that lack of lawsuits indicates you're too poor for it to be worthwhile for someone to sue you.
---
How many false rootkit stories will it take for Slashdot readers to "get it into their head" that Slashdot-news=uncertainty? Any news story posted on Slashdot may or may not be true. The more hyped, news-worthy or interesting, the less likely it is to be factual.
Some of us think opinions and points of view can contribute to the fun and entertainment, whereas you dismiss creators who wish to do so.
Why are games based on movies almost always bad?
Games based on movies are bad because the game makers are motivated artificially. They didn't have a brilliant idea for a game. They had a marketing opportunity, and had to find a way to make a game that would exploit that opportunity. When it's not about the game, the game doesn't turn out well.
Putting game-makers' opinions in games is similar. They're not about the game. More than likely, the game isn't going to be any good if it focuses on them.
---
There are, no doubt, niche opportunities to create games that appeal to small segments of gamers. Even the strangest things have some appeal to someone. But it makes limited sense for game companies to spend money chasing such tiny segments of the market.
And I'm not sure what everyone's point is. "Art is good" is a fine opinion, but it's not much of a counterpoint to "games should be fun".
"Some people find sitting perfectly still fun" is a poor argument for making games about sitting perfectly still. And someone who did make such a game might expect a certain amount of ridicule.
So I think people are still trying pretty hard to miss the point.
---
No one has tried arguing "games don't always have to be fun" yet. Why couldn't we have games that are designed to annoy the game player? To punish him? To cause him sadness? To give him a headache? Why not? Why does everything have to fit in your happy little Disney mold, man? Why can't it be different?
I'm a little disappointed, actually.
It's similar to the other arguments. The answer is the same, only more obvious.
It would make a nice 1-2 panel comic strip. It would be a boring game though.
I'd like to save the hot GUY for a change.
I made this point to someone else. Games aren't made for "I". Games are made for an audience. "I like XYZ" doesn't really cut it as an argument.
Are you saying there's a large-enough audience for a game to succeed based on what you personally think is fun?
Prove it.
Really? Prove that someone else thinks something to support an objective determination of whether something is "ridiculous" or not?
I'm not sure you understand the character of an opinion discussion.
No one has shown it to be possible or impossible.
But many successful games exist and none have focused on Micheal Moore-style propaganda. So it's clearly not a proven business model. But fun continues to succeed.
And the "fun" question? How does this make the game fun?
I feel sorry for you, that people with such fucked up moralities exist.
I'm not sure why you're bringing up "moralities". What are you even talking about? No one mentioned anything about "moralities" except for you. Can you explain how "moralities" are even a relevant part of the discussion?
I think you need to read the words and stop responding to the voices in your head.
One more thing:
You don't even know what these game and film makers' opinions would be, yet you are ready to insult them all without knowing them by labeling those opinions ridiculous. Is every opinion ridiculous?
No. The thing that makes them ridiculous is their attitude toward the audience. They look down on the audience.
No one asked them their opinions. The need that these people have to tell us what they think is ridiculous. They think their opinions matter. A lot. More than yours and mine. That's what makes them ridiculous. Even when they're right.
(And for lots of opinions, there are other things that make them even more ridiculous.)
How does talking about homosexuality equate to venting unwanted opinions?
Do you even play games? Which were the good, successful games that were all about homosexuality again?
Can't I as a developer just do whatever I want, as much as you can choose whatever game/movie/book you want?
Go nuts.
You won't have to worry about your audience not seeing your game because of censors. Disinterest will be your problem.
After all, the guy saying this is working on a game about being a huge super-cool dragon that flies through the skies and burns up cities, and armies, and and other dragons!
If only that big dragon could have a gay affair with the other dragons and then stop breathing fire because it pollutes the atmosphere and kills the polar bears. He could stay home and make a peace quilt to give to the enemy troops and write op-ed pieces about his feelings.
Does that sound more fun?
No one has answered the basic question: How is it fun? Explain. Make a case that your "vision" for games is fun. Convince people -- or at least try.
Saying "I think it's entertaining" doesn't really cut it. Games aren't made for "I". Games are made for an audience. If you can't make the case that some scenario is entertaining -- if you can't even make a good try -- then how can you appeal to an audience?
You are being a bit of a jerk, don't you think?
No.
I'm telling game makers to make fun, entertaining games. I'm saying that's what people want. I'm not sure why anyone would want to argue against that. Some people enjoy missing the point of things, I guess.
The rest of your post argues against things I didn't say. You should consider going and finding someone who did say those things and argue with that him.
BTW: No one has come up with an answer to the basic question: What's fun about the big conversation about homosexual subjects these guys want to have?
Why should games be any different?
Because no one has shown any ability to make any money doing it for games. And because 2 hours of propaganda is one thing, but modern games usually last for 10+ hours. That stuff wears out its welcome after a while, even if you agree with it.
Also, Moore makes his movies specifically with his audience in mind. His audience is a distinct subculture. He has a goal to appeal to them.
There are countless examples of other movies that have similar political or cultural motives but don't attempt to appeal to their audience. Those projects end up as failures.
It's about time games started tackling more delicate subject manner in a thoughtful way.
Why? Can you explain how that might translate into fun? Any idea at all?
Why is it "about time"? What is different about the current time than any other time?
Why games? What would be the goal of "tackling more delicate subject matter in a thoughtful way"? Specifically, what do you mean by "tackling"?
In other words, do you have any facts, reasoning, marketing data, or anything else to support your statement? Or are these just platitudes?
I would be happy if in games we could talk about homosexuality...
And how would that conversation be fun exactly? How would it entertain your audience? Have the gamers of the world been asking for games that "talk about homosexuality"?
The game industry is facing a new threat. It's this Hollywood-ization factor. Game makers are starting to forget their audience and their mission, just as many film-makers have forgotten.
To game and film makers: You are in the entertainment business. No one wants to hear about your ridiculous opinions on politics, culture, or anything else. No one wants to play a videogame where the object of the game is to maximize the game-creators' social climbing.
Tell a story. Show us some nice graphics and animation. Challenge us. Focus on game play.
Leave your teaching, preaching, whining, awareness-building, and all the rest of your nonsense -- anything that's about you and not about the audience -- for your blog entries that no one reads.
I just made the same argument for different sized metal bearings as you made for different nanometer threading.
Ok. But the main difference is that the argument is actually correct when applied to 45nm chips. They aren't doing the same things smaller. They invented new devices and processes to make 45nm work -- hundreds of new inventions based on billions of dollars of research.
That's not what Wikipedia says.