Hey, I didn't elect that idiot to the presidency. Talk to the millions of American voters who didn't care that their country is going to hell and didn't want to do a damn thing about it. At least Clinton just let things go on without furthering or decreasing our rights. It seems that we now have a president that wants to decrease our personal rights even further. Go figure.
I don't agree with you on the first point. I think it'd be more that we'd have to license our machines. However I do have to agree with the second point. A nation in which all of its members are criminals cannot sustain itself for a long period of time. I mean, who wants to live in a society in which everyone is in fear of their rights being taken away at the whim of government in favor of business?
This reminds me of the same idea for biotech companies patenting parts of the human genetic map. The US federal government isn't just sitting back and watching this happen, they're actively supporting it. The same thing can be said for entertainment industries. The US government (in its current state) supports this sort of abuse of its citizen's rights in the name of big business. I think it'll eventually get so intolerable that people are gonna consider active rebellion. Not that I would suggest that course of action. But let's face it. Who votes anymore?
Naw. That's not misinformed at all. I read Interplay's licensing agreement on http://www.sec.gov. What's funny about this, is that Shiny could go to another publisher and publish The Matrix with them since they're the ones who were awarded the rights to develop The Matrix in the first place. Microsoft assumes that Interplay has the rights, which they don't. Unfortunately I don't think Shiny would jump developers, despite the fact that that would be the smart thing to do (Interplay is financially a sinking ship. They've been having business trouble for at least three years now and it looks like it'll just get worse. Just looking at their ghetto-looking booth at E3 is proof of this fact.). Ah well. If Shiny wants to go down with Interplay, be my guest. Shiny hasn't really put out a decent game since MDK and the original Earthworm Jim games.
Anyways, it's nice to see that Microsoft is back to its predatory licensing practices again. I was hoping to see that end with the PC OEM manufacturers. Guess not.:/
That's a lot of work for the user on a machine that's supposed to be extremely simple to use (ie: put in game, turn power on, play game). Also, no two video cards are alike, regardless of the driver interface you're using. If there ever has to be a "patch" or "bugfix" for a particular game to run using a particular configuration, it defeats the purpose of having a console.
It's quite simple really. Budget is one major factor. Games are becoming more and more expensive to produce. As technology gets more advanced, more time is spent on developing for it and staying ahead of the curve. And as all game developers know, time is money. Also, why would anyone spend the massive amounts of time that game developers spend to develop a game if they are not going to benefit from it financially. Think about it. That's like producing a multi-million dollar movie without paying the cast or crew.
Another factor is promotion. A large portion of the money spent on a game is not just on development. It is spent on ads, box art, public relations (press), and various other methods of getting a product sold. Who is going to promote a game if they are not going to get paid for it? We wouldn't see any ads in game magazines, television, nor the internet. Okay, I understand that open source developers wouldn't actually "sell" the product. But who's going to play a game if they don't even know that it exists?
Another thing to think about when considering a "console" based on an operating system (both free and commercial... not mentioning any names here:P) is that consoles are static. They are never-changing machines that last for about 5 or so years before requiring replacement due to general technological advances. When you have a machine (e.g. a PC) that can be upgraded every couple of years that runs such operating systems, why even buy the cheapie version that can't be upgraded?
I was at E3 last year and I looked around at the Linux development booth. I must say, I was none too impressed. Let's face it. Anything that is entertainment related, whether it be software, film, television, recorded music, theater, etc requires a sizeable chunk of change if it is going to be of decent quality and be seen by the largest amount of people.
(Btw, I'm not saying that all games made commercially are wonderful. There are too many examples of this for me to list here.:P)
Slashdot Mirror
I consider the taking away of my rights to legitametly copy or use materials that I bought to be "legalized theft".
Hey, I didn't elect that idiot to the presidency. Talk to the millions of American voters who didn't care that their country is going to hell and didn't want to do a damn thing about it. At least Clinton just let things go on without furthering or decreasing our rights. It seems that we now have a president that wants to decrease our personal rights even further. Go figure.
I don't agree with you on the first point. I think it'd be more that we'd have to license our machines. However I do have to agree with the second point. A nation in which all of its members are criminals cannot sustain itself for a long period of time. I mean, who wants to live in a society in which everyone is in fear of their rights being taken away at the whim of government in favor of business?
This reminds me of the same idea for biotech companies patenting parts of the human genetic map. The US federal government isn't just sitting back and watching this happen, they're actively supporting it. The same thing can be said for entertainment industries. The US government (in its current state) supports this sort of abuse of its citizen's rights in the name of big business. I think it'll eventually get so intolerable that people are gonna consider active rebellion. Not that I would suggest that course of action. But let's face it. Who votes anymore?
Naw. That's not misinformed at all. I read Interplay's licensing agreement on http://www.sec.gov. What's funny about this, is that Shiny could go to another publisher and publish The Matrix with them since they're the ones who were awarded the rights to develop The Matrix in the first place. Microsoft assumes that Interplay has the rights, which they don't. Unfortunately I don't think Shiny would jump developers, despite the fact that that would be the smart thing to do (Interplay is financially a sinking ship. They've been having business trouble for at least three years now and it looks like it'll just get worse. Just looking at their ghetto-looking booth at E3 is proof of this fact.). Ah well. If Shiny wants to go down with Interplay, be my guest. Shiny hasn't really put out a decent game since MDK and the original Earthworm Jim games. Anyways, it's nice to see that Microsoft is back to its predatory licensing practices again. I was hoping to see that end with the PC OEM manufacturers. Guess not. :/
That's a lot of work for the user on a machine that's supposed to be extremely simple to use (ie: put in game, turn power on, play game). Also, no two video cards are alike, regardless of the driver interface you're using. If there ever has to be a "patch" or "bugfix" for a particular game to run using a particular configuration, it defeats the purpose of having a console.
It's quite simple really. Budget is one major factor. Games are becoming more and more expensive to produce. As technology gets more advanced, more time is spent on developing for it and staying ahead of the curve. And as all game developers know, time is money. Also, why would anyone spend the massive amounts of time that game developers spend to develop a game if they are not going to benefit from it financially. Think about it. That's like producing a multi-million dollar movie without paying the cast or crew. Another factor is promotion. A large portion of the money spent on a game is not just on development. It is spent on ads, box art, public relations (press), and various other methods of getting a product sold. Who is going to promote a game if they are not going to get paid for it? We wouldn't see any ads in game magazines, television, nor the internet. Okay, I understand that open source developers wouldn't actually "sell" the product. But who's going to play a game if they don't even know that it exists? Another thing to think about when considering a "console" based on an operating system (both free and commercial... not mentioning any names here :P) is that consoles are static. They are never-changing machines that last for about 5 or so years before requiring replacement due to general technological advances. When you have a machine (e.g. a PC) that can be upgraded every couple of years that runs such operating systems, why even buy the cheapie version that can't be upgraded?
I was at E3 last year and I looked around at the Linux development booth. I must say, I was none too impressed. Let's face it. Anything that is entertainment related, whether it be software, film, television, recorded music, theater, etc requires a sizeable chunk of change if it is going to be of decent quality and be seen by the largest amount of people.
(Btw, I'm not saying that all games made commercially are wonderful. There are too many examples of this for me to list here. :P)