No, I am aware of his status, in retrospect I could have used better wording in the paragraph you reference. Unfortunately, I thought that I had corrected this in my later drafts and somehow in my rereads I didn't catch that it slipped through.
Sigh... so do I correct it now or leave it as it stands?... I think I may go back and add a small parenthesised note of correction.
The article is aimed at that casual gamer who is trying to understand the industry. I make no appologies for my style.
My point is also not to spend hundreds of pages explaining all of the various events, but provide the basic information of what has happened within said companies for the last ten years. After that, explain where I belive the company is headed as a whole.
My hopes then are that if you become interested enough in what I've written, you will both go read the references in both footnote pages. And maybe encourage someone else to write newer history books.
...well, it's not an attack in the sense that I'm not saying the PlayStation is a bad machine, or has bad games. Quite the contrary, the PS does have good games, but it is *not* a "kids" game machine due to the content generated for it.
...and on the subject of "ranting", I must note that I say right out at the beginning of the piece "While, I have made every effort to be fair in this article and present a wide picture of the industry, even I will be the first to admit that my biases as both a professional writer and programmer may come through."
Just because I am pointing out serious problems in the industry does not instantly make a rant. A rant tends to be unsuported opinion, and I have made great efforts to support everything I present, but even I can only go so far. The fact of the matter is that if I want to talk to my friends about their work, I have to hold my tongue about what they tell me.
While I respect your opinion, I think you are wrong in some of your view. If you would like to discuss this further, feel free to write me directly.
(please excuse any type-os I wrote this in one shot through...);0 In response to these comments, I myself have no major gripes about not having my name on any of the work I've done game related because it has all been of a hobbiest nature. My experience in this regards comes from my companions, and the many friends I have developed over the years who program games.
My primary irritation comes from the fact that about a year ago I sat down to finally generate a compendium of "who's who" in the industry by taking all of the games in our magazine's library and compiling all of the lists of credits from each game. Much to my irritation, after many weeks into the transcription and a number of correspondances with friends at various companies it became painfully clear to me that credits we in many cases worthless, or missleading, and without the first-hand experience of being at each company while each game was produced, I couldn't really know who exactly did what.
A good case in point from many exampes: A close friend of mine is currently working on a game for one of the top-10 publishing houses. The original core of this game was written for the 3DO, has been ported to every console since, with yearly versions released for the PC. The friend of mine did probably 70% of the coding work for the upcoming PC release, and a majority of the work in fixing bugs that dated back atleast to the first PC version of the game. They know that they will only have minor mention in the credits even though all of the new elements of the game were written by them. They also know that the original programmer who's name is still littered through the comments of the source code will get no credit for the original work. Also, one of the people who did a large portion of the artwork will not be mentioned in the credits at all because they were not "officially" on the project.
This is one of the *many* examples that generated my sentiment.
I want to know who did a game because my pocket money is limited and I want to get the best bang for my buck, and not have to depend on the arbetrary reviews of the bigger, mainstream gaming magazines.
You will also note that this this article is actually "Part 1" of 4 parts. This part covered "The State of the Industry" with "today" being implied.
Aside from that, thanks for taking the time to read it a comment.
This is *PART 1* of 4 parts. And more than just spouting what machine is going to be the winner next year, I'm taking pains to set-up a history for my readers so that they can better understand where the "future" is on their own. My next part which should be available within the next 2 weeks will cover each of the specific console manufactures/publishers and what their track-records show and what their corporate phylosophie(sp!) and goals are.
This part is trying to explain why the industry is as it is *today*! Emphasis on the *today*.
Some comments to items mentioned in this thread. I'm R.I.P. from the/.ed article and the reason I specifically left out Shareware is because with the rare exception shareware games are not a part of the public conciousness. Besides, to date there has only been one *major* shareware success that reaches commercial levels, and that would be Doom. Shareware is and will be a nitch product as long as the general consumer feels "shareware==poor quality". Note, I said general consumer, not you and me.
Besides when was the last time you saw a major international Shareware Games Festival? Of if you saw one who knew about it or cared?
In response to the comment about books being just the same thing. You are dead wrong.
What is being talked about here would be akin to taking the book "Moby Dick" and word swapping every occurance of the word "Whale" and replacing it with "Piranna" or "Dolphin", then shipping the book out as a sequal. Oh sure some paragraphs needed reworked to make more sense, but this does not make a new story.
As for Infocom games, they still stand today as their own entity. They are a cross between books and games. Sure the "game engine" is basically the same from version to version, but the *STORY* is a complete new story.
Say, you know, maybe Gates was tromatized so baddly by that guy who pied him in the face, that the word FIN is starting to seep into everything he does. Maybe we'll next see Microsoft rename Windows 2000 to FIN 2000. It will be just like that Simpson's episode where Homer is so mad at Moe for stealing the "Flamming Homer", that all here hears anyone say when they talk is the word "Moe, moe moe moe, moe? Moe moe moe!"
Actually my hopes are that FIN actually stands for Final Indecisive Movement;p
is this quote: "Sun has had run-ins with the NSA in the past. Two years ago, the NSA objected to Sun including encryption in the exportable version of Java 1.1. The end result was that Sun stripped encryption out of Java 1.1 and the software was delayed by about six months."
I remember this delay, and I don't remember Sun ever mentioning it was due to NSA related issues... which is fine, but what I do remember is that MS drug them through the mud over the delay!
Now, considering how everyone in the these circles usually knows what's happening to everyone else involved, I would say that it's a good bet that MS knew the real reason behind this delay, and knew that Sun wouldn't say anything, and took the opportunity to kick an opponent when he's down (not like they don't always do this), but somehow this BS from MS, never ceases to amaze me...
But I've tried a number of different encoders under Linux, OS/2 and Windows, and I'm currently settled on MusicMatch Jukebox 4.0 under Windows95. I know, I know, we all know Windows bites, but this app has really functioned extremely well for me and I even went ahead and registered it to get up to 160kbps sampling rates. Their web site is at: http://www.musicmatch.com/.
Look, myself and some others spent the last night scrutenizing this Windows box, here is what we found... 1) ONLY port 80 is active 2) The web server is only accepting "GET" requests. "PUT" appears to be disabled. and 3)it looks like they're truncating URL line length as their fix to overflow bugs. That's it.
Take one and two and tell me how this equates to any real world server. Sure I can put up any OS serving only port 80 and consider it secure!
What about realworld where your server is not on-site and must be remote administrated, or atleast, not on-site in your office, but in another building where your ISD group maintains it.
Actually NT is built on the parts of OS/2 that MS took with them when they put the screws to IBM. Of course, given 4+ years, it is amazing to see just how badly they have broken OS/2... I guess this is what happens when you give a thousand monkeys a shakespear novel and have them re-write it. Oh sure some of the book will there, but it sure as hell wouln't make sense anymore.;p
Well, we've already received some large offers over the last couple of years. So, I'm setting the auction a month away, and then trying to get the word out on it. I'm going to make sure that everyone who was interested knows and then some, which should be enough for my needs. This is a one shot deal anyways... If for some reason nobody buys, then I wouln't be offering again...
If someone is willing to buy, why not sell. I've owned my domain name ( bomb.com) since 9/94, and have finally decided to sell it. For one, I've never had the time to do anything cool with it. Sure I'm asking a high price, but what happens if nobody it buys it? Well, I'm out the $2 on e-bay for my trouble, and I've still got my domain;)
HTML compliance holds to a principle of your page being able to fail gracefully down to the lowest common denominator, no matter what wigged out browser specific tags you throw into the mix might do.
HTML allows for you to put anything you want into that page, but you better allow for alternate methods to view the content when the target browser isn't available.
Compliance doesn't mean you can't build a garbage page, only that it be designed for everyone to share in the garbage to the best of their ability.
Actually it as quite the article of forced compliance... Browsers used by the handicapped tend to fall in to the camp of Lynx. While there are newer versions of Lynx out there that support tables and such. From what I've encountered in my experience, a majority of handicapped users are still using low-end equipment that is frequently "hand-me-down" caliber. We're talking 386/486 running DOS/Win3.1 and quite possibly a DOS based lynx browser....No tables, no sound, no java/javascript, no CSS, etc...
A well designed, HTML complient site fails gracefully down to the lowest common denominator browser, and a well designed HTML complient site is attractive and easy to navigate be it viewed in Lynx of IE5.
If you had a better understanding of the technology, you wouldn't be making the comment you made.
Slashdot Mirror
No, I am aware of his status, in retrospect I could have used better wording in the paragraph you reference. Unfortunately, I thought that I had corrected this in my later drafts and somehow in my rereads I didn't catch that it slipped through.
... I think I may go back and add a small parenthesised note of correction.
Sigh... so do I correct it now or leave it as it stands?
Sigh... again...
The article is aimed at that casual gamer who is trying to understand the industry. I make no appologies for my style.
My point is also not to spend hundreds of pages explaining all of the various events, but provide the basic information of what has happened within said companies for the last ten years. After that, explain where I belive the company is headed as a whole.
My hopes then are that if you become interested enough in what I've written, you will both go read the references in both footnote pages. And maybe encourage someone else to write newer history books.
...well, it's not an attack in the sense that I'm not saying the PlayStation is a bad machine, or has bad games. Quite the contrary, the PS does have good games, but it is *not* a "kids" game machine due to the content generated for it.
...and on the subject of "ranting", I must note that I say right out at the beginning of the piece "While, I have made every effort to be fair in this article and present a wide picture of the industry, even I will be the first to admit that my biases as both a professional writer and programmer may come through."
Just because I am pointing out serious problems in the industry does not instantly make a rant. A rant tends to be unsuported opinion, and I have made great efforts to support everything I present, but even I can only go so far. The fact of the matter is that if I want to talk to my friends about their work, I have to hold my tongue about what they tell me.
While I respect your opinion, I think you are wrong in some of your view. If you would like to discuss this further, feel free to write me directly.
(please excuse any type-os I wrote this in one shot through...) ;0
In response to these comments, I myself have no major gripes about not having my name on any of the work I've done game related because it has all been of a hobbiest nature. My experience in this regards comes from my companions, and the many friends I have developed over the years who program games.
My primary irritation comes from the fact that about a year ago I sat down to finally generate a compendium of "who's who" in the industry by taking all of the games in our magazine's library and compiling all of the lists of credits from each game. Much to my irritation, after many weeks into the transcription and a number of correspondances with friends at various companies it became painfully clear to me that credits we in many cases worthless, or missleading, and without the first-hand experience of being at each company while each game was produced, I couldn't really know who exactly did what.
A good case in point from many exampes: A close friend of mine is currently working on a game for one of the top-10 publishing houses. The original core of this game was written for the 3DO, has been ported to every console since, with yearly versions released for the PC. The friend of mine did probably 70% of the coding work for the upcoming PC release, and a majority of the work in fixing bugs that dated back atleast to the first PC version of the game. They know that they will only have minor mention in the credits even though all of the new elements of the game were written by them. They also know that the original programmer who's name is still littered through the comments of the source code will get no credit for the original work. Also, one of the people who did a large portion of the artwork will not be mentioned in the credits at all because they were not "officially" on the project.
This is one of the *many* examples that generated my sentiment.
I want to know who did a game because my pocket money is limited and I want to get the best bang for my buck, and not have to depend on the arbetrary reviews of the bigger, mainstream gaming magazines.
You will also note that this this article is actually "Part 1" of 4 parts. This part covered "The State of the Industry" with "today" being implied.
Aside from that, thanks for taking the time to read it a comment.
This is *PART 1* of 4 parts. And more than just spouting what machine is going to be the winner next year, I'm taking pains to set-up a history for my readers so that they can better understand where the "future" is on their own. My next part which should be available within the next 2 weeks will cover each of the specific console manufactures/publishers and what their track-records show and what their corporate phylosophie(sp!) and goals are.
This part is trying to explain why the industry is as it is *today*! Emphasis on the *today*.
Some comments to items mentioned in this thread. I'm R.I.P. from the /.ed article and the reason I specifically left out Shareware is because with the rare exception shareware games are not a part of the public conciousness. Besides, to date there has only been one *major* shareware success that reaches commercial levels, and that would be Doom. Shareware is and will be a nitch product as long as the general consumer feels "shareware==poor quality". Note, I said general consumer, not you and me.
Besides when was the last time you saw a major international Shareware Games Festival? Of if you saw one who knew about it or cared?
In response to the comment about books being just the same thing. You are dead wrong.
What is being talked about here would be akin to taking the book "Moby Dick" and word swapping every occurance of the word "Whale" and replacing it with "Piranna" or "Dolphin", then shipping the book out as a sequal. Oh sure some paragraphs needed reworked to make more sense, but this does not make a new story.
As for Infocom games, they still stand today as their own entity. They are a cross between books and games. Sure the "game engine" is basically the same from version to version, but the *STORY* is a complete new story.
Providing us with a link to a photo of the model?
http://www.ga mezero.com/team-0/articles/features/thumbs_up/inde x.html, please give it a read...
http://www.ga mezero.com/team-0/articles/features/thumbs_up/inde x.html, please give it a read...
Say, you know, maybe Gates was tromatized so baddly by that guy who pied him in the face, that the word FIN is starting to seep into everything he does. Maybe we'll next see Microsoft rename Windows 2000 to FIN 2000. It will be just like that Simpson's episode where Homer is so mad at Moe for stealing the "Flamming Homer", that all here hears anyone say when they talk is the word "Moe, moe moe moe, moe? Moe moe moe!"
;p
Actually my hopes are that FIN actually stands for Final Indecisive Movement
...yep, one star for each superhero...
Atleast they let us keep the one stripe for each super pet mascot!
Is that a computer replacing the stars? I didn't know we were now the United States of Computer?!? Man, this site screams a need for parody.
Actually I've had one of those cases before. I did a server install for someone with it, and was really please with it's design.
is this quote: "Sun has had run-ins with the NSA in the past. Two years ago, the NSA objected to Sun including encryption in the exportable version of Java 1.1. The end result was that Sun stripped encryption out of Java 1.1 and the software was delayed by about six months."
I remember this delay, and I don't remember Sun ever mentioning it was due to NSA related issues... which is fine, but what I do remember is that MS drug them through the mud over the delay!
Now, considering how everyone in the these circles usually knows what's happening to everyone else involved, I would say that it's a good bet that MS knew the real reason behind this delay, and knew that Sun wouldn't say anything, and took the opportunity to kick an opponent when he's down (not like they don't always do this), but somehow this BS from MS, never ceases to amaze me...
Sigh and yawn...
But I've tried a number of different encoders under Linux, OS/2 and Windows, and I'm currently settled on MusicMatch Jukebox 4.0 under Windows95. I know, I know, we all know Windows bites, but this app has really functioned extremely well for me and I even went ahead and registered it to get up to 160kbps sampling rates. Their web site is at: http://www.musicmatch.com/.
Cheers...
No, not a completely new OS...
If your careful, you can get OS/2 SYS errors to pop up under NT4 still to this day.
Nuf'said
Look, myself and some others spent the last night scrutenizing this Windows box, here is what we found... 1) ONLY port 80 is active 2) The web server is only accepting "GET" requests. "PUT" appears to be disabled. and 3)it looks like they're truncating URL line length as their fix to overflow bugs. That's it.
Take one and two and tell me how this equates to any real world server. Sure I can put up any OS serving only port 80 and consider it secure!
What about realworld where your server is not on-site and must be remote administrated, or atleast, not on-site in your office, but in another building where your ISD group maintains it.
IMHO this whole set-up is a scam.
Actually NT is built on the parts of OS/2 that MS took with them when they put the screws to IBM. Of course, given 4+ years, it is amazing to see just how badly they have broken OS/2... I guess this is what happens when you give a thousand monkeys a shakespear novel and have them re-write it. Oh sure some of the book will there, but it sure as hell wouln't make sense anymore. ;p
No, the Pentium II/IIIs are RISC based at their core with a CICS interpreter above them for the system to interact with.
Well, we've already received some large offers over the last couple of years. So, I'm setting the auction a month away, and then trying to get the word out on it. I'm going to make sure that everyone who was interested knows and then some, which should be enough for my needs. This is a one shot deal anyways... If for some reason nobody buys, then I wouln't be offering again...
If someone is willing to buy, why not sell. I've owned my domain name ( bomb.com) since 9/94, and have finally decided to sell it. For one, I've never had the time to do anything cool with it. Sure I'm asking a high price, but what happens if nobody it buys it? Well, I'm out the $2 on e-bay for my trouble, and I've still got my domain ;)
Cheers...
HTML compliance holds to a principle of your page being able to fail gracefully down to the lowest common denominator, no matter what wigged out browser specific tags you throw into the mix might do.
HTML allows for you to put anything you want into that page, but you better allow for alternate methods to view the content when the target browser isn't available.
Compliance doesn't mean you can't build a garbage page, only that it be designed for everyone to share in the garbage to the best of their ability.
Actually it as quite the article of forced compliance... Browsers used by the handicapped tend to fall in to the camp of Lynx. While there are newer versions of Lynx out there that support tables and such. From what I've encountered in my experience, a majority of handicapped users are still using low-end equipment that is frequently "hand-me-down" caliber. We're talking 386/486 running DOS/Win3.1 and quite possibly a DOS based lynx browser. ...No tables, no sound, no java/javascript, no CSS, etc...
A well designed, HTML complient site fails gracefully down to the lowest common denominator browser, and a well designed HTML complient site is attractive and easy to navigate be it viewed in Lynx of IE5.
If you had a better understanding of the technology, you wouldn't be making the comment you made.