5. Lower prices for movies. If studios want to capture the low end of the market, they need to lower movie prices. Video games can have play times of upwards of 120 hours, yet cost $40. If an average video game lasts only 60 hours, that is still only 66 cents per hour of entertainment. Movies last two hours, yet cost $8. That is four dollars per hour of entertainment. They can make up any lost revenue through merchandising, product placement, enhanced DVD's, etc.
These are completely different markets. Movies are social entertainment in a dedicated venue; video games are personal entertainment in the home. Distribution, retail sales and theatre maintenance are very costly. This would only be exacerbated were worldwide simultaneous releases to become the norm.
If you're into arbitrary metrics for 'value', why not consider $ per square foot of display area? I have a feeling that the movie theatres might beat your gaming rig on that one.
What a lot of people don't seem to get is that there are really two use cases for sending documents by e-mail:
The document does not need to be modified by the recipient(s).
The document is part of a working relationship and will be modified, returned and/or sent on.
In case 1, PDF should be the be-all and end-all. It displays and prints perfectly on virtually any platform.
In case 2, there should be an agreed format for sending. Something like DOC may be acceptable, but if this is the kind of thing the recipient(s) can negotiate, then it may be perfectly appropriate to suggest SXW, text, etcetera.
Problems usually occur when people mistake case 1 for case 2. If exporting to PDF is popularised, this may happen less often.
Interesting article, though I only skimmed it. The games that are brought up seem to be largely solo-play ones though (GTA, Sim City, etc.). MMO games are mentioned, but they are often played solo too. Other interesting new computer games are played in teams. Isn't the 'politics' of a team game somewhat less 'individualistic'?
For example, in public games of Counter-Strike players who are selfish and just play as they like (camping, team killing, deathmatching, and so on) are flamed and may be kicked. A certain degree of subservience to collective goals ('altruism', even) is expected. This seems quite the opposite ethic to GTA's ultimate freedom. And the behaviour expected in CS is more than mere politeness. If you're not playing with your team, you're not really playing the game at all.
There are lots of games where you are expected to follow orders. PlanetSide is like this, if you take it seriously. There is a military command structure, not a democratic one. (cf. America's Army.)
My take on team play is that people enjoy it because gameplay 'altruism' is natural part of socialising. Multiplayer gaming is social, team gaming more so. You get a kick out of seeing your team succeed, even if your avatar is killed. Some people take this further with clans and suchlike. The 'political' point is clear: by collaborating you can achieve more.
I'm not going to rebut all your conspiracy theories, but:
You can check Google's behavior difference in handling "normal" and "dangerous" 5-word queries by comparing amount of processing time. It differs by order of magnitude 10 or more. Google is definitely communicating somewhere *before* issuing a reply.
If it is the case that firing off a 'suspicious query' notification to 'the authorities' introduces a noticeable latency, then that is appalling software engineering. Do you really suspect Google of that?
I respect your point of view, but whether or not abandoning copyright is the right way to go, it's an extreme position. Cutting out copyright just like that would be very disruptive. To a politician, economist, or businessperson, disruption is simply 'bad'; it wrecks things.
Someone needs to advocate incremental change, otherwise there just won't be any change. The existing system of treating copyrights as 'capital' is too entrenched. It's got to go, yes, but in stages.
Remember that patent shields can quickly be converted into pseudo-submarine patents. Patents may not be secret, but a patent search on software is damn near impossible to do properly. As a patent has profit potential, it'll be brought out to get lucrative licensing deals, or lawsuits.
I'm sure Apple aren't above that. They love their 'brand identity'. The reason they didn't bring out bug guns against the themers was: no profit potential.
You might be right that software makers don't innovate enough. But you've overdone the outrage.
Have you ever stopped to think that maybe, just maybe, software isn't innovative because developers are scared to death to implement any feature that could be patented?
The patent system is broken for software. Every time you pay to get a designer in for a new, innovative interface, not only do you risk producing something that puts off users because of its novelty, you also risk treading on the toes of Adobe, Microsoft, IBM, and now Apple (the list goes on). Every one of these companies is prepared to nuke small developers into oblivion if it will help their bottom line.
Software patents are inevitably overbroad, overly durable and unnecessary legal instruments. This is obvious. Developers are so afraid of submarine patents that it is understandable to avoid creating anything that is even remotely similar to a possibly-patented product. Apple and others are crushing innovation with their patent bullshit, and you post here claiming they're a force for good in software? Delicious.
Not trademarkable. Anyway, a generic-sounding name isn't exactly going to draw in the punters.
I think names are really a non-issue. Lots of people are used to using software called 'Quark' and 'Quicken'; adding 'Firefox' (and even 'GNU/Linux') to the mix isn't going to hurt anybody.
Yeah, you've got a good point. It slightly bugs me that you just can't win Planetside. On the other hand, if your MMO game lasts only for a round (an evening?) you can't expect to have rich social and command structures in the game.
Part of the interest in a game like Planetside is the fact that there is a command structure - you do what your squad leader says, he does what the platoon leader says, etc. It goes all the way up to 'high command' level. Also, there are 'outfits', i.e. more social groupings of players. Would it be possible to have these structures in your simpler kind of MMO?
It's not something that can be designed around, it's fundamental to the genre and the technique. Fortunatley, all hope is not lost. I know of at least two systems that eschew the levelling treadmill: Puzzle Pirates, which uses head-to-head puzzle competition as its combat technique, and Planetside, which I've heard is more FPS then level-based. (Could be wrong. I haven't played either.)
I've played both and I agree that they have a better model. In Planetside, you do level up but it happens reasonably quickly, and you also get experience from the accomplishments of your squad, not just personal kills. Also, you can access the fun stuff, like tanks and missile launchers, pretty fast. You can never have all the skills 'certifications' at once, but you can switch them around and find which you like/need. Raw FPS ability is also pretty important.
In Puzzle Pirates, raw (puzzling) ability is important too. You play puzzles solo, PvP, and against bots. There is a 'leveling' system of sorts, but it measures experience and skill differently. For example, you can be highly experienced at sword fighting, but only 'respected' in skill (rather than, say, 'grand master'). The rating system is like chess - you get more points for defeating a better opponent). (The only problems I have with the game myself are that the economy is a little shaky, and there is not enough PvP.)
The main thing in both these games is that it is your raw ability at the game (FPS or puzzler) that determines the outcome of most of your 'fights' or challenges. The amount of experience you have, and (usually) not what weapons or equipment you have, are irrelevant. Teamwork is also very important. That's what makes it fun to quickly drop in to the game. I recommend you give both Puzzle Pirates and Planetside a try.
Hmm... might this be another problem that a PGP web of trust could solve? (OTOH, PGP hasn't even solved the email trust problem yet...)
At the moment, people who play online games 'seriously' tend to go to LANs or play in leagues - where cheaters are expelled. Could this trust concept not be extended with a web of trust? Vouch for your friend's setup as legit and then cryptographically sign it. To play in your web of trust, he needs to use that config. And if you suspect him of undetectable cheating anyway, you can revoke your signature. (Am I making sense?)
This scheme is decentralised, whereas the current anti-cheating schemes are presumably based on DRM-like centralised trust. Software-only DRM is sometimes said to be impossible to engineer. I'd rather play with cheaters than install Palladium/TC hardware though:/
Slashdot Mirror
If you're into arbitrary metrics for 'value', why not consider $ per square foot of display area? I have a feeling that the movie theatres might beat your gaming rig on that one.
Yes, and the Linux version never needed the CD.
You can try iripdb
google cache of new scientist is here.
What a lot of people don't seem to get is that there are really two use cases for sending documents by e-mail:
In case 1, PDF should be the be-all and end-all. It displays and prints perfectly on virtually any platform.
In case 2, there should be an agreed format for sending. Something like DOC may be acceptable, but if this is the kind of thing the recipient(s) can negotiate, then it may be perfectly appropriate to suggest SXW, text, etcetera.
Problems usually occur when people mistake case 1 for case 2. If exporting to PDF is popularised, this may happen less often.
OTOH she will need someone to set it up to play things she likes, and the remote may not be very usable. (Could be replaced.)
America's Army
Aliens vs. Predator
Descent 3
GLTron
Heavy Metal
Mutant Storm
Neverwinter Nights
Unreal Tournament
Unreal Tournament 2003/2004
Vega Strike
These are all games that use both SDL and OpenGL. Many more use either one or the other.
For example, in public games of Counter-Strike players who are selfish and just play as they like (camping, team killing, deathmatching, and so on) are flamed and may be kicked. A certain degree of subservience to collective goals ('altruism', even) is expected. This seems quite the opposite ethic to GTA's ultimate freedom. And the behaviour expected in CS is more than mere politeness. If you're not playing with your team, you're not really playing the game at all.
There are lots of games where you are expected to follow orders. PlanetSide is like this, if you take it seriously. There is a military command structure, not a democratic one. (cf. America's Army.)
My take on team play is that people enjoy it because gameplay 'altruism' is natural part of socialising. Multiplayer gaming is social, team gaming more so. You get a kick out of seeing your team succeed, even if your avatar is killed. Some people take this further with clans and suchlike. The 'political' point is clear: by collaborating you can achieve more.
Echelon is hooked into ISPs, not into Google.
Someone needs to advocate incremental change, otherwise there just won't be any change. The existing system of treating copyrights as 'capital' is too entrenched. It's got to go, yes, but in stages.
What about "Even a single file, determined by a judge to be worth more than $10,000, would land the file sharer in prison."?
I'm sure Apple aren't above that. They love their 'brand identity'. The reason they didn't bring out bug guns against the themers was: no profit potential.
Software patents are evil.
Have you ever stopped to think that maybe, just maybe, software isn't innovative because developers are scared to death to implement any feature that could be patented?
The patent system is broken for software. Every time you pay to get a designer in for a new, innovative interface, not only do you risk producing something that puts off users because of its novelty, you also risk treading on the toes of Adobe, Microsoft, IBM, and now Apple (the list goes on). Every one of these companies is prepared to nuke small developers into oblivion if it will help their bottom line.
Software patents are inevitably overbroad, overly durable and unnecessary legal instruments. This is obvious. Developers are so afraid of submarine patents that it is understandable to avoid creating anything that is even remotely similar to a possibly-patented product. Apple and others are crushing innovation with their patent bullshit, and you post here claiming they're a force for good in software? Delicious.
Good point. NB, recently a parallel/distributed mode was added to urpmi that lets you push upgrades out to clients using ssh.
I think names are really a non-issue. Lots of people are used to using software called 'Quark' and 'Quicken'; adding 'Firefox' (and even 'GNU/Linux') to the mix isn't going to hurt anybody.
You're paying for the screen.
Part of the interest in a game like Planetside is the fact that there is a command structure - you do what your squad leader says, he does what the platoon leader says, etc. It goes all the way up to 'high command' level. Also, there are 'outfits', i.e. more social groupings of players. Would it be possible to have these structures in your simpler kind of MMO?
I've played both and I agree that they have a better model. In Planetside, you do level up but it happens reasonably quickly, and you also get experience from the accomplishments of your squad, not just personal kills. Also, you can access the fun stuff, like tanks and missile launchers, pretty fast. You can never have all the skills 'certifications' at once, but you can switch them around and find which you like/need. Raw FPS ability is also pretty important.
In Puzzle Pirates, raw (puzzling) ability is important too. You play puzzles solo, PvP, and against bots. There is a 'leveling' system of sorts, but it measures experience and skill differently. For example, you can be highly experienced at sword fighting, but only 'respected' in skill (rather than, say, 'grand master'). The rating system is like chess - you get more points for defeating a better opponent). (The only problems I have with the game myself are that the economy is a little shaky, and there is not enough PvP.)
The main thing in both these games is that it is your raw ability at the game (FPS or puzzler) that determines the outcome of most of your 'fights' or challenges. The amount of experience you have, and (usually) not what weapons or equipment you have, are irrelevant. Teamwork is also very important. That's what makes it fun to quickly drop in to the game. I recommend you give both Puzzle Pirates and Planetside a try.
Need vorbis support? -> IRiver iHP-120. Check it out. ~iPod sized, battery lasts well too.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audio_level_compressi on
At the moment, people who play online games 'seriously' tend to go to LANs or play in leagues - where cheaters are expelled. Could this trust concept not be extended with a web of trust? Vouch for your friend's setup as legit and then cryptographically sign it. To play in your web of trust, he needs to use that config. And if you suspect him of undetectable cheating anyway, you can revoke your signature. (Am I making sense?)
This scheme is decentralised, whereas the current anti-cheating schemes are presumably based on DRM-like centralised trust. Software-only DRM is sometimes said to be impossible to engineer. I'd rather play with cheaters than install Palladium/TC hardware though :/
I agree about spoiling the fun though.
Possible answer: Liability lies with the network. FCC mandates a censorship delay on all live broadcasts. Blech.
Netscape? Hah. That brand imploded a while ago. I think MS just want the ISP users. Of course they would kill Nullsoft and AIM as well.
Trip Wamsley is the bomb!