The question with this survey is not really which movie is better (though that's fun to debate, of course), but why _this_ group surveyed voted as they did.
Here's the terrible truth on that. What's the average age when you hold a fanboy survey of some sort? Shall we say, charitably... 25?
Well, a 25-year-old would have been 1 year old when Return of the Jedi came out. That is to say, they never saw the original trilogy except on a small TV. Or perhaps when their dad dragged them so see the re-release, while telling them how cool it was. But the sense of wonder wouldn't be nearly as great 20 years after its release, in a world with lots of other spaceship flicks and a crappy new Star Wars trilogy to burden the originals. ("Great, a movie starring voice talent from Family Guy and Batman?")
I'm not afraid to say "I like Star Wars 'cause I'm old.":) Frankly, Chiwetel Ejiofor's assassin and Darth Vader are both among the cooler villains the movie universe has to offer. Enjoy both!
It's an interesting quandry. I'd love to have a la carte access to international channels. No cable or satellite option lets me watch, for example, the collection of channels I happened to enjoy while living in Europe. But yes, then I watch less local programming and most European advertisers won't pay for my viewing of ads. So would I be damaging the ability to produce quality shows?
If this approach does become a significant share of total viewers, broadcasters would be wise to early on establish a way to track viewership (and pack in commercials local to or targeted at me) to please advertisers.
There's a grass-roots (and illegal) approach possible to that, which may already exist: a global sharing of recorded shows by individual users. "I've got this weeks ten different CSI series recorded, will trade for BBC World News and Brazilian beach footage..."
The legal version, if widely adopted, would be to traditional TV what blogs are to traditional news. It could splinter the market into little budget produced niche shows.
However, I can't picture that enough of the population would jump into this approach to do that. It would definitely change the market landscape a bit, but in the end a conventional TV channel (i.e., a set of programs picked out to suit a given demographic) is _convenient_. Hunting it all down by yourself is hard. Most people will stick with convenient.
It's intended for energy intensive systems like laptops, cell phones, mobile radios, cars, etc.
Well, yes. My TV remote analogy was because alkalines are rather like fuel cells -- you have to go buy new ones when they die. The less convenient recharge means the time between recharges needs to be longer to offset that. A couple of times longer than a conventional laptop battery isn't enough.
You don't get outside much do you? They're not 10 feet apart outside your office. Go check.
I'm a triathlete. Come cycling with me, we'll see who gets furthest from the office...:) But I wasn't talking about your use or my use, I realize there will be niche markets for this tech. I was thinking of average consumers and mainstream adoption. If life brings me within range of an outlet after a few hours of laptop use, and it does, then that's even more true of most other users. That's better than a bag full of methanol cells.
Sure, it sounds cool to any of us nerd types. But is this really ever going to be useful outside of niche markets like the military?
Currently, you can get several hours of battery life off a system that you can recharge using outlets that are spaced roughly ten feet apart across the entire industrialized world.
For fuel cells, you need cartridges (after all, no mainstream user is going to go pouring methanol into their computers themselves). That means a serious distribution infrastructure, because without that little cartridge your system is dead (well, we'll assume it will always run off AC in a pinch). You need vending machines, a good proportion of electronics or grocery stores and Kwik-E-Marts, etc., all stocking a standardized set of cartridge sizes.
How many hours does your system need to run for this inconvenience level to be worth it? Consider your TV remote or some other non-rechargeable gizmo. Not 5 hours, and I'd say not 40 either. More like a month.
And how long before airlines say "Sure, it's only a few hundred degree heating element, a volatile liquid, and a system designed to work at sea level. C'mon in!"
It's challenging to look past the thrill of a new solution to the practical side. I'm sure there are solutions to the problems I listed, but it's all years off yet.
It's been a few years since I was in the game industry, but here are some thoughts:
First, just an idea will get you nowhere. Everyone has an idea. Every time I mentioned I wrote video games, there was someone offering me their idea and saying that of course they were now owed at least half of whatever it would earn.
Of course, they never realized ideas are easy. Good execution is hard. And convincing someone to fund your execution is harder. You're talking about creating a company from scratch -- know how few of those live to tell the tale?
Much like the big movie producers, game producers are reluctant to take risks. They want to earn money, so they prefer an established team and an established type of game. A sequel or a movie tie-in is even better. And they won't hesitate to re-edit your baby to please the market, or can your project outright if it doesn't look like it will be worth the expense of marketing and distributing it.
If you have just a design document, you're in the same position as someone peddling a movie script. Why would I spend time reading a script from some unknown? And why would I ever give you good money to develop it (as I presume you want to, since you said you had a team of consultants) instead of picking my own team?
So in addition to that design doc you need something that will capture the imagination and limited attention span of your target. A good demo that shows what you want to do, and proves that you have people who can do it. Even then, I'll tell yah, putting together and holding together the size of team it takes to make a modern game is _hard_. It is in any business, and in the game industry you need your first product to make it out fast and be successful enough to let you do another one. Consider alternatives such as doing an add-on pack or teaming up with an established developer for your first project. Good luck.
Slashdot Mirror
The question with this survey is not really which movie is better (though that's fun to debate, of course), but why _this_ group surveyed voted as they did.
:) Frankly, Chiwetel Ejiofor's assassin and Darth Vader are both among the cooler villains the movie universe has to offer. Enjoy both!
Here's the terrible truth on that. What's the average age when you hold a fanboy survey of some sort? Shall we say, charitably... 25?
Well, a 25-year-old would have been 1 year old when Return of the Jedi came out. That is to say, they never saw the original trilogy except on a small TV. Or perhaps when their dad dragged them so see the re-release, while telling them how cool it was. But the sense of wonder wouldn't be nearly as great 20 years after its release, in a world with lots of other spaceship flicks and a crappy new Star Wars trilogy to burden the originals. ("Great, a movie starring voice talent from Family Guy and Batman?")
I'm not afraid to say "I like Star Wars 'cause I'm old."
It's an interesting quandry. I'd love to have a la carte access to international channels. No cable or satellite option lets me watch, for example, the collection of channels I happened to enjoy while living in Europe. But yes, then I watch less local programming and most European advertisers won't pay for my viewing of ads. So would I be damaging the ability to produce quality shows?
If this approach does become a significant share of total viewers, broadcasters would be wise to early on establish a way to track viewership (and pack in commercials local to or targeted at me) to please advertisers.
There's a grass-roots (and illegal) approach possible to that, which may already exist: a global sharing of recorded shows by individual users. "I've got this weeks ten different CSI series recorded, will trade for BBC World News and Brazilian beach footage..."
The legal version, if widely adopted, would be to traditional TV what blogs are to traditional news. It could splinter the market into little budget produced niche shows.
However, I can't picture that enough of the population would jump into this approach to do that. It would definitely change the market landscape a bit, but in the end a conventional TV channel (i.e., a set of programs picked out to suit a given demographic) is _convenient_. Hunting it all down by yourself is hard. Most people will stick with convenient.
It's intended for energy intensive systems like laptops, cell phones, mobile radios, cars, etc.
:) But I wasn't talking about your use or my use, I realize there will be niche markets for this tech. I was thinking of average consumers and mainstream adoption. If life brings me within range of an outlet after a few hours of laptop use, and it does, then that's even more true of most other users. That's better than a bag full of methanol cells.
Well, yes. My TV remote analogy was because alkalines are rather like fuel cells -- you have to go buy new ones when they die. The less convenient recharge means the time between recharges needs to be longer to offset that. A couple of times longer than a conventional laptop battery isn't enough.
You don't get outside much do you? They're not 10 feet apart outside your office. Go check.
I'm a triathlete. Come cycling with me, we'll see who gets furthest from the office...
Sure, it sounds cool to any of us nerd types. But is this really ever going to be useful outside of niche markets like the military?
Currently, you can get several hours of battery life off a system that you can recharge using outlets that are spaced roughly ten feet apart across the entire industrialized world.
For fuel cells, you need cartridges (after all, no mainstream user is going to go pouring methanol into their computers themselves). That means a serious distribution infrastructure, because without that little cartridge your system is dead (well, we'll assume it will always run off AC in a pinch). You need vending machines, a good proportion of electronics or grocery stores and Kwik-E-Marts, etc., all stocking a standardized set of cartridge sizes.
How many hours does your system need to run for this inconvenience level to be worth it? Consider your TV remote or some other non-rechargeable gizmo. Not 5 hours, and I'd say not 40 either. More like a month.
And how long before airlines say "Sure, it's only a few hundred degree heating element, a volatile liquid, and a system designed to work at sea level. C'mon in!"
It's challenging to look past the thrill of a new solution to the practical side. I'm sure there are solutions to the problems I listed, but it's all years off yet.
It's been a few years since I was in the game industry, but here are some thoughts:
First, just an idea will get you nowhere. Everyone has an idea. Every time I mentioned I wrote video games, there was someone offering me their idea and saying that of course they were now owed at least half of whatever it would earn.
Of course, they never realized ideas are easy. Good execution is hard. And convincing someone to fund your execution is harder. You're talking about creating a company from scratch -- know how few of those live to tell the tale?
Much like the big movie producers, game producers are reluctant to take risks. They want to earn money, so they prefer an established team and an established type of game. A sequel or a movie tie-in is even better. And they won't hesitate to re-edit your baby to please the market, or can your project outright if it doesn't look like it will be worth the expense of marketing and distributing it.
If you have just a design document, you're in the same position as someone peddling a movie script. Why would I spend time reading a script from some unknown? And why would I ever give you good money to develop it (as I presume you want to, since you said you had a team of consultants) instead of picking my own team?
So in addition to that design doc you need something that will capture the imagination and limited attention span of your target. A good demo that shows what you want to do, and proves that you have people who can do it. Even then, I'll tell yah, putting together and holding together the size of team it takes to make a modern game is _hard_. It is in any business, and in the game industry you need your first product to make it out fast and be successful enough to let you do another one. Consider alternatives such as doing an add-on pack or teaming up with an established developer for your first project. Good luck.