If it concerns and directly affects their creation they do. I agree that people should be free to do as they wish with their own stuff, but if Mythic specifically prohibits it (and I don't know that they do, but that was the gist of the article)for stuff that concerns their game, then I believe they have the right to do so. Their creation is a purely private (as in owned) venture and they have the right to set policy as they wish. Personally, I don't have issues with people buying their way to success in MMORPGs but perhaps Mythic believes it will have a better community if it has the no-outside-sales policy. I suspect the better players are those who have worked hard for their attributes and possessions, as opposed to those who buy their way to the top. There are really valid arguments on both sides and it seems a difference of preferences more than anything. The question is whose preferences should be policy.
This is all well and good, but I think people should bear in mind that Mythic created and owns the entire DAoC set-up. I've never played it myself, so I'm a little sketchy on the precise details, but it seems to me that if Mythic chooses to restrict certain practices within the boundaries of their creation, then they are fully within their rights to do so. Players pay a monthly fee for access, not for rights to private ownership of what their character has. DAoC is hardly a monopoly and people play because they choose to, and within the rules set forth by the company. Whether players selling items is permitted or not permitted outside of the game, I believe it is Mythic's perogative.
Is it me, or is this article somewhat...breathless? No mention at all of the legitimate uses of digital copying, nor any mention of how the ability to copy and freely distribute television in the past (via VHS etc, albeit at lower quality) affected the TV industry and what correlation this has with the current situation as "digitizers apply their corrosive talents" to the same. I think I'll be shocked the day I hear a TV or movie exec stand up and say "hell, why are we stonewalling this stuff? Let's just evolve our company a bit and see if we can't make a buck or two off it!" Change is expensive, I know, but in the long run refusing to change may prove far more expensive: fatally so.
Wasn't it Mission to Mars (hey, I just need a canvas tent to survive!) where they had some of the most outrageous product placement ever? Two instances really strike me. The first was in the opening scenes where one of the lead characters pulls into the driveway for a BBQ. The camera pans across the front of his car and actually *dips* down to get the logo. The second and far worse instance was when one of the astronauts threw a vacuum-sealed packet of Doctor Pepper to the other and there was probably a good 5-8 second shot of this packet spinning slowly and getting larger as it floated toward to audience's perspective. Good stuff. The stickers all over the Mars rover were just icing on the cake.
This is what I get for posting about evolution at 2am. There's nothing quite like having hit the submit button after a quick post and then realising that you only posted 1/4 of a thought.
Thank God! When I heard that he had said he was planning to write the novel after Cryptonomicon with a fountain pen, I didn?t know whether to laugh, cry, or go find him in order to strangle him. Stephenson is a great author and all of his books deserve to be read multiple times. Thus far, Cryptonomicon has been my favourite, I can only hope that these new book(s!) will be as good.
I think I have an idea for his next novels though. It?s a story that involves joy and despair, victory and defeat, and an intense struggle between a man and the technology that enfolds the world....and that was just me trying to connect to a damned server to download some files. My attempt at upgrading my glibc files and the subsequent realisation that they were perhaps somewhat important to the system as it crashed, are ample fodder for at least another book or two.
Sure, now you expect me to watch where I'm going! Soon you'll actually expect me to get you to your destination on time. Will the unreasonable demands made on aviators never cease?
This assumes, of course, that geeks are willing to brave anything even resembling a kitchen. Most people I know of the technical inclination much prefer something that either a) comes in a bag or b) gets delivered to your table. After all, geeks have far more important things to use their brain power on, such as....er....um....yeah.
Speaking as a pilot, I think it's a bad idea. Just what I need, another damned thing to fly into. There I am, happily cruising along in my airliner and suddenly *wham!* my aircraft gets cut in twain. Knowing the damned FAA, it would probably be "pilot error" too. Hmph.
Re:Free games!
on
Pay to Play
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Don't you just love it when you would like to pay a game like Dark Age of Camelot or some such, and are willing to fork over the $10 a month to play, only to realize that they want you to pay full retail price ($40-$50) to get just the game itself? Even when they throw in a free month of play, I think it's a touch pricey. What I'd prefer to see is games that have a monthly fee to play (especially those that have *no* functionality offline) be sold at a vastly reduced price. $10 for the basic game and then another $10 to play each month would be reasonable. Even if you hated the game, you'd only be out $20 which is about what you pay for budget games anyway. Similarly, retailing at $20 and including a free month of access would work. Again, you're only out $20.
The bottom line is this: if you have a game such as Return to Castle Wolfenstein that has excellent online *and* offline functionality, and online gaming is free via hosting, then you are fully justified in charging $50-$60 for your product to compensate you for your work. But if your game is online only, only charge what you absolutely *must* to get your game into the hands of as many people as possible. Hell, if my primary revenue was to come through the online monthly payments, I'd be encouraging piracy of the baseline ware!
Any system depends on the acceptance of it. If no-one accepted the system, then it wouldn't be implemented. And yes, I agree that the smart capitalist will treat his workers well or risk losing everything. By that I mean losing his business because no-one will work for him. Workers certainly have no justification, and definitely no rights, to employ violence against their employer. As I said, the jobs aren't their god-given right and the jobs wouldn't exist without their employer anyway.
Ah, I understand. Yes, the vision of Disney and Sony execs is a chilling one. I suppose ultimately it really depends on whether one is contributing something or not. I have no problems with the idea of people making money off of someone else's idea/business *if* they are contributing something to it (and preferably in cahoots with the originator). There does seem to be a large number of non-contributing parasitic types though.
Speaking of recording company execs, I still stand by my point that, even though the totally free, streaming music concept exists today (and a number of bands choose to use this), most artists still want to sign with a label. Why I do not know exactly, but I suspect it's for the publicity and "super-star" opportunities. I'll be interested to see if Love & Co. actually do split from the established labels once their contracts either expire or are voided. Thanks for the links, they were informative.
As an aside, I wonder, however, why we have seen such a lack of diversification in the market. It seems that one person or company innovates and then the rest of the industry blindly copies it if it is successful. So, is lack of diversification a product of a stranglehold by industry big dogs or is it because the market (buyer-type) only seeks and makes profitable a few types of product? Then we must ask, given what we know of the herd mentality of much of society, does society demand only a few types of products because it is *told* that's all it needs? Hmm, we have a chicken-and-the-egg problem. The market supports only a few products because that's all that's profitable...but those products are the only ones that are profitable because the advertising blitzes by the middle-men make it so. Thoughts?
Thanks, by the way, for the civil and informative reply.
What I find interesting is that you seem to equate "capitalist" with "middle-man" or, for the more hysterical, "exploiter". I note with interest that you reference the "capitalist" as the guy who markets music or manufactures and distributes other people's inventions. I submit that musicians (despite the grandiose social statements made by so many) are prime examples of why capitalism is such a stupendously successful concept.
Take our fictional music artist who has a product, namely his voice or musical abilities, from which he would like to benefit. In making available, whether by recorded media or in concert, his product, he is able to make a large profit. But we have ignored the middle men! What you believe is the failure of capitalism and the proof of its demise, I claim is actually the beauty of the system! The afore-mentioned artist could certainly attempt to raise sufficient capital to market his own stuff. He could purchase time at a facility devoted to making CDs and teach himself how to operate the machinery or even build his own facility. He could erect bill-boards, host his own radio show, or go door-to-door inviting people to purchase his product. This, of course, would be madness in our society. Why? Because those evil capitalist middle-men see an opportunity and *exploit* it. Instead of the artist doing all the above stuff, he chooses to *pay* others to do it for him. Others provide the investment capital in the hopes of a profitable return. People (yup, those proles) are in turn employed and receive wages to perform the tasks that the performer doesn't wish to do.
The upshot here is the artist could very well settle on an internet-only distribution and choose to advertise themselves purely online, in person, and other "non-capitalist" ways. Most do not. I suspect it's not because guys in black suits show up and twist their arms until they sign a contract. I suspect most aspiring musicians clamor to sign a contract because they know they're far more likely to make more money that way. Pure capitalism.
It should be noted that capitalists, even the great railroad tycoons of the day, don't owe a damned thing to anyone, especially the people who work for them. If a person chooses to take a job, it is with the knowledge that a certain wage will be paid; a sort of handshake employment contract if you will. The person states he or she will perform a certain amount of work for a stated amount of compensation. If the person feels that the compensation is insufficient, they may choose to work elsewhere. There seems to be an odd idea with a lot of people that employers owe their workers something, be it higher wages, better benefits, or stock options. The bottom line is that the capitalistic system is self-adjusting. If an employer pays insufficient wages, no-one will work for him. If he pays too high wages, he'll go out of business for lack of profit. In any case, the jobs wouldn't exist in the first place without said capitalist so the "proles" benefit from his mere presence. If the proles choose to try to start making and selling goods themselves (for a profit!) and, god-forbid, employ others to help them, then WHAM! a brand-new capitalist is born.
From the kid selling lemonade on the side of the street to the tycoons who've made billions, anyone who sets out to try to make (instead of take) a dollar is a capitalist.
--
Yeah, you'll impress the shit out of her when you look down and realize that you've spilled beer all over your GPS watch and now it's loudly proclaiming the location of the nearest animal-porn store.
--
Wasn't Tesla black-balled for making those damned coils that the Brotherhood of NOD used? Those bastards used to fry all my soldiers and vehicles in C&C. Of course, that's just the sort of blinkered, philistine pig-ignorance I've come to expect from you non-creative bastards. You sit there all day on your loathsome spotty behinds, squeezing blackheads, not caring a tinker's cuss for the struggling artist. You excrement! You hypocritical whining toadies with your colour tv sets, Tony Jacklin golf clubs, and your secret bleedin' Masonic handshakes! You wouldn't let me join, would you? You black-balling bastards! Well I wouldn't give you free energy or a perpetual motion machine now if you got down on your lousy stinking knees and BEGGED ME!
--
Re:The lack of localization of the net
on
Browsing Alone
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Excellent point. I recall using BBSes a great deal during those first formative "online" years. Dialing up was a pain in the ass unless you had a BBS host that was cool enough to have two phone lines into his house/bedroom. Half the time you actually knew most of the people who frequented the site and met those that you didn't. Actually knowing these people also had a worthwhile effect: it cut down the flaming to managable levels. It's easy to troll or flame when you've never met a person and probably never will, but when you know that you'll a) be talking to a person on a consistent basis for the foreseeable future and b) there's an excellent chance of actual face-to-face in RL, you tend to try to keep a least a bit of civility. Perhaps the concept of nodes is a good idea. The net itself remains completely connected and far-flung, but is composed of local main nodes where everyone in a specific geographical area can primarily go to exchange ideas. Colorado node anyone? Not sure if it would even be feasible, since most "nodes" now are based more along idealistic and mentality lines (AOL, specific concern groups, slashdot, etc.) Okay, I'm done rambling. But for the record, I miss those BBS door games; I was unbeatable in The Pit and Star Traders!
--
It seems to me that Katz' main point is that focusing too much on design is the kiss of death in the tech industry. Sure, Bob in accounting probably feels that if he buys beige Windows boxes, his company's dollars are getting pure product. If he buys a computer with exciting lines, he's paying some artsy designer's salary somewhere. Perhaps the key is to get functionality down and then advertise the hell out of it first. A marketing blitz (and Apple probably knows how to do this...) showing great looking computers but trumpeting superior support and reliablility might kill two birds with one stone. If you manage to get a reputation for stable, functional systems (for Bob, Grandma, and Martha), then off-beat and Aesthetically Pleasing Designs(tm) would merely be money in the bank. Make it cool, and they will come. Make it stable and easy, and they will stay. Make it successful and you will be copied. Either way, computer users win. I'm not a Mac head by any means but I'd like to see some of their innovations copied.
-
Ah yes, I remember the trailer for this movie. Specifically, I remember it delaying my viewing of LoTR for another 60 seconds. I will never forgive them. Bastards.
That was a highly entertaining read. The stupendous irony of opening oneself up to civil liability though the improper threat of holding someone *else* liable is worth the price of admission alone. Bravo!
I'll take a wild guess and say that you're a democrat.:) Seriously though, I agree with you. The vast majority of the true damage being done in this country is at the hands of the elected and is on-going. We as a country find ourselves focusing so much on our pain and how we will wipe out our cancer, never realizing that the cure itself may kill us.
Slashdot Mirror
If it concerns and directly affects their creation they do. I agree that people should be free to do as they wish with their own stuff, but if Mythic specifically prohibits it (and I don't know that they do, but that was the gist of the article)for stuff that concerns their game, then I believe they have the right to do so. Their creation is a purely private (as in owned) venture and they have the right to set policy as they wish. Personally, I don't have issues with people buying their way to success in MMORPGs but perhaps Mythic believes it will have a better community if it has the no-outside-sales policy. I suspect the better players are those who have worked hard for their attributes and possessions, as opposed to those who buy their way to the top. There are really valid arguments on both sides and it seems a difference of preferences more than anything. The question is whose preferences should be policy.
This is all well and good, but I think people should bear in mind that Mythic created and owns the entire DAoC set-up. I've never played it myself, so I'm a little sketchy on the precise details, but it seems to me that if Mythic chooses to restrict certain practices within the boundaries of their creation, then they are fully within their rights to do so. Players pay a monthly fee for access, not for rights to private ownership of what their character has. DAoC is hardly a monopoly and people play because they choose to, and within the rules set forth by the company. Whether players selling items is permitted or not permitted outside of the game, I believe it is Mythic's perogative.
Is it me, or is this article somewhat...breathless? No mention at all of the legitimate uses of digital copying, nor any mention of how the ability to copy and freely distribute television in the past (via VHS etc, albeit at lower quality) affected the TV industry and what correlation this has with the current situation as "digitizers apply their corrosive talents" to the same. I think I'll be shocked the day I hear a TV or movie exec stand up and say "hell, why are we stonewalling this stuff? Let's just evolve our company a bit and see if we can't make a buck or two off it!" Change is expensive, I know, but in the long run refusing to change may prove far more expensive: fatally so.
Wasn't it Mission to Mars (hey, I just need a canvas tent to survive!) where they had some of the most outrageous product placement ever? Two instances really strike me. The first was in the opening scenes where one of the lead characters pulls into the driveway for a BBQ. The camera pans across the front of his car and actually *dips* down to get the logo. The second and far worse instance was when one of the astronauts threw a vacuum-sealed packet of Doctor Pepper to the other and there was probably a good 5-8 second shot of this packet spinning slowly and getting larger as it floated toward to audience's perspective. Good stuff. The stickers all over the Mars rover were just icing on the cake.
This is what I get for posting about evolution at 2am. There's nothing quite like having hit the submit button after a quick post and then realising that you only posted 1/4 of a thought.
Odd, I thought it was blending, and the subsequent mixing of genes (variation) that was the basis of evolution.
Thank God! When I heard that he had said he was planning to write the novel after Cryptonomicon with a fountain pen, I didn?t know whether to laugh, cry, or go find him in order to strangle him. Stephenson is a great author and all of his books deserve to be read multiple times. Thus far, Cryptonomicon has been my favourite, I can only hope that these new book(s!) will be as good.
I think I have an idea for his next novels though. It?s a story that involves joy and despair, victory and defeat, and an intense struggle between a man and the technology that enfolds the world....and that was just me trying to connect to a damned server to download some files. My attempt at upgrading my glibc files and the subsequent realisation that they were perhaps somewhat important to the system as it crashed, are ample fodder for at least another book or two.
Sure, now you expect me to watch where I'm going! Soon you'll actually expect me to get you to your destination on time. Will the unreasonable demands made on aviators never cease?
This assumes, of course, that geeks are willing to brave anything even resembling a kitchen. Most people I know of the technical inclination much prefer something that either a) comes in a bag or b) gets delivered to your table. After all, geeks have far more important things to use their brain power on, such as....er....um....yeah.
Speaking as a pilot, I think it's a bad idea. Just what I need, another damned thing to fly into. There I am, happily cruising along in my airliner and suddenly *wham!* my aircraft gets cut in twain. Knowing the damned FAA, it would probably be "pilot error" too. Hmph.
Don't you just love it when you would like to pay a game like Dark Age of Camelot or some such, and are willing to fork over the $10 a month to play, only to realize that they want you to pay full retail price ($40-$50) to get just the game itself? Even when they throw in a free month of play, I think it's a touch pricey. What I'd prefer to see is games that have a monthly fee to play (especially those that have *no* functionality offline) be sold at a vastly reduced price. $10 for the basic game and then another $10 to play each month would be reasonable. Even if you hated the game, you'd only be out $20 which is about what you pay for budget games anyway. Similarly, retailing at $20 and including a free month of access would work. Again, you're only out $20.
The bottom line is this: if you have a game such as Return to Castle Wolfenstein that has excellent online *and* offline functionality, and online gaming is free via hosting, then you are fully justified in charging $50-$60 for your product to compensate you for your work. But if your game is online only, only charge what you absolutely *must* to get your game into the hands of as many people as possible. Hell, if my primary revenue was to come through the online monthly payments, I'd be encouraging piracy of the baseline ware!
Any system depends on the acceptance of it. If no-one accepted the system, then it wouldn't be implemented. And yes, I agree that the smart capitalist will treat his workers well or risk losing everything. By that I mean losing his business because no-one will work for him. Workers certainly have no justification, and definitely no rights, to employ violence against their employer. As I said, the jobs aren't their god-given right and the jobs wouldn't exist without their employer anyway.
Ah, I understand. Yes, the vision of Disney and Sony execs is a chilling one. I suppose ultimately it really depends on whether one is contributing something or not. I have no problems with the idea of people making money off of someone else's idea/business *if* they are contributing something to it (and preferably in cahoots with the originator). There does seem to be a large number of non-contributing parasitic types though.
Speaking of recording company execs, I still stand by my point that, even though the totally free, streaming music concept exists today (and a number of bands choose to use this), most artists still want to sign with a label. Why I do not know exactly, but I suspect it's for the publicity and "super-star" opportunities. I'll be interested to see if Love & Co. actually do split from the established labels once their contracts either expire or are voided. Thanks for the links, they were informative.
As an aside, I wonder, however, why we have seen such a lack of diversification in the market. It seems that one person or company innovates and then the rest of the industry blindly copies it if it is successful. So, is lack of diversification a product of a stranglehold by industry big dogs or is it because the market (buyer-type) only seeks and makes profitable a few types of product? Then we must ask, given what we know of the herd mentality of much of society, does society demand only a few types of products because it is *told* that's all it needs? Hmm, we have a chicken-and-the-egg problem. The market supports only a few products because that's all that's profitable...but those products are the only ones that are profitable because the advertising blitzes by the middle-men make it so. Thoughts?
Thanks, by the way, for the civil and informative reply.
What I find interesting is that you seem to equate "capitalist" with "middle-man" or, for the more hysterical, "exploiter". I note with interest that you reference the "capitalist" as the guy who markets music or manufactures and distributes other people's inventions. I submit that musicians (despite the grandiose social statements made by so many) are prime examples of why capitalism is such a stupendously successful concept.
Take our fictional music artist who has a product, namely his voice or musical abilities, from which he would like to benefit. In making available, whether by recorded media or in concert, his product, he is able to make a large profit. But we have ignored the middle men! What you believe is the failure of capitalism and the proof of its demise, I claim is actually the beauty of the system! The afore-mentioned artist could certainly attempt to raise sufficient capital to market his own stuff. He could purchase time at a facility devoted to making CDs and teach himself how to operate the machinery or even build his own facility. He could erect bill-boards, host his own radio show, or go door-to-door inviting people to purchase his product. This, of course, would be madness in our society. Why? Because those evil capitalist middle-men see an opportunity and *exploit* it. Instead of the artist doing all the above stuff, he chooses to *pay* others to do it for him. Others provide the investment capital in the hopes of a profitable return. People (yup, those proles) are in turn employed and receive wages to perform the tasks that the performer doesn't wish to do.
The upshot here is the artist could very well settle on an internet-only distribution and choose to advertise themselves purely online, in person, and other "non-capitalist" ways. Most do not. I suspect it's not because guys in black suits show up and twist their arms until they sign a contract. I suspect most aspiring musicians clamor to sign a contract because they know they're far more likely to make more money that way. Pure capitalism.
It should be noted that capitalists, even the great railroad tycoons of the day, don't owe a damned thing to anyone, especially the people who work for them. If a person chooses to take a job, it is with the knowledge that a certain wage will be paid; a sort of handshake employment contract if you will. The person states he or she will perform a certain amount of work for a stated amount of compensation. If the person feels that the compensation is insufficient, they may choose to work elsewhere. There seems to be an odd idea with a lot of people that employers owe their workers something, be it higher wages, better benefits, or stock options. The bottom line is that the capitalistic system is self-adjusting. If an employer pays insufficient wages, no-one will work for him. If he pays too high wages, he'll go out of business for lack of profit. In any case, the jobs wouldn't exist in the first place without said capitalist so the "proles" benefit from his mere presence. If the proles choose to try to start making and selling goods themselves (for a profit!) and, god-forbid, employ others to help them, then WHAM! a brand-new capitalist is born.
From the kid selling lemonade on the side of the street to the tycoons who've made billions, anyone who sets out to try to make (instead of take) a dollar is a capitalist. --
Yeah, you'll impress the shit out of her when you look down and realize that you've spilled beer all over your GPS watch and now it's loudly proclaiming the location of the nearest animal-porn store. --
Wasn't Tesla black-balled for making those damned coils that the Brotherhood of NOD used? Those bastards used to fry all my soldiers and vehicles in C&C. Of course, that's just the sort of blinkered, philistine pig-ignorance I've come to expect from you non-creative bastards. You sit there all day on your loathsome spotty behinds, squeezing blackheads, not caring a tinker's cuss for the struggling artist. You excrement! You hypocritical whining toadies with your colour tv sets, Tony Jacklin golf clubs, and your secret bleedin' Masonic handshakes! You wouldn't let me join, would you? You black-balling bastards! Well I wouldn't give you free energy or a perpetual motion machine now if you got down on your lousy stinking knees and BEGGED ME! --
Excellent point. I recall using BBSes a great deal during those first formative "online" years. Dialing up was a pain in the ass unless you had a BBS host that was cool enough to have two phone lines into his house/bedroom. Half the time you actually knew most of the people who frequented the site and met those that you didn't. Actually knowing these people also had a worthwhile effect: it cut down the flaming to managable levels. It's easy to troll or flame when you've never met a person and probably never will, but when you know that you'll a) be talking to a person on a consistent basis for the foreseeable future and b) there's an excellent chance of actual face-to-face in RL, you tend to try to keep a least a bit of civility. Perhaps the concept of nodes is a good idea. The net itself remains completely connected and far-flung, but is composed of local main nodes where everyone in a specific geographical area can primarily go to exchange ideas. Colorado node anyone? Not sure if it would even be feasible, since most "nodes" now are based more along idealistic and mentality lines (AOL, specific concern groups, slashdot, etc.) Okay, I'm done rambling. But for the record, I miss those BBS door games; I was unbeatable in The Pit and Star Traders! --
It seems to me that Katz' main point is that focusing too much on design is the kiss of death in the tech industry. Sure, Bob in accounting probably feels that if he buys beige Windows boxes, his company's dollars are getting pure product. If he buys a computer with exciting lines, he's paying some artsy designer's salary somewhere. Perhaps the key is to get functionality down and then advertise the hell out of it first. A marketing blitz (and Apple probably knows how to do this...) showing great looking computers but trumpeting superior support and reliablility might kill two birds with one stone. If you manage to get a reputation for stable, functional systems (for Bob, Grandma, and Martha), then off-beat and Aesthetically Pleasing Designs(tm) would merely be money in the bank. Make it cool, and they will come. Make it stable and easy, and they will stay. Make it successful and you will be copied. Either way, computer users win. I'm not a Mac head by any means but I'd like to see some of their innovations copied. -
Ah yes, I remember the trailer for this movie. Specifically, I remember it delaying my viewing of LoTR for another 60 seconds. I will never forgive them. Bastards.
That was a highly entertaining read. The stupendous irony of opening oneself up to civil liability though the improper threat of holding someone *else* liable is worth the price of admission alone. Bravo!
I'll take a wild guess and say that you're a democrat. :) Seriously though, I agree with you. The vast majority of the true damage being done in this country is at the hands of the elected and is on-going. We as a country find ourselves focusing so much on our pain and how we will wipe out our cancer, never realizing that the cure itself may kill us.