If a developer gives both the Linux Binary and the Windows Binary, wouldn't you be curious to compare speeds between the two?
No, they wouldn't. They'd just want to play the game wherever it worked.
Unless, of course, they're compensating for something, and need to feel the superiority of squeezing a 2% better framerate out of their system.
People would problably spend the extra $0-5 difference for a dual-os game starting the eventual craze. It only takes a few people/companies to start a revolution.
Companies like Id software? One of the most influential PC game developers out there? When did they start releasing Linux binaries? Like, '96? And have those "few" people using Linux Quake started the revolution yet?
I'm not trying to troll here, I'm just trying to put the whole "if you build it, they will come" idea in perspective. It's been built. They haven't come.
Although Microsoft has gone great strides with DirectX API, they have nowhere near the simplicity of OpenGL
I beg to differ. Direct3D has nearly a 1:1 function mapping with OpenGL. The functions are no more difficult to use, unless you have more trouple typing D3D than gl. The initialization code for D3D is actually simpler than for OpenGL. (in Win32, that is -- OGL initialization (at least with Mesa) in Linux is about the same as D3D in Win32.)
The only thing that scares me about this is that Microsoft might actually get away with their plan for DirectX 10 (DirectX X?) -- to charge for it. Charge both the developer and the end-user. (Sorry, no definite source -- just what I've heard from a DirectX core programmer) If OpenGL is castrated beyond usability, MS could easily do this and get away with it.
My closet is full of short-lived failed consoles, like my 3DO, Dreamcast, and N64.
Lumping the N64 in with the 3DO and Dreamcast is just stupid. The thing had a 5-year lifespan, sold approximately 30 million units world-wide, was extremely profitable for Nintendo, and had dozens of titles that sold in the million-plus range, and many that sold 10 million-plus.
The 3DO had a tiny install base -- mostly hobbyists. The Dreamcast sold relatively well, but was costing Sega more than they could afford to keep it afloat.
If, by "failure," you mean "not the widest selling console," then yeah, the N64 was a failure, and probably the Gamecube and XBox will be too.
Of course, Britney Spears sells more albums than Mr. Bungle, but does that make Mr. Bungle a failure? And does that mean I should consider myself to have good musical taste because I own the latest Britney Spears album?
And as for the original post, about the "fractured" video game industry in the early 80's -- basically, Atari rose to the top and then sat there. They started releasing crappy, unoriginal games based on Movie licenses that were nothing more than blatant advertising vehicles. (E.T., anyone?) The other console makers saw an opportunity to make easy money by copying Atari, and didn't bring anything new to the table in the process, exacerbating the problem. People quit buying them because they were (at the time) smart enough to see the games for the garbage they were. It didn't have anything to do with there being "too many consoles."
I'm just waiting for the same thing to happen again -- and amazed that it has taken so long. There's so much garbage on the market that unless you're dedicated to finding good games, you'd never know what to get.
Isn't that more work than just clicking "Annoy me later"? (or whatever the button text is -- I haven't installed Quicktime since V4, so I may be way off)
Actually, he wasn't a bad choice for a villain. He can do the over-the-top thing better than just about anyone else, which works well for a Batman villain. Although I'm sure their decision to use them was partially based on his wide appeal (ooh, let's generate larger box-office numbers!), he did do a good job.
The real problem with everything in the series after Tim Burton left is that the movies just sucked in general.
While it's true that with the Nintendo and Sony on-line plans you'll be paying on a per-game basis, how many on-line games will you ever be playing simultaneously?
I don't picture myself ever being immersed in more than one MMORPG at a time. Of course, that's just me.
The biggest issue for me, tho', is that I don't have to pay MS to play some other developers' game online. Sony wants me to pay them to play EQ online? Fine. Microsoft wants me to pay them to play Madden 2003 online? I think that stinks.
MS' model is definitely more convenient -- but it's also far more restrictive, and makes it much harder to 'speak' with your dollars.
Compare this to books: do you really think you should have to buy your favorite books every 10 years, because the paper you read it on becomes obsolete and unavailable every decade?
It's not that the paper becomes obsolete -- it's more likely because you sold the whole book to someone else, so of course you should have to pay for it again if you want to read it again.
And besides, the parent post was obviously tongue-in-cheek humor, not an argument. It's funny because it's true. You just thought about it too much and lost the entertainment value.:)
But having the opportunity to use a debugger is still better than nothing. And any decent debugger will let you set conditional breakpoints that you can set up to only fire on certain execution paths.
And yeah, the only-works-in-debugger situation really sucks, though I've only ever run into it one time, and that was because the "release" version of a library I was using had a bug that the debugging version didn't. Talk about a pain in the ass...
No, *you* really don't get it.
Walmart is preventing you from getting an alternate product somewhere else, because the alternate product DOES NOT EXIST. Walmart prevents the alternate product from ever appearing on any store shelves, so there's no reason to shop elsewhere, because you can't get anything different anywhere else.
The argument here is that Walmart shouldn't get to decide what the public gets to see, but they do. They're enforcing censorship through monopolistic tactics. (Walmart isn't exactly a monopoly, but they account for enough sales to bend manufacturers/publishers to their will.)
I'm not for censorship -- I'm not an idiot -- but if we had to have it, I'd *much* rather see it come from the government. I at *least* get to vote for my elected officials. I don't get any say whatsoever about who's running Walmart, and Walton's heirs aren't accountable to me in any way.
People just don't seem to realize how insidious all of this really is. Yes, it's entirely within the rules. So was what Arthur Anderson was doing with Enron. Just because it's "within the rules" doesn't make it right. Just because you don't see it happening doesn't make it okay.
I admire the amount of effort SirSlud has put into this thread. Too bad it's falling on a lot of deaf ears.
Linus sees using a debugger as a crutch for not understanding what is going on in your code.
Which is complete crap. A debugger is a tool like any other. If you've got the option to use a wrench or a ratchet to tighten a nut, the ratchet isn't a "crutch for not understanding what's going on with the nut." Anyone with that attitude is probably looking so far down their nose that *any* tool you offer them is just a crutch for the weak.
The biggest reason I use Linux so sparingly is the lack of decent debugging tools. I had an excellent debugger in Turbo Pascal when I first started programming in '91. I've yet to find something that's even *that* good for Linux.
And anyone who believes that inserting printf()'s into your code is any substitute for a real debugger is a fool.
Can't I reverse engineer the key and send hacked keys? How sparse is the 'key space'? Is there plenty of space in there to just send off a random selection of a key in the known legit key space?
Sure, a hacker could do that. But if you're letting the server do validation, you still get a chance to validate the keys. Say a key has been widely circulated with warez copies -- you can block the key. Say a key has been associated with a specific IP/IP range (not in this case, but possible), you can block other IPs trying to use that key. You can block duplicate connections from a single key... You stil get a say on who to let in.
I'm not an expert on the subject, by any means. But letting the server have the final say in the matter is the only realistic way of getting any reasonable piracy prevention.
So can you explain to me why Blizzard wouldn't just do a key check in the game client against a blizzard-owned key database, independant of server-finding mechanism?
Because then they have to trust the client. With that model, the hacked client just tells the server "oh sure. I just checked my key and I'm fine. Let's play!" And the server has no way to know that it's lying, so it lets the client in.
With their current model, the hacked client tells the server "Hey, here's my key. Umm... Can I play?" The server checks the key, sees that it's invalid, and says "Piss off."
Of course, no other genre has stagnated. The FPS games have expanded from Doom to Q3. In sports, Madden '93 has grown to become Madden '02. Final Fantasy games have had a *different storyline* in every incarnation. And how many Tekkens and Street Fighters do we have?
The thing I'm looking forward to in WC3 is that, in interviews, Blizzard designers have said that "We can't do any more with the RTS genre. With WC3, we need to go in another direction."
I have no doubts that their direction will lead to another fun game, and that's all I care about.
--Jeremy
Re:why not give the money to the EFF instead
on
Warcraft III Gone Gold
·
· Score: 2, Funny
It's $64.95 list and $79.99 for the collector's edition.
why not give the money to the EFF instead
I didn't know that the EFF was also a software retailer. How much do I save by buying from them?
Easy. Because they want to win. They could care less about enjoying the game for its own sake. Their goal is simply to win.
Which doesn't translate into games like UO and EQ very well -- how do you win? "Well, it must be like in Quake -- the more people you kill, the better you are. So that's how we'll play UO!"
It's too bad, too. Playing a game to have fun is *much* more enjoyable than playing to win. That may sound like a "loser's" perspective, but it sure as hell takes the stress out of games.
The problem is, in a virtual world, a cheater can affect many, many more people than they could in real life with almost zero consequences. It's even worse when a group of cheaters works together, thus eliminating nearly all of the risk as well.
A thief IRL may get away with robbing a couple 7-11's before they get caught. A thief in a virtual world can write a script to automatically rob every person they com into contact with. And they probably won't ever get caught, they'll keep doing it until the exploit is fixed. Then they'll just switch to a new exploit.
I am a long time system designer/upgrader / hardware IT geek. I've been working on Amd/Intel boxes since the 386 days. One reason why I cheer for Amd is that in the past few years, Intel seems bent on dragging all of us back into the 286 days of hardware being propeirty. Slot 1, Rdram memory interfaces, etc. Amd seems to have more of a commitment to sticking to industry standards, like (at the time) socket 7, sdram, ddr, etc.
I'm not exactly an Intel fan, but this is just a dumb argument.
Want to upgrade your P2/P3 to an athlon? You'll need a new motherboard, new memory, new processor.
Want to upgrade to a P4? You'll need a new motherboard, new memory, new processor...
So who cares what standard they use? And how is slot-A any less proprietary than slot 1? It simply doesn't matter that much.
Yeah, it's such a terrible burden to have to write HTML-compliant code
HTML isn't the problem. It's all the scripting features that are the problem. Even trying to write simple standards-compliant javascript will end up horking most non-IE browsers. IE has an even better implementation of javascript than Sun does.
While there was more money spent by Spider Man's producers to promote the movie than by Lucasfilms on Episode 2, does this also take into account things like McDonalds and Doritos and Pepsi giving away what would basically amount to "free" advertising for them?
I mean, I don't watch a lot of TV, but most of the ads I've seen for Spidey were ads for the movie. Most of the Episode 2 ads I've seen were from 3rd parties hyping their Star Wars Happy Meal and action figures.
I don't have any numbers (nor the desire to go try to find them myself), but I'd suspect that there's been at least as much advertising related to Episode 2 when you count in all of George Lucas' promotional partners..
Dude, you think too much about your video games. Just play them and have fun. If you're really bothered by cheezy stories, what are you doing playing video games in the first place?
I still play and treasure the first two Zelda games. But for me, The Legend of Zelda began to die at the 3rd sequel. It was a hideous, bloated corpse by 5.
This is just sad. I pity anyone who's developed a mindset that won't allow them to enjoy games like these. It's like saying that you don't/didn't like the muppets because they're all just stuffed animal puppets. It's *so* much more than that if you allow yourself to see it.
Slashdot Mirror
Clean, Reliable, Affordable. Choose None
Should be:
Clean, Reliable, Affordable, Available. Choose None.
--Jeremy
If a developer gives both the Linux Binary and the Windows Binary, wouldn't you be curious to compare speeds between the two?
No, they wouldn't. They'd just want to play the game wherever it worked.
Unless, of course, they're compensating for something, and need to feel the superiority of squeezing a 2% better framerate out of their system.
People would problably spend the extra $0-5 difference for a dual-os game starting the eventual craze. It only takes a few people/companies to start a revolution.
Companies like Id software? One of the most influential PC game developers out there? When did they start releasing Linux binaries? Like, '96? And have those "few" people using Linux Quake started the revolution yet?
I'm not trying to troll here, I'm just trying to put the whole "if you build it, they will come" idea in perspective. It's been built. They haven't come.
Although Microsoft has gone great strides with DirectX API, they have nowhere near the simplicity of OpenGL
I beg to differ. Direct3D has nearly a 1:1 function mapping with OpenGL. The functions are no more difficult to use, unless you have more trouple typing D3D than gl. The initialization code for D3D is actually simpler than for OpenGL. (in Win32, that is -- OGL initialization (at least with Mesa) in Linux is about the same as D3D in Win32.)
The only thing that scares me about this is that Microsoft might actually get away with their plan for DirectX 10 (DirectX X?) -- to charge for it. Charge both the developer and the end-user. (Sorry, no definite source -- just what I've heard from a DirectX core programmer) If OpenGL is castrated beyond usability, MS could easily do this and get away with it.
--Jeremy
It says nothing about the code -- just the technology. Basically, it'll let Microsoft "bargain" pieces of OpenGL-exclusive technology into Direct3D.
Maybe they'll directly copy the code, but probably not.
--Jeremy
My closet is full of short-lived failed consoles, like my 3DO, Dreamcast, and N64.
Lumping the N64 in with the 3DO and Dreamcast is just stupid. The thing had a 5-year lifespan, sold approximately 30 million units world-wide, was extremely profitable for Nintendo, and had dozens of titles that sold in the million-plus range, and many that sold 10 million-plus.
The 3DO had a tiny install base -- mostly hobbyists. The Dreamcast sold relatively well, but was costing Sega more than they could afford to keep it afloat.
If, by "failure," you mean "not the widest selling console," then yeah, the N64 was a failure, and probably the Gamecube and XBox will be too.
Of course, Britney Spears sells more albums than Mr. Bungle, but does that make Mr. Bungle a failure? And does that mean I should consider myself to have good musical taste because I own the latest Britney Spears album?
And as for the original post, about the "fractured" video game industry in the early 80's -- basically, Atari rose to the top and then sat there. They started releasing crappy, unoriginal games based on Movie licenses that were nothing more than blatant advertising vehicles. (E.T., anyone?) The other console makers saw an opportunity to make easy money by copying Atari, and didn't bring anything new to the table in the process, exacerbating the problem. People quit buying them because they were (at the time) smart enough to see the games for the garbage they were. It didn't have anything to do with there being "too many consoles."
I'm just waiting for the same thing to happen again -- and amazed that it has taken so long. There's so much garbage on the market that unless you're dedicated to finding good games, you'd never know what to get.
--Jeremy
Isn't that more work than just clicking "Annoy me later"? (or whatever the button text is -- I haven't installed Quicktime since V4, so I may be way off)
--Jeremy
Actually, he wasn't a bad choice for a villain. He can do the over-the-top thing better than just about anyone else, which works well for a Batman villain. Although I'm sure their decision to use them was partially based on his wide appeal (ooh, let's generate larger box-office numbers!), he did do a good job.
The real problem with everything in the series after Tim Burton left is that the movies just sucked in general.
--Jeremy
Yeah, and 15.7% of the Slashdot community will get sudden visits from the FBI when they pick Dubya.
--Jeremy
You're right, but you're wrong at the same time.
While it's true that with the Nintendo and Sony on-line plans you'll be paying on a per-game basis, how many on-line games will you ever be playing simultaneously?
I don't picture myself ever being immersed in more than one MMORPG at a time. Of course, that's just me.
The biggest issue for me, tho', is that I don't have to pay MS to play some other developers' game online. Sony wants me to pay them to play EQ online? Fine. Microsoft wants me to pay them to play Madden 2003 online? I think that stinks.
MS' model is definitely more convenient -- but it's also far more restrictive, and makes it much harder to 'speak' with your dollars.
--Jeremy
Compare this to books: do you really think you should have to buy your favorite books every 10 years, because the paper you read it on becomes obsolete and unavailable every decade?
:)
It's not that the paper becomes obsolete -- it's more likely because you sold the whole book to someone else, so of course you should have to pay for it again if you want to read it again.
And besides, the parent post was obviously tongue-in-cheek humor, not an argument. It's funny because it's true. You just thought about it too much and lost the entertainment value.
--Jeremy
also from the article:
...and the recently released DivX video player.
:)
Don't forget the people watching their copies of Episode 2 and Spider Man with the DivX player. They're an important demographic too!
Just that many more reasons for the mod creators to keep that 'moral high ground.'
--Jeremy
I fully expect the value of the dolor to drop
:)
Man, you seem awfully passionate about something you can't even spell.
--Jeremy
But having the opportunity to use a debugger is still better than nothing. And any decent debugger will let you set conditional breakpoints that you can set up to only fire on certain execution paths.
And yeah, the only-works-in-debugger situation really sucks, though I've only ever run into it one time, and that was because the "release" version of a library I was using had a bug that the debugging version didn't. Talk about a pain in the ass...
--Jeremy
you really don't get it.
No, *you* really don't get it. Walmart is preventing you from getting an alternate product somewhere else, because the alternate product DOES NOT EXIST. Walmart prevents the alternate product from ever appearing on any store shelves, so there's no reason to shop elsewhere, because you can't get anything different anywhere else.
The argument here is that Walmart shouldn't get to decide what the public gets to see, but they do. They're enforcing censorship through monopolistic tactics. (Walmart isn't exactly a monopoly, but they account for enough sales to bend manufacturers/publishers to their will.)
I'm not for censorship -- I'm not an idiot -- but if we had to have it, I'd *much* rather see it come from the government. I at *least* get to vote for my elected officials. I don't get any say whatsoever about who's running Walmart, and Walton's heirs aren't accountable to me in any way.
People just don't seem to realize how insidious all of this really is. Yes, it's entirely within the rules. So was what Arthur Anderson was doing with Enron. Just because it's "within the rules" doesn't make it right. Just because you don't see it happening doesn't make it okay.
I admire the amount of effort SirSlud has put into this thread. Too bad it's falling on a lot of deaf ears.
--Jeremy
Linus sees using a debugger as a crutch for not understanding what is going on in your code.
Which is complete crap. A debugger is a tool like any other. If you've got the option to use a wrench or a ratchet to tighten a nut, the ratchet isn't a "crutch for not understanding what's going on with the nut." Anyone with that attitude is probably looking so far down their nose that *any* tool you offer them is just a crutch for the weak.
The biggest reason I use Linux so sparingly is the lack of decent debugging tools. I had an excellent debugger in Turbo Pascal when I first started programming in '91. I've yet to find something that's even *that* good for Linux.
And anyone who believes that inserting printf()'s into your code is any substitute for a real debugger is a fool.
--Jeremy
Can't I reverse engineer the key and send hacked keys? How sparse is the 'key space'? Is there plenty of space in there to just send off a random selection of a key in the known legit key space?
... You stil get a say on who to let in.
Sure, a hacker could do that. But if you're letting the server do validation, you still get a chance to validate the keys. Say a key has been widely circulated with warez copies -- you can block the key. Say a key has been associated with a specific IP/IP range (not in this case, but possible), you can block other IPs trying to use that key. You can block duplicate connections from a single key
I'm not an expert on the subject, by any means. But letting the server have the final say in the matter is the only realistic way of getting any reasonable piracy prevention.
--Jeremy
So can you explain to me why Blizzard wouldn't just do a key check in the game client against a blizzard-owned key database, independant of server-finding mechanism?
Because then they have to trust the client. With that model, the hacked client just tells the server "oh sure. I just checked my key and I'm fine. Let's play!" And the server has no way to know that it's lying, so it lets the client in.
With their current model, the hacked client tells the server "Hey, here's my key. Umm... Can I play?" The server checks the key, sees that it's invalid, and says "Piss off."
It's all about who you trust.
--Jeremy
Of course, no other genre has stagnated. The FPS games have expanded from Doom to Q3. In sports, Madden '93 has grown to become Madden '02. Final Fantasy games have had a *different storyline* in every incarnation. And how many Tekkens and Street Fighters do we have?
The thing I'm looking forward to in WC3 is that, in interviews, Blizzard designers have said that "We can't do any more with the RTS genre. With WC3, we need to go in another direction."
I have no doubts that their direction will lead to another fun game, and that's all I care about.
--Jeremy
It's $64.95 list and $79.99 for the collector's edition.
why not give the money to the EFF instead
I didn't know that the EFF was also a software retailer. How much do I save by buying from them?
--Jeremy
Okay, I'll bite.
Go tell your mom how great this technology is, and what it can do for her. Get back to us with her response.
(For the record, my guess is, "Umm, so?")
--Jeremy
Why play a game if you're going to cheat?
Easy. Because they want to win. They could care less about enjoying the game for its own sake. Their goal is simply to win.
Which doesn't translate into games like UO and EQ very well -- how do you win? "Well, it must be like in Quake -- the more people you kill, the better you are. So that's how we'll play UO!"
It's too bad, too. Playing a game to have fun is *much* more enjoyable than playing to win. That may sound like a "loser's" perspective, but it sure as hell takes the stress out of games.
--Jeremy
The problem is, in a virtual world, a cheater can affect many, many more people than they could in real life with almost zero consequences. It's even worse when a group of cheaters works together, thus eliminating nearly all of the risk as well.
A thief IRL may get away with robbing a couple 7-11's before they get caught. A thief in a virtual world can write a script to automatically rob every person they com into contact with. And they probably won't ever get caught, they'll keep doing it until the exploit is fixed. Then they'll just switch to a new exploit.
--Jeremy
I am a long time system designer /upgrader / hardware IT geek. I've been working on Amd /Intel boxes since the 386 days. One reason why I cheer for Amd is that in the past few years, Intel seems bent on dragging all of us back into the 286 days of hardware being propeirty. Slot 1, Rdram memory interfaces, etc. Amd seems to have more of a commitment to sticking to industry standards, like (at the time) socket 7, sdram, ddr, etc.
I'm not exactly an Intel fan, but this is just a dumb argument.
Want to upgrade your P2/P3 to an athlon? You'll need a new motherboard, new memory, new processor.
Want to upgrade to a P4? You'll need a new motherboard, new memory, new processor...
So who cares what standard they use? And how is slot-A any less proprietary than slot 1? It simply doesn't matter that much.
--Jeremy
Yeah, it's such a terrible burden to have to write HTML-compliant code
HTML isn't the problem. It's all the scripting features that are the problem. Even trying to write simple standards-compliant javascript will end up horking most non-IE browsers. IE has an even better implementation of javascript than Sun does.
--Jeremy
While there was more money spent by Spider Man's producers to promote the movie than by Lucasfilms on Episode 2, does this also take into account things like McDonalds and Doritos and Pepsi giving away what would basically amount to "free" advertising for them?
I mean, I don't watch a lot of TV, but most of the ads I've seen for Spidey were ads for the movie. Most of the Episode 2 ads I've seen were from 3rd parties hyping their Star Wars Happy Meal and action figures.
I don't have any numbers (nor the desire to go try to find them myself), but I'd suspect that there's been at least as much advertising related to Episode 2 when you count in all of George Lucas' promotional partners..
--Jeremy
Dude, you think too much about your video games. Just play them and have fun. If you're really bothered by cheezy stories, what are you doing playing video games in the first place?
I still play and treasure the first two Zelda games. But for me, The Legend of Zelda began to die at the 3rd sequel. It was a hideous, bloated corpse by 5.
This is just sad. I pity anyone who's developed a mindset that won't allow them to enjoy games like these. It's like saying that you don't/didn't like the muppets because they're all just stuffed animal puppets. It's *so* much more than that if you allow yourself to see it.
--Jeremy