GS: Do you feel that's a trend toward actual committed development of the technology or people just paying lip service?
CC: No, this is still academic research, and I think it is quite revealing that much of this research has led to a dead end. That is, you track some of these academic projects, and they start off with grand and glorious goals and then three or four years later, the project is dead. And they publish a couple of papers, but they didn't get anything to work. That's largely because people have difficulty appreciating the magnitude of the problem. Interactive storytelling is not something that you can slap together in a year or two. However, the appreciation of that is developing and people are more seriously discussing the building blocks of the problem. I know there are a lot of graduate students all over the world who are seriously attacking some of these issues, and really do seem to appreciate them. We already have a couple of academics who are again seriously tackling the issue of interactive storytelling. So we're definitely in the early stages of solid academic pursuit. When will this turn into commercial product? Well on that aspect I'm pretty far ahead of everyone else, but I'm confident that we will see some of these bright graduate students coming up with really weird ideas and bringing them to a pre-commercial level within the next five years.
Okay, mockery aside, I find it interesting that we have these academics working for over a decade on something that the game industry itself wouldn't even touch with a ten foot pole. It's not fast soft-shadowing techniques or scene management strategies they're working on. Those kinds of problems are difficult and they require really smart people to address, but they might only take a number of months to a year of R&D to solve. No, the problem that Crawford and his people are working on will take decades to solve by his own estimation. (Starting from roughly 1992, mind you.) Yet, if their efforts pan out at all it could be a big win for everyone. Even though the market for interactive storytelling (assuming salable products ever emerge) is unlikely to overlap much with the current gaming market, this kind of interactive entertainment would probably have a tremendous positive influence on the game industry and could provide much-needed big pile of new ideas for game developers to pick through.
I only wish more people were working in the background dedicating themselves to difficult problems like this. The game industry itself can't be counted on to do this kind of blue sky research, generally speaking, because these sorts of problems do not fit well within the boundaries of your average game production timetable or middleware development schedule.
Youve tried to be clever, in the process missing most of the points. Bravo. [big snip] I dont even entirely agree with much of his post but it had valid points and at the very least didnt warrent the condescending bullshit you just spewed.
Condescending? Yes. Bullshit? Not entirely. I apologize for my knee-jerk, rabid fanboy reaction. I still hold to most of the points I tried to make.
You need to pay actors stage hands script writers the works for each and every episode. Valve do not. They already have everything there in the first place.
To make Episode One they had to (among many other things) have voice actors for the new dialog, writers to write it, and level designers to build the new levels. None of that work was done for them just because they had already made Half-Life 2.
A far more acurate analogy would be if they took battlestar galactica sliced the episodes up re-edited them together then sold it on DVD for at least as much as the original series was when it was first released. That still sounding fair to you?
You're analogy might apply if Episode One consisted of backtracking through levels that were identical to those in Half-Life 2. Since all the level design was done from scratch, I think the T.V. episode analogy is much more appropriate. The same props, writers, and actors are used, but the dialog, action, and sets are unique to each episode.
His complaint was that it cost too much. At what point did he say they had redo absolutely everything? Fact is to buy all half life 2 episodes and get essentially a half life 2 expansion it costs at least as much as the original on its release date. Now looking in the game stores around me the expansions are typically half the price of the original. That includes the very good ones.
Okay, fair enough. That's a good point.
Steam and online distribution is what valve want to take over the store service. IF you hadnt noticed the original Half Life 2 when not bought over steam was littered with problems it was a disaster. If episodic content takes off over steam dont count on them taking the more expensive route of sticking it in the shops and you can sure as hell say goodbye to taking it back.
The Half-Life 2 launch difficulties were by no means restricted to the boxed version. Your predictions about Valve's future distribution channels aside, the fact remains that you can buy Episode One from the store, in which case you have an opportunity return it.
Once again clean over your head. The resulting package of the episodes adds up to one game. It isnt like releasing a series of books its like taking a book tearing it in to chapters and making you wait months inbetween each one. Or to compare it to its namesake itd be like waiting several months inbetween 'episodes' of your favorite TV program.
If TV episodes were aired immediately after they were shot instead of being shot all at once for the season, that's exactly the way it would work. I concede that my book analogy was a poor one.
He said sugar coat it... did you read his post at all or were you just looking to try sound really smart. Sugar Coat it as you appear to have missed means sticking something good on the outside to cover up the fact its not so good underneath. As in updated graphics engine that doesnt actually improve much. New character dialogue that doesnt actually say much and rich and immersive that isnt much richer and doenst improve immersion so much. Thats why its sugar coating. Scratch the surface and its same ol same ol.
Immersive and rich environments, good character dialog, and pretty graphics are the precise things that make Half-Life 2 and Episode One stand out. They are not just sugar coating on the surface, they are a large part of what is attractive about those games. If you were dissatisfied with how immersive, rich, and graphically enticing Episode One was, how on earth were you able to stomach Half-Life 2 in the first place?
These episodes are reusing textures, prefabs, characters, sounds, AI and the graphics engine from HL2.
Yeah! You know what really pisses me off? The regular episodes of Battlestar Galactica reused many of the same actors, sets, and props from the miniseries. That is so bullshit! Who do these people think they are?
I dont want to spend $60 on a game that has basically been modded from a previous game ive already played.
I don't either. They should have re-modeled, re-animated, re-textured and reprogrammed every character, enemy, and scene. They should have come up with a whole new engine while they were at it. Also, all new voice actors. Then the game would cost three times as much as it did and come out two years later. That sounds mighty fine.
Not only that, but it also does not come with multiplayer
I know! Those cheap bastards! How dare they produce a single-player game?
I cant return it if I hate it
Unless you buy it boxed from a retail shop. And what a pain in the arse that is. It's almost like...oh I dunno...like there's some sort of trade off when you buy the game from Steam vs. buying it from store. It's so unfair!
And I have to wait an additional year from when I first start the gameto when I am actually allowed to complete it.
Totally. It's like those...those stupid whatamacallits. The things with words on them? BOOKS! Yeah. When they come out with a new book in a series and it's like a year after the prevous entry in the series. Gawd. Sooo annoying.
Seriously, where is the value in that? - sure you can suger coat it with "But they have updated the graphics engine!", "They have new character dialog", "its soo rich and immersive"
Ha ha! What kind of dumbass would play a game just because it provided a rich, immersive experience peppered with engaging characters and sported a slick, newly-updated graphics engine anyway?
It's not a True Scripting Language if there's a just-in-time compiler involved, now is it?
Python doesn't come with a JIT compiler. The.pyc files it saves out are byte code, not machine instructions.
As an aside: the.pyc files simply keep Python from having to re-compile from source to byte code every time the module is loaded. It doesn't provide any performance advantage past that initial module import stage.
That said, Pyco can generate x86 instructions from Python code in a manner very much like a JIT compiler
It doesn't seem to me that the hit-driven way of thinking is terribly relevant to indies. A game that sells 3000 copies might be a perfectly successful title for a guy working alone in his off-hours. Of course, it would be an absolute catastrophic failure to a big publisher. But none of that matters to Mr. Off Hours or his happy customers.
Groovy does offer things they don't, primarily the ability to compile to class files so that Groovy classes can be used from Java classes and vice versa.
In my opinion the guy's big mistake wasn't that he made an original RPG. His mistake is that he made another god-damned RPG at all. Never innovate halfway.
From the linked article:
"Developing a game title will often consume years of your life. Making a game that is only 'moderately innovative' simply is not worth the effort. Each project must choose its focus.
Are you a craftsman who lovingly polishes an established genre?
Or are you an innovator who creates new genres?
If you fail to chose, you risk being stranded in the no man's land that lurks between the two strategies."
After playing the game, study participants watched a scenario in which a teacher told a class he suspects some students of cheating on a test, and that while he is very disappointed in those who have cheated he is proud of those who did well. The teacher then asks to see "Billy" after class. The study participants were told to imagine themselves as Billy, and asked how likely it was that the teacher was going to accuse them of cheating. Students who'd played Grand Theft Auto were more likely to think they'd be accused of cheating.
Oh, c'mon. It's the classic school age "uh oh" moment in basically every story involving teachers and students in our culture. "Billy I want to see you after class" is never a good thing in that context. Given the cultural bias here, the fact that some of the kids interpreted the "scenario" (just call it a video, you dissembling weasels) so negatively reveals nothing.
anyway, everytime we find another transitional fossil the creationists are just going to point to the two gaps on either side of the new transitional and say, "Now there's two missing links! Nyah nyah nyah!" They already don't believe evolution is possible anyway.
I think there's tons of innovation still to be had on the software side of things aswell.
Me too. In fact, software was what I was primarily thinking about when I wrote that comment. No matter how interesting the hardware might be, it's not worth a damn if there isn't software. This is essentially what makes Nintendo's move so risky. The new platform might be really cool, but if no one makes games for it, it's all for naught.
Hardware can have a profound affect on the software written for it. Nintendo's new platform will probably provide developers with a slightly different set of opportunities and constraints compared to other platforms. With a new playing field to explore, developers might find opportunities to create some truly unique, entertaining games. Or, Nintendo might be hatching a really bad scheme, and developers will be either turned off altogether or simply unable to really make effective use of their crazy-ass new console.
In any case, I don't think frowning on attempts at innovation gets anyone anywhere.
You're absolutely right. That's also what Iwata is saying.
Nintendo heads should know this after some of their innovations have already blown up in their faces.
Some of their innovations have been tremendously successful too. You cannot grow if you only make safe choices.
When something works exceptionally well, why toss it out the window?
Who said anything about that?
If it comes to the point where the president of Nintendo says that the interface will be fundamentally different then what is the norm today, people should be skeptical, or worried.
He didn't say that. He said "the platform would be fundamentally different from other game systems". Everyone seem to be assuming that this means that the input will be really weird. Maybe it will be. Maybe you'll have to paint yourself with fluorescent dots and dance naked in front of a motion detector to control your character. Maybe not. Anyway, I'm hoping the input device won't be the only thing unique about the Revolution. The input device might be perfectly traditional, for all we know.
And why should anyone be "scared" except for the Nintendo shareholders? If you don't like the damn thing don't buy it. What's so scary about that? Enough with the drama.
Not once while playing on a console or a pc have I thought to myself "boy, this interface is terrible, I wish I could use something completely different".
Not once have I witnessed someone trying to do something unique and daring and thought, "Boy, what a moron. Why can't people would just sit down, shut up, and think like everyone else!"
I for one think the state of gaming right now is pretty damn good.
I, on the other hand, am very happy to see a company pushing to make games that are better than just "pretty damn good." You may be content with the way games are right now, but others, like myself, yearn for something more.
I think the games we play now don't even scratch the surface of what is possible with interactive entertainment. So, I'm encouraged when a game company says that it's going to do something so different, so out there, that they believe it may alienate them from potential partners within the industry. It means that I'm not the only one out there who is a little disappointed with "the state of gaming right now."
SEATTLE - Should the people who make and sell "violent video" games be held accountable if someone commits a crime because of playing them?
Nice loaded question. How's this one? Should people who make "random" use of quotation marks be writing "news" articles?
That's something our state lawmakers are considering, to open game makers up to more liability.
Assumption: game makers are liable for violent crime committed by children.
House Bill 2178 proposes to hold the makers and sellers of violent video games liable if someone under 17 years old commits a crime, due in any part, to playing the game.
How can a game be an accomplice to a crime?
Supporters of the bill, like Bill Hanson with the Washington Police and Sheriff's Association, say "kids" are getting the games, and they're becoming desensitized.
Why put quotes around the word "kids"? Are you putting quotes around the only word that Bill actually said? Might Bill have said something like "kids are influenced much more by the people in their lives than by the entertainment software they use"?
"If you sit up and watch this and play these games over and over again... it seems that this is alright to walk up and hit a police officer over the head with a bat," Hanson said.
Whoa, dude! Not only was that not a coherent sentence, but you just proposed that assaulting a law officer is okay. It sounds like you have some pretty violent tendencies, there. Maybe you should look into that.
How many cases do we have of kids hitting police officers over the head with bats, again? I forget.
(Get ready, kids. Here comes the sarcastic part of my post!)
Opponents argue that the proposed bill would shift the responsibility from the person who actually committed the crime.
Booooo! Here come the faceless opponents who use big words like "responsibility". They aren't members of the Washington Police and Sheriff's Association like good ol' Bill Hanson. Why should we trust them, whoever they are?
Lew McMurran, with the Washington Software Association, says violent games are clearly rated for adults only, and that the responsibility should be on parents to use the video game rating system and control what their kids are playing.
"We're removing the responsibility from the person who committed the act, to somebody else who's completely removed from the situation" McMurran said.
Completely removed? Are you nuts? If I play with a kid pretending that we're sword fighting and then that kid goes off and stabs someone with a real sword how far removed am I? Huh!? Answer that, Lew!
"There's a very strong video game industry in this state that we want to support. We don't want to bring undo attention to an area where there's actually jobs being created, where there's actually some good economic development in our state"
Now's the part were we construct a false dichotomy with the health of the software industry job market on one side and the vulnerability of police officers to children armed with bats on the other.
The assumption seems to be that the game industry is filled with evil warlocks and sorcerers bent on turning "kids" into violent lunatics. I think that the people who propose and support this kind of legislation aren't paying enough attention, "undo" or otherwise. If they were actually paying attention they might notice the big empty hole where all of the solid evidence linking violent behavior in children to violent video games is supposed to be.
House Bill 2178 is still in the committee stage in the state House of Representatives.
Deliver a new generation of rich Internet applications for today's Web:
Develop in XML and JavaScript (Try it now!)
Deploy via any Java servlet container or J2EE application server
Display in any Web browser enabled with the Flash 5 player
Open Source platform, free for development and deployment
Okay, so this is just a way to great Flash GUI's. My initial reaction was "BLEH! I can do that already with Flash."
What gave me pause was that this was a impressively sophisticated way to create Flash GUI's using Open Source tech. Macromedia's expensive authoring tool is not required. Everything is driven by XML+JavaScript from the server side.
So, yeah, it's just a server-side Flash generator. It's also one of the more sophisticated Open Source Flash creation tools I've seen yet. So there's that.
"You're not Ali. You're not even...literate."
on
PHP 5 OO In 24 Slides
·
· Score: 2, Informative
A much more better speled deskripshun of PHP5's OO language enhancements are is available from the horse's mouth
None of the problems you talk about are new, or any more or less pressing than they always have been. There is nothing wrong with people thinking past the immediate pressures of our times. A little careful foresight is exactly the kind of thing that might allow us to avoid some of the items on that gloomy list of yours in the future. Shutting down our collective imagination until there is no more scarcity is equivalent to shutting it down forever.
Anyway, if you want to feel healthy and alert, try:
(a) Eating nutritiously and sparingly,
(b) Exercising every day, and
(c) Sleeping regularly (same time every day) for 8 hours.
No. This is clearly an attempt to compete with companies like GarageGames. I'm guessing that it will be met with a bit of fanfare. I can already see the ears perking and tongues lolling at the prospect of publishing a game using the Unreal Engine. This is tech that is largely out of reach for indie developers looking to sell their games due to the high price for a commercial license and now all of a sudden it's within reach.
Slashdot Mirror
I know! When I read that title I thought:
In other news...
Okay, mockery aside, I find it interesting that we have these academics working for over a decade on something that the game industry itself wouldn't even touch with a ten foot pole. It's not fast soft-shadowing techniques or scene management strategies they're working on. Those kinds of problems are difficult and they require really smart people to address, but they might only take a number of months to a year of R&D to solve. No, the problem that Crawford and his people are working on will take decades to solve by his own estimation. (Starting from roughly 1992, mind you.) Yet, if their efforts pan out at all it could be a big win for everyone. Even though the market for interactive storytelling (assuming salable products ever emerge) is unlikely to overlap much with the current gaming market, this kind of interactive entertainment would probably have a tremendous positive influence on the game industry and could provide much-needed big pile of new ideas for game developers to pick through.
I only wish more people were working in the background dedicating themselves to difficult problems like this. The game industry itself can't be counted on to do this kind of blue sky research, generally speaking, because these sorts of problems do not fit well within the boundaries of your average game production timetable or middleware development schedule.
That picture of Chris Crawford on the article was just so melodramatic. It reminded me of something. I just... I just couldn't help myself .
Youve tried to be clever, in the process missing most of the points. Bravo. [big snip] I dont even entirely agree with much of his post but it had valid points and at the very least didnt warrent the condescending bullshit you just spewed.
Condescending? Yes. Bullshit? Not entirely. I apologize for my knee-jerk, rabid fanboy reaction. I still hold to most of the points I tried to make.
You need to pay actors stage hands script writers the works for each and every episode. Valve do not. They already have everything there in the first place.
To make Episode One they had to (among many other things) have voice actors for the new dialog, writers to write it, and level designers to build the new levels. None of that work was done for them just because they had already made Half-Life 2.
A far more acurate analogy would be if they took battlestar galactica sliced the episodes up re-edited them together then sold it on DVD for at least as much as the original series was when it was first released. That still sounding fair to you?
You're analogy might apply if Episode One consisted of backtracking through levels that were identical to those in Half-Life 2. Since all the level design was done from scratch, I think the T.V. episode analogy is much more appropriate. The same props, writers, and actors are used, but the dialog, action, and sets are unique to each episode.
His complaint was that it cost too much. At what point did he say they had redo absolutely everything? Fact is to buy all half life 2 episodes and get essentially a half life 2 expansion it costs at least as much as the original on its release date. Now looking in the game stores around me the expansions are typically half the price of the original. That includes the very good ones.
Okay, fair enough. That's a good point.
Steam and online distribution is what valve want to take over the store service. IF you hadnt noticed the original Half Life 2 when not bought over steam was littered with problems it was a disaster. If episodic content takes off over steam dont count on them taking the more expensive route of sticking it in the shops and you can sure as hell say goodbye to taking it back.
The Half-Life 2 launch difficulties were by no means restricted to the boxed version. Your predictions about Valve's future distribution channels aside, the fact remains that you can buy Episode One from the store, in which case you have an opportunity return it.
Once again clean over your head. The resulting package of the episodes adds up to one game. It isnt like releasing a series of books its like taking a book tearing it in to chapters and making you wait months inbetween each one. Or to compare it to its namesake itd be like waiting several months inbetween 'episodes' of your favorite TV program.
If TV episodes were aired immediately after they were shot instead of being shot all at once for the season, that's exactly the way it would work. I concede that my book analogy was a poor one.
He said sugar coat it... did you read his post at all or were you just looking to try sound really smart. Sugar Coat it as you appear to have missed means sticking something good on the outside to cover up the fact its not so good underneath. As in updated graphics engine that doesnt actually improve much. New character dialogue that doesnt actually say much and rich and immersive that isnt much richer and doenst improve immersion so much. Thats why its sugar coating. Scratch the surface and its same ol same ol.
Immersive and rich environments, good character dialog, and pretty graphics are the precise things that make Half-Life 2 and Episode One stand out. They are not just sugar coating on the surface, they are a large part of what is attractive about those games. If you were dissatisfied with how immersive, rich, and graphically enticing Episode One was, how on earth were you able to stomach Half-Life 2 in the first place?
These episodes are reusing textures, prefabs, characters, sounds, AI and the graphics engine from HL2.
Yeah! You know what really pisses me off? The regular episodes of Battlestar Galactica reused many of the same actors, sets, and props from the miniseries. That is so bullshit! Who do these people think they are?
I dont want to spend $60 on a game that has basically been modded from a previous game ive already played.
I don't either. They should have re-modeled, re-animated, re-textured and reprogrammed every character, enemy, and scene. They should have come up with a whole new engine while they were at it. Also, all new voice actors. Then the game would cost three times as much as it did and come out two years later. That sounds mighty fine.
Not only that, but it also does not come with multiplayer
I know! Those cheap bastards! How dare they produce a single-player game?
I cant return it if I hate it
Unless you buy it boxed from a retail shop. And what a pain in the arse that is. It's almost like...oh I dunno...like there's some sort of trade off when you buy the game from Steam vs. buying it from store. It's so unfair!
And I have to wait an additional year from when I first start the gameto when I am actually allowed to complete it.
Totally. It's like those...those stupid whatamacallits. The things with words on them? BOOKS! Yeah. When they come out with a new book in a series and it's like a year after the prevous entry in the series. Gawd. Sooo annoying.
Seriously, where is the value in that? - sure you can suger coat it with "But they have updated the graphics engine!", "They have new character dialog", "its soo rich and immersive"
Ha ha! What kind of dumbass would play a game just because it provided a rich, immersive experience peppered with engaging characters and sported a slick, newly-updated graphics engine anyway?
Python doesn't come with a JIT compiler. The
As an aside: the
That said, Pyco can generate x86 instructions from Python code in a manner very much like a JIT compiler
It's called The Long Tail.
Oh fer cryin' out loud. That site hasn't been updated in over six years. Use the 3D Engines Database instead.
Jython has this feature.
Below are two bullet points from the linked page:
From the linked article:
Whoa! Speaking of predictive power! Man, you really nailed it!
Me too. In fact, software was what I was primarily thinking about when I wrote that comment. No matter how interesting the hardware might be, it's not worth a damn if there isn't software. This is essentially what makes Nintendo's move so risky. The new platform might be really cool, but if no one makes games for it, it's all for naught.
Hardware can have a profound affect on the software written for it. Nintendo's new platform will probably provide developers with a slightly different set of opportunities and constraints compared to other platforms. With a new playing field to explore, developers might find opportunities to create some truly unique, entertaining games. Or, Nintendo might be hatching a really bad scheme, and developers will be either turned off altogether or simply unable to really make effective use of their crazy-ass new console.
In any case, I don't think frowning on attempts at innovation gets anyone anywhere.
You're absolutely right. That's also what Iwata is saying.
Nintendo heads should know this after some of their innovations have already blown up in their faces.
Some of their innovations have been tremendously successful too. You cannot grow if you only make safe choices.
When something works exceptionally well, why toss it out the window?
Who said anything about that?
If it comes to the point where the president of Nintendo says that the interface will be fundamentally different then what is the norm today, people should be skeptical, or worried.
He didn't say that. He said "the platform would be fundamentally different from other game systems". Everyone seem to be assuming that this means that the input will be really weird. Maybe it will be. Maybe you'll have to paint yourself with fluorescent dots and dance naked in front of a motion detector to control your character. Maybe not. Anyway, I'm hoping the input device won't be the only thing unique about the Revolution. The input device might be perfectly traditional, for all we know.
And why should anyone be "scared" except for the Nintendo shareholders? If you don't like the damn thing don't buy it. What's so scary about that? Enough with the drama.
Not once while playing on a console or a pc have I thought to myself "boy, this interface is terrible, I wish I could use something completely different".
Not once have I witnessed someone trying to do something unique and daring and thought, "Boy, what a moron. Why can't people would just sit down, shut up, and think like everyone else!"
I, on the other hand, am very happy to see a company pushing to make games that are better than just "pretty damn good." You may be content with the way games are right now, but others, like myself, yearn for something more.
I think the games we play now don't even scratch the surface of what is possible with interactive entertainment. So, I'm encouraged when a game company says that it's going to do something so different, so out there, that they believe it may alienate them from potential partners within the industry. It means that I'm not the only one out there who is a little disappointed with "the state of gaming right now."
How many cases do we have of kids hitting police officers over the head with bats, again? I forget.
(Get ready, kids. Here comes the sarcastic part of my post!)
Booooo! Here come the faceless opponents who use big words like "responsibility". They aren't members of the Washington Police and Sheriff's Association like good ol' Bill Hanson. Why should we trust them, whoever they are? It's harder than you think, Lew. Completely removed? Are you nuts? If I play with a kid pretending that we're sword fighting and then that kid goes off and stabs someone with a real sword how far removed am I? Huh!? Answer that, Lew! Now's the part were we construct a false dichotomy with the health of the software industry job market on one side and the vulnerability of police officers to children armed with bats on the other.The assumption seems to be that the game industry is filled with evil warlocks and sorcerers bent on turning "kids" into violent lunatics. I think that the people who propose and support this kind of legislation aren't paying enough attention, "undo" or otherwise. If they were actually paying attention they might notice the big empty hole where all of the solid evidence linking violent behavior in children to violent video games is supposed to be.
Legislate this.Take what I say here with your usual Slashdot-comment grain of salt because I've taken only a brief look at this thing.
From the download page:
Okay, so this is just a way to great Flash GUI's. My initial reaction was "BLEH! I can do that already with Flash."
What gave me pause was that this was a impressively sophisticated way to create Flash GUI's using Open Source tech. Macromedia's expensive authoring tool is not required. Everything is driven by XML+JavaScript from the server side.
So, yeah, it's just a server-side Flash generator. It's also one of the more sophisticated Open Source Flash creation tools I've seen yet. So there's that.
A much more better speled deskripshun of PHP5's OO language enhancements are is available from the horse's mouth
- Click preferences
- Click Homepage
- Observe the table entitled Exclude Stories from the Homepage.
- Scroll down and click the checkbox(es) next to "Politics".
- Scroll all the way down to the bottom of the page and click Save.
Aren't these new computer machines nifty?None of the problems you talk about are new, or any more or less pressing than they always have been. There is nothing wrong with people thinking past the immediate pressures of our times. A little careful foresight is exactly the kind of thing that might allow us to avoid some of the items on that gloomy list of yours in the future. Shutting down our collective imagination until there is no more scarcity is equivalent to shutting it down forever.
This isn't as useful to indie game developers (looking to publish games commercially) as I at first thought. :)
No. This is clearly an attempt to compete with companies like GarageGames. I'm guessing that it will be met with a bit of fanfare. I can already see the ears perking and tongues lolling at the prospect of publishing a game using the Unreal Engine. This is tech that is largely out of reach for indie developers looking to sell their games due to the high price for a commercial license and now all of a sudden it's within reach.
"Wow, useful" is right, minus the cynicism.