It's the stupid people out there that make the smart people rich. Someone once said a sucker is born every few seconds, and they were so right! If you don't believe me, look at how rich Bill Gates is off of stupid people.
Actually, you're somewhat right. I remember a time not so long ago (OK, ten years ago...) where a video arcade in my city had a game that used the same concept: use 3D so that the different players (4 back then) would each see a different thing. They used live-action footage, shot from multiple angles, and a (for the time) strong computer to combine the information, and display it within a 3D half-sphere. The only problems with it was the game was $5.00 a shot, the controls were muddier than my bathroom, a full game (if you were good) lasted a few minutes max, and the plot sucked major ass.
The biggest problem with this isn't making it work, since it has before, it's making software that doesn't suck! Can anyone imagine using Windows3D, and getting the blue screen of death from all angles? I suppose Micro$oft would be happy because all of our software would instantly become (more?) useless.
The fact is that for every $15.00 CD (which should only be $5.00), the artist makes, if they're lucky, a dollar. This isn't so bad if you're a big band like Aerosmith or Metallica, but for smaller bands who don't sell as many albums, you have to make money from touring and accessories.
How about giving the artist what they are worth (in some cases, only a dollar) and cutting back on the corporation profits? And what are they doing with my other $14.00 anyway?
Mathematically speaking, 50,000 years isn't really that much. Imagine it this way: How long would it take you to find the first 100 decimals in pi? Your computer can do it in under a second. Let's be generous, and assume that you (or anyone) can do it in 24 hours. That's 86,400 seconds to figure out a simple problem like pi, compared to a second at its slowest.
The biggest problem with all of this, however, is memory, or more precisely what we do with it. When we create a new memory, it is indexed and linked to other memories we have, and we see how it fits in with our other memories. When a computer makes a memory, it stores it and that is it. It can call it up, but can't see how it fits in with other things, effectively stopping it from learning. I'd be interested to see how this obstacle is overcome.
I think we're all missing the easy phrase: Life will find a way. We don't have to create a computer that will mimick a human brain, that would be redundant. Instead, we need to give a computer free thought, and let it develop on it's own. How many millions of years did it take the human brain to get to where it is now? I would imagine a computer could evolve at twenty times the rate if we give it the chance, but are we willing to take that risk?
That's not necessarily a bad thing...
To keep (most) users paying $10-$15 a month, a company will have to have at least a good reliable server or two (or many more) that will allow access when you want, and also a game that is at least decent, if not great. When a new game comes out, people will be excited for a month or so, but after that you better have something pretty special to keep the money rolling in! This will lead to better games.
In reply to your market saturation comment, this also can be a good thing. If the market is saturated with garbage, companies will be pushed to make good games, and if it is saturated with good games, the push will be to make bigger, better and more addicting games! I might never leave my computer again!
I also look to see companies spending more time in development, because all users are tired of the "patch it later" mentality. The patches that should be coming out should seriously improve some aspect of game play, like new guns or things like that, but shouldn't be caused because I can walk through walls if I hit backspace.
Slashdot Mirror
It's the stupid people out there that make the smart people rich. Someone once said a sucker is born every few seconds, and they were so right! If you don't believe me, look at how rich Bill Gates is off of stupid people.
Everyone's dream job: playing with a 500-year old guy's bone.
Actually, you're somewhat right. I remember a time not so long ago (OK, ten years ago...) where a video arcade in my city had a game that used the same concept: use 3D so that the different players (4 back then) would each see a different thing. They used live-action footage, shot from multiple angles, and a (for the time) strong computer to combine the information, and display it within a 3D half-sphere. The only problems with it was the game was $5.00 a shot, the controls were muddier than my bathroom, a full game (if you were good) lasted a few minutes max, and the plot sucked major ass.
The biggest problem with this isn't making it work, since it has before, it's making software that doesn't suck! Can anyone imagine using Windows3D, and getting the blue screen of death from all angles? I suppose Micro$oft would be happy because all of our software would instantly become (more?) useless.
The fact is that for every $15.00 CD (which should only be $5.00), the artist makes, if they're lucky, a dollar. This isn't so bad if you're a big band like Aerosmith or Metallica, but for smaller bands who don't sell as many albums, you have to make money from touring and accessories. How about giving the artist what they are worth (in some cases, only a dollar) and cutting back on the corporation profits? And what are they doing with my other $14.00 anyway?
Mathematically speaking, 50,000 years isn't really that much. Imagine it this way: How long would it take you to find the first 100 decimals in pi? Your computer can do it in under a second. Let's be generous, and assume that you (or anyone) can do it in 24 hours. That's 86,400 seconds to figure out a simple problem like pi, compared to a second at its slowest. The biggest problem with all of this, however, is memory, or more precisely what we do with it. When we create a new memory, it is indexed and linked to other memories we have, and we see how it fits in with our other memories. When a computer makes a memory, it stores it and that is it. It can call it up, but can't see how it fits in with other things, effectively stopping it from learning. I'd be interested to see how this obstacle is overcome.
I think we're all missing the easy phrase: Life will find a way. We don't have to create a computer that will mimick a human brain, that would be redundant. Instead, we need to give a computer free thought, and let it develop on it's own. How many millions of years did it take the human brain to get to where it is now? I would imagine a computer could evolve at twenty times the rate if we give it the chance, but are we willing to take that risk?
That's not necessarily a bad thing... To keep (most) users paying $10-$15 a month, a company will have to have at least a good reliable server or two (or many more) that will allow access when you want, and also a game that is at least decent, if not great. When a new game comes out, people will be excited for a month or so, but after that you better have something pretty special to keep the money rolling in! This will lead to better games. In reply to your market saturation comment, this also can be a good thing. If the market is saturated with garbage, companies will be pushed to make good games, and if it is saturated with good games, the push will be to make bigger, better and more addicting games! I might never leave my computer again! I also look to see companies spending more time in development, because all users are tired of the "patch it later" mentality. The patches that should be coming out should seriously improve some aspect of game play, like new guns or things like that, but shouldn't be caused because I can walk through walls if I hit backspace.