Just one minor note...
Yes, it's the software that makes the money on consoles. But, not all that profit goes to the console maker. If EA or Sega or someone else develops the game, I believe M$ makes about $10 on each unit that developer sells for the X-Pox. That $10 is a licensing fee of some sort.
When M$ is the game developer (as in their first big seller-- Halo) then they probably get something closer to $40.
Anyway, rumor has it -- http://www.redherring.com/insider/2002/0624/xbox06 2402.html
-- that M$ will lose about $2 Billion (with a B) on the X-Pox over the next two years. Don't feel sorry for them. They have something like $40 Billion in the bank.
Mr. Anderson's paper is only thirteen pages long. A quick review of it shows extensive use of anecdotes and stories.
As I learned in High School, the first step of the scientific method is to pose a hypothesis. It seems that he has barely made it past this first step. I say this because his paper appears to be pretty thin on real research. He may have one example with TCPA, but what about all the other open systems?
In the end, he may or may not be correct. But let's wait for his peers to have their say in his hypothesis.
I, for one, am happier when my project manager is NOT a techie.
A techie tends to second-guess everything I do. They tend to get caught up in the details of my code and they usually forget major items (like managing scope creep or creating project plans).
A professional PM, on the other hand, is willing to listen to me and work with me (and the client) on setting scope and deadlines.
Yeah, there's the occasional PHB among the non-techies, just as there's the occasional techie that is a good manager. But usually, Good developers do NOT make good managers.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't know why that red herring site is not posting properly. I'll just go away now...
Just one minor note... Yes, it's the software that makes the money on consoles. But, not all that profit goes to the console maker. If EA or Sega or someone else develops the game, I believe M$ makes about $10 on each unit that developer sells for the X-Pox. That $10 is a licensing fee of some sort. When M$ is the game developer (as in their first big seller-- Halo) then they probably get something closer to $40. Anyway, rumor has it -- http://www.redherring.com/insider/2002/0624/xbox06 2402.html
-- that M$ will lose about $2 Billion (with a B) on the X-Pox over the next two years. Don't feel sorry for them. They have something like $40 Billion in the bank.
Mr. Anderson's paper is only thirteen pages long. A quick review of it shows extensive use of anecdotes and stories. As I learned in High School, the first step of the scientific method is to pose a hypothesis. It seems that he has barely made it past this first step. I say this because his paper appears to be pretty thin on real research. He may have one example with TCPA, but what about all the other open systems? In the end, he may or may not be correct. But let's wait for his peers to have their say in his hypothesis.
I, for one, am happier when my project manager is NOT a techie. A techie tends to second-guess everything I do. They tend to get caught up in the details of my code and they usually forget major items (like managing scope creep or creating project plans). A professional PM, on the other hand, is willing to listen to me and work with me (and the client) on setting scope and deadlines. Yeah, there's the occasional PHB among the non-techies, just as there's the occasional techie that is a good manager. But usually, Good developers do NOT make good managers.