MMORPGs come and go, but D&D is what you come home to
I dunno, I think I will take the wait and see attitude on this one.
For me MMORPGs and CRPGs in general have brought me near the end of my P&P days. While TSR certainly isn't blameless, the fact that WotC is putting out so much material at such a fast rate and makes it all so intertwined outside of the core rules really bothers me. Wizards is treating our blessed love child like a cheap whore ala Magic CCG.
This coupled with a waning interest in P&P by the public in general has created a shrinking pool of players. While this may be a good thing at the same time it sucks when part of the exiting stream of players includes people from your own group. What's left of us are all early 30-somethings to the mid 40s. I think most of what's left of us are more resigned to throwing in the towel if we lose more over finding fresh blood. If we lose one or two more players that means that we're going to lose about four more by default. That's not boding well for a fence sitter like me.
So as far as going "home" to D&D? For me it's a house that's on a shaky foundation and doesn't have much time left. Overall I really can't blame people. Like I said; while TSR isn't blameless here I see WotC as digging it's own hole by forcing tons of material on players or leaving them with only the core rules. It's just a bit too much or a bit too little for a moderate player of my nature to stomach.
Otherwise, I haven't seen the site myself but given that you've clued me into the death of D and D (not to be confused with D&D) I must admit I think things are even going further south. I'll have to take a look.
Does this mean that they're going to being Twilight 2000 back?
In all seriousness, and not to appear as a troll:
For me the whole pen and paper thing is dying fast. I still play about week or so but more and more I'm starting to dread it. It's just so much easier for me to log into EQ2 and not have to quibble over rules and the like. Not having to own, carry or read 75 Wizard's books alone makes up for what I lose in the roleplaying aspect.
I just wonder how many others have pretty much given up on pen and paper at this point. Who knows, I might feel differently about it next week.
Why in proportion? The tax is for using the road and the consumption of fuel is the easiest way to measure that. Why should someone using the same roads get a break?
BTW, offroad fuel IIRC is dyed to stain fuel lines and if the stain is detected in an onroad vehicle it's supposed to be reported.. Veggie oil or biodiesel has no dyes...
I think you have cause and effect reversed. Artists start out with a 9-5 playing on weekends until they make enough money to make a living off their music. It's around the time that they're beginning to "make it" that the labels get involved
I have seen established bands do the opposite of what you're trying to say. As their fan base eroded they had to leave the industry because it was too expensive to try to keep up with the game which caused conflict within the band and eventually their demise.
Record contracts don't mean that you're set for life by any means and, playing along with the crowd here, the scenario I'm putting forth involves independent artists making it without a label.
in any case, anyone who seeks music events/concerts/whatever, will be drawn to the concerts/merchandise/whatever of bands that have music they like and are advertised heavily; decrease the advertising in general, and the concert-goers will be drawn more by music they'd like than music that's being marketed.
Why why why is this always the argument on slashdot? Why?
What difference does it make if a band is advertised or not in the face of large record labels? Who's not to say that the kind of bubblegum pop that slashdotters seem to rail against in these arguments isn't the kind of music the majority of people want to hear? In any case, it's a business. Businesses advertise their products. Even small indy bands advertise their products. Large labels are not alone in this. Get over it!
the record companies don't serve any great necessity to society
Yeah, neither do most things people are involved with. If the argument really came down to social benefit would we really be on a thread discussing Paul McCartney and Starbucks? What about crap like cable TV and YouTube? Record companies certainly did have a place and they still occupy it today even if it's not 100% necessary. At least to us they don't seem necessary but as far as the distribution and production of music they're still doing a lot that I think we take for granted. 100% internet distribution of music only works for those online. High end music production would see to it that only those with the funds to do it would get the advantage of the technology. I know you think advertising isn't needed but word of mouth isn't good enough, IMHO, I don't trust most people's musical tastes.
Apple is coming into an established market that has custom apps. Big difference. They're already down in marketshare by over one hundred million units, and that's just the US. I don't know what the global availability of the iPhone is to be. They've greatly limited their potential customer base by limiting the carrier and without custom apps they're risking alienating others.
This is not the same market that the iPod flourished in.
Yeah, he was supporting them when he was living in poverty in Liverpool trying to get things going with some other unknowns as a professional musician. Yeah, right.
Not even to bring up the fact that he had enough money and opportunity to go on his own earlier in his career. Why would he have stuck with a bad deal? Because he must have been getting something out of if.
And worse it seems most listeners don't care which of the 3 options the muso chooses in the first place.
And just how is that worse? I really would like to know how not caring how an artist goes about becoming released is a detriment to the listener and what role you really think the listener can take regardless of the artists choice.
Actually, I think that could be the case. It sounds kind of like a joke at first and it does have a humorous bend to it but I don't see why it wouldn't happen either.
Hey, people keep buying it. When people give up on it and move on the labels will be sure to accommodate. I see this type of debate much as I see the auto industry vs. the environmentalists: Some of the tree huggers want more fuel efficient cars to be offered while they still drive crappy MPG suvs. It's not that the auto industry is against offering more fuel efficient cars but that requires tons of R&D and until the more fuel efficient cars that they make today get a serious share of the market it's just not economically viable.
People need to stick to their guns on this. You start by doing what you claim you want to see done. The environmentalists need to keep buying the most fuel efficient cars to get the industry to offer better. Music fans need to go away from pop and stay there. Not to say that pop music is a problem but if the audience is truely sick of it they're going to have to abandon it to get something new to come to the surface.
I think they did Ok and fit into the criteria for the most part. You will note that if you check out Witchita Records that they have signed a deal to get distribution. This is one of the things that labels provide that a 100% indy artist simply can't. Getting your music out to a wide audience is great but if they can't buy it and you're not putting on massive tours you're not going to pull a profit from it. I don't know how hard it is to get songs on to iTunes but my guess is that as an unknown with no backing I'm going to find it a hard swing, at best.
Labels try to dictate what artists can do, what their music should sound like--not to make the music "better" but to conform to what already sells. They keep about 90% of revenues. Artists receive royalties only AFTER paying the label for the costs of studio time, so break-even is about half a million units sold.
Labels have a right to dictate as much as they want, it's their dime. If a band fails to sale they're the ones taking the loss. I don't know why people have a problem with this. The alternative is to produce on your own. If there wasn't some reason to go with a label why would anyone do it?
Ani DiFranco is in the black after selling a few hundred albums, if not immediately. Quite a difference.
I was nearly going to let this slide but if you honestly think that she pays for distribution, studio time, physical production and other costs associated with making an album in a "few hundred albums" sales you must not know much about what it takes to put out a well produced album and have it produced in any great number. And certainly not immediately.
Again, there is a reason people turn to a label to put out an album. Frankly I don't see it as being taken advantage of anymore than I see lazy (or wealthy) end users being taken advantage of by The Geek Squad by paying to have memory put into a PC.
They still signed with a label. They never put out a truely indie album. Granted, they did very well for themselves but why would they go off an sign a record deal if they really had the kind of clout where they did not need it?
Levine didn't stop there, he said what other musicians have confirmed... "Of all he ways we made money, despite selling 10 million records [might've heard this wrong], we made *no money from CD sales*. All of our money came from touring and merchandising"
But how much of that tour money was really generated from CD sales? You see, this band (not knowing them) would have probably ended up in the small club tour circuit had it not been for the label promoting and backing them. While they may have not made money from the album directly, when they're making more money by playing in from of 16000 at an amphitheater setting instead of 500 in a small club the record deal has paid off.
Find me real examples of bands that have made it strictly off the web with no label backing. Sir Paul is going to sell no matter what. But had he and the blokes from Liverpool been trying to win fans over on the internet of today could they have pulled it off? The one downside of the net is that anyone can put out crap and get away with it. That makes the "pool of talent" much much larger and it makes it that much harder to find good musicians.
Sure, word of mouth will get around in time but how much time does truely independent artists have until they need to show a profit or be forced to go back to school and get a 9 to 5?
Oddly enough Sir Paul didn't find it disturbing when he was sucking off the teat of the industry and wasn't disturbed when the brokering of the rights to "his" music was making him the richest musician in history.
Just because your mini-needs are met with slow-ass USB 2.0 doesn't mean the rest of us should have to suffer - especially when the price difference of a USB 2.0 chip and a firewire one is a few dollars.
Mini-needs? WTF? I think if you went a got a sample of REAL laptop users out there the majority of them have no real external drives of any kind let alone needing to use it to move 4+ GB size graphic files.
So you have a special want out of a laptop, that's fine. But why demand it be in every system when you know damn well that the vast majority of users have no use for it? That's like demanding every car should be manufactured with a child seat in it. Actually, a child seat in every car would be used many times more than a firewire in every laptop.
especially when the price difference of a USB 2.0 chip and a firewire one is a few dollars.
It's not that firewire is more expensive but the fact that USB is used more. You know it's true and so does everyone else who's going to read this. And even if firewire was less you're still going to have to include a USB simply because of it's popularity.
But still it remains that firewire is not used as much. Sorry. Hell, floppies are probably used as much as firewire today. You don't find many new laptops with floppy anymore.
Slashdot Mirror
I guess you didn't learn to read, fucktard. The original debate was the amount of oil that came from ARAB resources, not OPEC. Get a life.
MMORPGs come and go, but D&D is what you come home to
I dunno, I think I will take the wait and see attitude on this one.
For me MMORPGs and CRPGs in general have brought me near the end of my P&P days. While TSR certainly isn't blameless, the fact that WotC is putting out so much material at such a fast rate and makes it all so intertwined outside of the core rules really bothers me. Wizards is treating our blessed love child like a cheap whore ala Magic CCG.
This coupled with a waning interest in P&P by the public in general has created a shrinking pool of players. While this may be a good thing at the same time it sucks when part of the exiting stream of players includes people from your own group. What's left of us are all early 30-somethings to the mid 40s. I think most of what's left of us are more resigned to throwing in the towel if we lose more over finding fresh blood. If we lose one or two more players that means that we're going to lose about four more by default. That's not boding well for a fence sitter like me.
So as far as going "home" to D&D? For me it's a house that's on a shaky foundation and doesn't have much time left. Overall I really can't blame people. Like I said; while TSR isn't blameless here I see WotC as digging it's own hole by forcing tons of material on players or leaving them with only the core rules. It's just a bit too much or a bit too little for a moderate player of my nature to stomach.
Otherwise, I haven't seen the site myself but given that you've clued me into the death of D and D (not to be confused with D&D) I must admit I think things are even going further south. I'll have to take a look.
Does this mean that they're going to being Twilight 2000 back?
In all seriousness, and not to appear as a troll:
For me the whole pen and paper thing is dying fast. I still play about week or so but more and more I'm starting to dread it. It's just so much easier for me to log into EQ2 and not have to quibble over rules and the like. Not having to own, carry or read 75 Wizard's books alone makes up for what I lose in the roleplaying aspect.
I just wonder how many others have pretty much given up on pen and paper at this point. Who knows, I might feel differently about it next week.
Why in proportion? The tax is for using the road and the consumption of fuel is the easiest way to measure that. Why should someone using the same roads get a break?
BTW, offroad fuel IIRC is dyed to stain fuel lines and if the stain is detected in an onroad vehicle it's supposed to be reported.. Veggie oil or biodiesel has no dyes...
Biodiesel should if it's non-taxed.
Venezuela is not Arab. If you swing those numbers correctly non-Arab is the major importer.
I think you have cause and effect reversed. Artists start out with a 9-5 playing on weekends until they make enough money to make a living off their music. It's around the time that they're beginning to "make it" that the labels get involved
I have seen established bands do the opposite of what you're trying to say. As their fan base eroded they had to leave the industry because it was too expensive to try to keep up with the game which caused conflict within the band and eventually their demise.
Record contracts don't mean that you're set for life by any means and, playing along with the crowd here, the scenario I'm putting forth involves independent artists making it without a label.
in any case, anyone who seeks music events/concerts/whatever, will be drawn to the concerts/merchandise/whatever of bands that have music they like and are advertised heavily; decrease the advertising in general, and the concert-goers will be drawn more by music they'd like than music that's being marketed.
Why why why is this always the argument on slashdot? Why?
What difference does it make if a band is advertised or not in the face of large record labels? Who's not to say that the kind of bubblegum pop that slashdotters seem to rail against in these arguments isn't the kind of music the majority of people want to hear? In any case, it's a business. Businesses advertise their products. Even small indy bands advertise their products. Large labels are not alone in this. Get over it!
the record companies don't serve any great necessity to society
Yeah, neither do most things people are involved with. If the argument really came down to social benefit would we really be on a thread discussing Paul McCartney and Starbucks? What about crap like cable TV and YouTube? Record companies certainly did have a place and they still occupy it today even if it's not 100% necessary. At least to us they don't seem necessary but as far as the distribution and production of music they're still doing a lot that I think we take for granted. 100% internet distribution of music only works for those online. High end music production would see to it that only those with the funds to do it would get the advantage of the technology. I know you think advertising isn't needed but word of mouth isn't good enough, IMHO, I don't trust most people's musical tastes.
Apple is coming into an established market that has custom apps. Big difference. They're already down in marketshare by over one hundred million units, and that's just the US. I don't know what the global availability of the iPhone is to be. They've greatly limited their potential customer base by limiting the carrier and without custom apps they're risking alienating others.
This is not the same market that the iPod flourished in.
With the Wii Nintendo have sort of shown us the future, download games through the console.
Yeah, because Steam wasn't doing this long before the Wii was ever announced.
Yeah, he was supporting them when he was living in poverty in Liverpool trying to get things going with some other unknowns as a professional musician. Yeah, right.
Not even to bring up the fact that he had enough money and opportunity to go on his own earlier in his career. Why would he have stuck with a bad deal? Because he must have been getting something out of if.
And worse it seems most listeners don't care which of the 3 options the muso chooses in the first place.
And just how is that worse? I really would like to know how not caring how an artist goes about becoming released is a detriment to the listener and what role you really think the listener can take regardless of the artists choice.
Actually, I think that could be the case. It sounds kind of like a joke at first and it does have a humorous bend to it but I don't see why it wouldn't happen either.
Hey, people keep buying it. When people give up on it and move on the labels will be sure to accommodate. I see this type of debate much as I see the auto industry vs. the environmentalists: Some of the tree huggers want more fuel efficient cars to be offered while they still drive crappy MPG suvs. It's not that the auto industry is against offering more fuel efficient cars but that requires tons of R&D and until the more fuel efficient cars that they make today get a serious share of the market it's just not economically viable.
People need to stick to their guns on this. You start by doing what you claim you want to see done. The environmentalists need to keep buying the most fuel efficient cars to get the industry to offer better. Music fans need to go away from pop and stay there. Not to say that pop music is a problem but if the audience is truely sick of it they're going to have to abandon it to get something new to come to the surface.
I think they did Ok and fit into the criteria for the most part. You will note that if you check out Witchita Records that they have signed a deal to get distribution. This is one of the things that labels provide that a 100% indy artist simply can't. Getting your music out to a wide audience is great but if they can't buy it and you're not putting on massive tours you're not going to pull a profit from it. I don't know how hard it is to get songs on to iTunes but my guess is that as an unknown with no backing I'm going to find it a hard swing, at best.
That's actually a fairly good example.
Labels try to dictate what artists can do, what their music should sound like--not to make the music "better" but to conform to what already sells. They keep about 90% of revenues. Artists receive royalties only AFTER paying the label for the costs of studio time, so break-even is about half a million units sold.
Labels have a right to dictate as much as they want, it's their dime. If a band fails to sale they're the ones taking the loss. I don't know why people have a problem with this. The alternative is to produce on your own. If there wasn't some reason to go with a label why would anyone do it?
Ani DiFranco is in the black after selling a few hundred albums, if not immediately. Quite a difference.
I was nearly going to let this slide but if you honestly think that she pays for distribution, studio time, physical production and other costs associated with making an album in a "few hundred albums" sales you must not know much about what it takes to put out a well produced album and have it produced in any great number. And certainly not immediately.
Again, there is a reason people turn to a label to put out an album. Frankly I don't see it as being taken advantage of anymore than I see lazy (or wealthy) end users being taken advantage of by The Geek Squad by paying to have memory put into a PC.
I wouldn't have been a hypocrite and slandered the record companies that supported my ass through it all.
If you think I'm one of those "record companies just rip off artists" types you're dead wrong.
They still signed with a label. They never put out a truely indie album. Granted, they did very well for themselves but why would they go off an sign a record deal if they really had the kind of clout where they did not need it?
It's a fairly unconvincing example, IMHO.
Levine didn't stop there, he said what other musicians have confirmed... "Of all he ways we made money, despite selling 10 million records [might've heard this wrong], we made *no money from CD sales*. All of our money came from touring and merchandising"
But how much of that tour money was really generated from CD sales? You see, this band (not knowing them) would have probably ended up in the small club tour circuit had it not been for the label promoting and backing them. While they may have not made money from the album directly, when they're making more money by playing in from of 16000 at an amphitheater setting instead of 500 in a small club the record deal has paid off.
Find me real examples of bands that have made it strictly off the web with no label backing. Sir Paul is going to sell no matter what. But had he and the blokes from Liverpool been trying to win fans over on the internet of today could they have pulled it off? The one downside of the net is that anyone can put out crap and get away with it. That makes the "pool of talent" much much larger and it makes it that much harder to find good musicians.
Sure, word of mouth will get around in time but how much time does truely independent artists have until they need to show a profit or be forced to go back to school and get a 9 to 5?
Ok, I'll bite: How can you compete with free but not compete with CD sales?
And I find that all a bit disturbing
Oddly enough Sir Paul didn't find it disturbing when he was sucking off the teat of the industry and wasn't disturbed when the brokering of the rights to "his" music was making him the richest musician in history.
No, you're missing the point, the image in the article had an "enlarge" feature that showed the same image at nearly the same exact size.
Why did the image in the article have an enlarge feature? They made it about a whole 2% larger. I feel ripped off by shit like that on the web.
In any case, this is an interesting find.
Just because your mini-needs are met with slow-ass USB 2.0 doesn't mean the rest of us should have to suffer - especially when the price difference of a USB 2.0 chip and a firewire one is a few dollars.
Mini-needs? WTF? I think if you went a got a sample of REAL laptop users out there the majority of them have no real external drives of any kind let alone needing to use it to move 4+ GB size graphic files.
So you have a special want out of a laptop, that's fine. But why demand it be in every system when you know damn well that the vast majority of users have no use for it? That's like demanding every car should be manufactured with a child seat in it. Actually, a child seat in every car would be used many times more than a firewire in every laptop.
especially when the price difference of a USB 2.0 chip and a firewire one is a few dollars.
It's not that firewire is more expensive but the fact that USB is used more. You know it's true and so does everyone else who's going to read this. And even if firewire was less you're still going to have to include a USB simply because of it's popularity.
But still it remains that firewire is not used as much. Sorry. Hell, floppies are probably used as much as firewire today. You don't find many new laptops with floppy anymore.
Heck if the IPhone stops people from using their cell while driving it may save thousands of lives!
People already know that using a cellphone while driving is dangerous and it doesn't stop them.
Most people don't touch-type their cells as it is.
How the fuck is the iPhone going to remedy any of this?