but when is MS going to actually release something *new*? how about skipping book search and taking a risk with something that google hasn't already done?
for example, i think their efforts on XNA game studio are of they type they should do more often: it leverages their core strengths (dev tools and 3d graphics), takes advantage of existing products with wide install bases (yes, duh..windows - but i really mean directx) and is INTERESTING and EXCITING and something GOOGLE CAN'T MATCH NEXT WEEK.
Though I don't think game developers are going to be spending $200 million anytime soon
I disagree... two or three "hot" actors talking on camera for a month can cost as much as entire 50-person game development team working for a year! the compensation that top actors, directors, writers and other talent demand from film studios has contributed very much to the cost of creating them. it wasn't always the case in hollywood...so what makes you think this happen eventually in games?
if talent in the game dev industry were paid what they were *really* worth relative to the value they add to a title, game budgets would be a lot higher. studios don't have to pay developers much because there is a perceived talent glut -- but that's changing. now top developers are known for their work, top studios get recognition for their efforts. as the biz matures developers won't be treated like replaceable content slaves and they will command greater compensation for their efforts. its well within the realm of imagination that the wrights and blezinski's of the world will command many millions of dollars for their ideas in the future, just like the best paid actors and directors do. that leverage will trickle down the the lesser known developers as well and game budgets will balloon out to hell.
I'll tell you that the 'Games' degrees are largely laughed at by those of us in the industry.
Untrue. Unless the program is advertised on daytime TV. This guy is talking about a program at an highly regarded, fully accredited university. Ivy league engineering schools have programs in game development and simulation now. There is enough background and history to the problems that this area is working on that there can be coursework tailored to it specifically. And chances are that being able to implement an IK chain animation system or rigid body dynamics is just as indicative of raw ability and ability to master whatever "fundamentals" you're referring to as is being able to weasel out bizzaro scratchings on what happens as N approaches infinity over and over again, as seems to be focus of most academic computer science curricula.
And if you are laughing at people who have implemented global illumination systems and crowd AI before they even get their hands on a commercial title, well, I wouldn't want you hiring at my game co.
>He's just an ordinary Joe put in a position he probably shouldn't be in. But he is in that position
why is having "an ordinary joe" in the presidency something that any sane person could ever concieve as an acceptable thing? would you want an "ordinary joe" flying your 747? would you want "an ordinary joe" running the nuclear reactor down the road?
yet somehow the president and congressmen should be like "regular guys." as if that makes people somehow thing that the country is fair, like everyone has a shot at doing great things. well, life's not fucking fair. most people suck at everything. there are only a few people capable of doing the important work in the world. bush is not one of them. so much so that we are all in danger.
but, uh, am I stupid for thinking that if google.org is "for profit" then its not a philanthropy, but rather its a business?
And moreover -- it sounds like a business where they can try out pie-in-the-sky, shot-in-the-dark notions without getting the scrutiny that such projects would have if they were housed under the main umbrella of the company. Investors' biggest critism of the company is that the projects (and the founders) are too scattered and unfocused, seems to me like this is a baloney way for them to keep throwing sh*t at the wall to see what sticks.
I think this shouldn't be read as an endorsement of in-game ads, but rather a preference for in-game elements that have more effort and thought put into them than stock filler items do.
Usually billboards and soda machines are just slapped in games with some sort of corny, fake logo or slogan that is 60% joke. If these fake, filler billboards had all the attention-grabbing research and professional media strategy and design behind them that real ads do, well, of course players would feel more strongly about them. But they are filler: of COURSE nobody cares if they are replaced with somethign marginally more interesting and planned.
This doesn't imply AT ALL that people like "real" ads simply because they are for real products. It only implies that players favor more complicated, visually interesting elements over rubber-stamped, fake looping background elements.
I quit a development job at a large investment bank in NYC 5 months ago to move to California and work in video game development. Exact same deal - bank had great pay but was as fun as watching paint dry. Took at 50% pay cut and a junior level position at the new place.
It was best decision of my (short) life so far.
But I also have no mortgage, no kids and I had to basically break up with a long term girlfriend who stayed on the East Coast. Those factors were significant in my decision.
Without a doubt the best strategy would be to limit.mac access by FEATURE rather than time.
As in: all Mac OS users get a.mac account with some baseline service that's slightly feature poor (decreased space, limited features, etc) but has some handy features (like address book backup and "cheap" stuff like that). Then offer an enhanced package for a charge.
Apple and consumers win on this because:
1) Apple wins because more initial users will log on and try it out. I never sign up for time limited services that could possibly auto-bill my CC if time runs out, or cancel my account and lose my data if the service expires.
2) Consumers win because Apple is forced to innovate on features that make.mac more appealing to buy. Users then are more aware of these features because they are already using the base version.
I don't know about other readers, but I see digg and slashdot as having two fundamentally different purposes.
Digg is essentially a broadly human moderated story aggregator that reads like a constantly updated portal page. Slashdot is a reverse-dated discussion forum where stories are selected by human editors. Other than the fact that they both seem to overlap in coverage (the case for many "competing" sites on the web, there's little new content under the sun), i see them as two totally different entities that rightly serve separate purposes.
Slashdot has a memory that's modeled on human understanding of events - event A happens, event B happens and in that order. Digg is a shifting pile of stories that does not retain a sense of timeline. It's like: I have a to-do list and I have a journal. My to-do list is not precious or useful to examine next year, but my journal is. The difference is the to-do list (digg) serves as a "snapshot" of a day that once removed from immediate context is not relevant. The journal (/.) can be reconstructed and examined as a continuing and related dialogue.
These fundamental differences do not make one more useful or relevant than another, but they do reflect a fundamental difference in purpose between the two.
"PHP" with "LINUX"
and...
"Java" / "J2EE" with "MICROSOFT"
Result:
"Web browser pioneer Marc Andreessen recently announced his prediction that LINUX will be more popular than Microsoft for building web-based applications." From the article: "Wooing programmers is nothing new in the computing industry, where players constantly jockey to establish their products as an essential foundation. Indeed, many credit Microsoft's success to its highly regarded programming tools, which make it easier for developers to write software that run on Windows. LINUX has caught on widely. About 22 million Web sites employ it, and useage is steadily increasing. About 450 programmers have privileges to approve changes to the software. Major companies that employ LINUX include Yahoo, Lufthansa and Deutsche Telekom's T-Online." Meanwhilie, Piersky writes "Zend has announced its rival to.NET and MICROSOFT, with the Zend LINUX Framework. In a press release, they stated that it will be 'A Web application framework which will standardize the way LINUX applications are built. The Zend LINUX Framework will accelerate and improve the development and deployment of mission-critical LINUX Web applications'. This will for part of Zend's LINUX Collaboration Project"
Yes, both PHP and Java are free - i'm not talking about the monetary cost of either platform.
I'm talking about the network effects of PHP being available on every shared host in the world.
Try to find a cheap, reliable tomcat hosting service. Then throw a dart at a google search for "web hosting." You'll find that outside of enterprise, PHP is the lingua franca.
So if you're a poor student or struggling entrepreneur looking to make an experiment or prototype, you will naturally gravitate toward PHP (same argument works for mySQL/postgre v the world). And guess who will populate the next gen of enterprise?
Do you think there is money to made at all when they are not charging?
Uh, ever hear of http://www.nielsen-netratings.com/? its called the "we know everything you do on the net because you volunarily filter it though our servers and we sell this to soda-pop and deodorent makers and shit" business model.
Maybe they will feed ads through but all they really need are stats on net usuage to make money off this.
I think the main parallel to find in comparing the recent tech acquisition spree to that of 1999/2000 is that companies are applying the "buy now figure it out later" synergy strategy again. I think a lot of these companies are seeing a vague future for themselves as desktop application providers in Web X.0 -- but they are scrambling in a land grab on search, voip, mobile...I mean, when Google buys something as fad-ish as dodgeball.com and ebay gets into voip, to me it signals speculation and hedging on these companies' parts. They have no clue what will work and what will not -- and eBay shareholders should be upset that eBay is gambling billions on speculative technologies.
Went to a small round table once ~2002 with a newly appointed senior editor at wired who had been brought in from New York Magazine to overhaul the magazine's image and style content strategy. This was just when the mag went to the new format with lots of short, punchy briefs, product matrices and gizmo reviews (and right after they dropped the 3-4 page graphic intro that was ad-dead). He explained that this format tested better with a wider audience than the more geeky tech format (my memory, not his words). This was in no small part precipated by Conde Nast's purchase of the mag.
it's ok though with mags like MAKE taking their place and publishers like O'Reilly staying true to their tech demographic. Hopefully their success will inspire investments in more daring technology coverage.
Point of information on the ITP (the program from which he is graduating):
http://itp.tisch.nyu.edu/object/itp_overview.html
It's not an engineering program. It's a technology and media arts program in one of the best art programs on the planet.
The notion of an implied responsibility to watch ads is completely irrelevant in terms of the real impact of blocking advertisements. If advertisers do not believe that ads will be delivered, they will not purchase ads to support sites. Many sites' content will suffer as a result of this. Technology innovators like Google will not have the $$ to make great tools like Google search, maps and all the other cool things they do without the revenue from AdSense.
Ads suck, but they are a necessary cost so people making good net content can eat and have a place to live. Sites in the commercial domain should be allowed to advertise.
Perhaps more strict domain regulation - such as enforcing non-profit only domains (as.org was intended but never regulated) would allow "ad-friendly" and "ad-free" regions of the net. Consider the real-world example of cigarette and alcohol advertising being banned near schools - people accept *some* sensible regulation of what's crammed into our minds.
...think about a business degree, but make sure you actually LIKE business and not just the idea of earning more (talk to friends that work in investment banks and the like).
If you haven't had any experience in business you may find that the people who gravitate towards "big business" are *not* like your engineering school buddies, usually. Often people in business have very different outlooks on the world and work than engineers.
Why would EA really want to do this? I think the answer lies less in interest in seeding game developers and more in PR.
Do you realize that EA has 10x the market value of, for example, Metro Goldwin Mayer? That EA is only 1/3 the value of DISNEY??
I've never worked for or met anyone from EA, but clearly this is now an entertainment company first, and a game developer second. The fact the USC has long standing ties to hollywood and EA wants to dominate the tie-in market is no coincidence.
If tomorrow it came out that EA was going to open a theme park, as a shareholder I'd applaud it!!
But make no mistake: EA might as well publish teeny-bopper magazines and make cell phone rings if it would be more profitable than games. Gaming was simply a vehichle to make an entertainment giant.
Slashdot Mirror
but when is MS going to actually release something *new*? how about skipping book search and taking a risk with something that google hasn't already done?
for example, i think their efforts on XNA game studio are of they type they should do more often: it leverages their core strengths (dev tools and 3d graphics), takes advantage of existing products with wide install bases (yes, duh..windows - but i really mean directx) and is INTERESTING and EXCITING and something GOOGLE CAN'T MATCH NEXT WEEK.
Though I don't think game developers are going to be spending $200 million anytime soon
I disagree... two or three "hot" actors talking on camera for a month can cost as much as entire 50-person game development team working for a year! the compensation that top actors, directors, writers and other talent demand from film studios has contributed very much to the cost of creating them. it wasn't always the case in hollywood...so what makes you think this happen eventually in games?
if talent in the game dev industry were paid what they were *really* worth relative to the value they add to a title, game budgets would be a lot higher. studios don't have to pay developers much because there is a perceived talent glut -- but that's changing. now top developers are known for their work, top studios get recognition for their efforts. as the biz matures developers won't be treated like replaceable content slaves and they will command greater compensation for their efforts. its well within the realm of imagination that the wrights and blezinski's of the world will command many millions of dollars for their ideas in the future, just like the best paid actors and directors do. that leverage will trickle down the the lesser known developers as well and game budgets will balloon out to hell.
I'll tell you that the 'Games' degrees are largely laughed at by those of us in the industry.
Untrue. Unless the program is advertised on daytime TV. This guy is talking about a program at an highly regarded, fully accredited university. Ivy league engineering schools have programs in game development and simulation now. There is enough background and history to the problems that this area is working on that there can be coursework tailored to it specifically. And chances are that being able to implement an IK chain animation system or rigid body dynamics is just as indicative of raw ability and ability to master whatever "fundamentals" you're referring to as is being able to weasel out bizzaro scratchings on what happens as N approaches infinity over and over again, as seems to be focus of most academic computer science curricula.
And if you are laughing at people who have implemented global illumination systems and crowd AI before they even get their hands on a commercial title, well, I wouldn't want you hiring at my game co.
>He's just an ordinary Joe put in a position he probably shouldn't be in. But he is in that position
why is having "an ordinary joe" in the presidency something that any sane person could ever concieve as an acceptable thing? would you want an "ordinary joe" flying your 747? would you want "an ordinary joe" running the nuclear reactor down the road?
yet somehow the president and congressmen should be like "regular guys." as if that makes people somehow thing that the country is fair, like everyone has a shot at doing great things. well, life's not fucking fair. most people suck at everything. there are only a few people capable of doing the important work in the world. bush is not one of them. so much so that we are all in danger.
but, uh, am I stupid for thinking that if google.org is "for profit" then its not a philanthropy, but rather its a business?
And moreover -- it sounds like a business where they can try out pie-in-the-sky, shot-in-the-dark notions without getting the scrutiny that such projects would have if they were housed under the main umbrella of the company. Investors' biggest critism of the company is that the projects (and the founders) are too scattered and unfocused, seems to me like this is a baloney way for them to keep throwing sh*t at the wall to see what sticks.
Search: Iraq War
I think this shouldn't be read as an endorsement of in-game ads, but rather a preference for in-game elements that have more effort and thought put into them than stock filler items do.
Usually billboards and soda machines are just slapped in games with some sort of corny, fake logo or slogan that is 60% joke. If these fake, filler billboards had all the attention-grabbing research and professional media strategy and design behind them that real ads do, well, of course players would feel more strongly about them. But they are filler: of COURSE nobody cares if they are replaced with somethign marginally more interesting and planned.
This doesn't imply AT ALL that people like "real" ads simply because they are for real products. It only implies that players favor more complicated, visually interesting elements over rubber-stamped, fake looping background elements.
I quit a development job at a large investment bank in NYC 5 months ago to move to California and work in video game development. Exact same deal - bank had great pay but was as fun as watching paint dry. Took at 50% pay cut and a junior level position at the new place.
It was best decision of my (short) life so far.
But I also have no mortgage, no kids and I had to basically break up with a long term girlfriend who stayed on the East Coast. Those factors were significant in my decision.
search term: "falun gong"
Using google.com
Using Google China
Without a doubt the best strategy would be to limit .mac access by FEATURE rather than time.
.mac account with some baseline service that's slightly feature poor (decreased space, limited features, etc) but has some handy features (like address book backup and "cheap" stuff like that). Then offer an enhanced package for a charge.
.mac more appealing to buy. Users then are more aware of these features because they are already using the base version.
As in: all Mac OS users get a
Apple and consumers win on this because:
1) Apple wins because more initial users will log on and try it out. I never sign up for time limited services that could possibly auto-bill my CC if time runs out, or cancel my account and lose my data if the service expires.
2) Consumers win because Apple is forced to innovate on features that make
I don't know about other readers, but I see digg and slashdot as having two fundamentally different purposes.
Digg is essentially a broadly human moderated story aggregator that reads like a constantly updated portal page. Slashdot is a reverse-dated discussion forum where stories are selected by human editors. Other than the fact that they both seem to overlap in coverage (the case for many "competing" sites on the web, there's little new content under the sun), i see them as two totally different entities that rightly serve separate purposes.
Slashdot has a memory that's modeled on human understanding of events - event A happens, event B happens and in that order. Digg is a shifting pile of stories that does not retain a sense of timeline. It's like: I have a to-do list and I have a journal. My to-do list is not precious or useful to examine next year, but my journal is. The difference is the to-do list (digg) serves as a "snapshot" of a day that once removed from immediate context is not relevant. The journal (/.) can be reconstructed and examined as a continuing and related dialogue.
These fundamental differences do not make one more useful or relevant than another, but they do reflect a fundamental difference in purpose between the two.
I knew this debate sounded familiar....
.NET and MICROSOFT, with the Zend LINUX Framework. In a press release, they stated that it will be 'A Web application framework which will standardize the way LINUX applications are built. The Zend LINUX Framework will accelerate and improve the development and deployment of mission-critical LINUX Web applications'. This will for part of Zend's LINUX Collaboration Project"
Find and replace:
"PHP" with "LINUX"
and...
"Java" / "J2EE" with "MICROSOFT"
Result:
"Web browser pioneer Marc Andreessen recently announced his prediction that LINUX will be more popular than Microsoft for building web-based applications." From the article: "Wooing programmers is nothing new in the computing industry, where players constantly jockey to establish their products as an essential foundation. Indeed, many credit Microsoft's success to its highly regarded programming tools, which make it easier for developers to write software that run on Windows. LINUX has caught on widely. About 22 million Web sites employ it, and useage is steadily increasing. About 450 programmers have privileges to approve changes to the software. Major companies that employ LINUX include Yahoo, Lufthansa and Deutsche Telekom's T-Online." Meanwhilie, Piersky writes "Zend has announced its rival to
I like better the ability to have interfaces, standards, Struts, lots of things that make Java better for developer teams.
a nges.php
interfaces (i assume you mean the OO type) : http://www.zend.com/php5/articles/engine2-php5-ch
Struts = Smarty: http://smarty.php.net/ (and this is about 100 times easier to configure and deploy than Struts)
Yes, both PHP and Java are free - i'm not talking about the monetary cost of either platform.
I'm talking about the network effects of PHP being available on every shared host in the world.
Try to find a cheap, reliable tomcat hosting service. Then throw a dart at a google search for "web hosting." You'll find that outside of enterprise, PHP is the lingua franca.
So if you're a poor student or struggling entrepreneur looking to make an experiment or prototype, you will naturally gravitate toward PHP (same argument works for mySQL/postgre v the world). And guess who will populate the next gen of enterprise?
Slate's Jack Schafer recently echoed Dvorak's points (or vice versa)
Do you think there is money to made at all when they are not charging?
Uh, ever hear of http://www.nielsen-netratings.com/? its called the "we know everything you do on the net because you volunarily filter it though our servers and we sell this to soda-pop and deodorent makers and shit" business model.
Maybe they will feed ads through but all they really need are stats on net usuage to make money off this.
I think the main parallel to find in comparing the recent tech acquisition spree to that of 1999/2000 is that companies are applying the "buy now figure it out later" synergy strategy again. I think a lot of these companies are seeing a vague future for themselves as desktop application providers in Web X.0 -- but they are scrambling in a land grab on search, voip, mobile...I mean, when Google buys something as fad-ish as dodgeball.com and ebay gets into voip, to me it signals speculation and hedging on these companies' parts. They have no clue what will work and what will not -- and eBay shareholders should be upset that eBay is gambling billions on speculative technologies.
the link to the sysadminday.com site is BLOCKED BY WEBSESNSE @ my company
Went to a small round table once ~2002 with a newly appointed senior editor at wired who had been brought in from New York Magazine to overhaul the magazine's image and style content strategy. This was just when the mag went to the new format with lots of short, punchy briefs, product matrices and gizmo reviews (and right after they dropped the 3-4 page graphic intro that was ad-dead). He explained that this format tested better with a wider audience than the more geeky tech format (my memory, not his words). This was in no small part precipated by Conde Nast's purchase of the mag.
it's ok though with mags like MAKE taking their place and publishers like O'Reilly staying true to their tech demographic. Hopefully their success will inspire investments in more daring technology coverage.
Point of information on the ITP (the program from which he is graduating): http://itp.tisch.nyu.edu/object/itp_overview.html It's not an engineering program. It's a technology and media arts program in one of the best art programs on the planet.
no, if you actually read the page you'll see that the PDF is free and a printed version costs money to cover costs.
The notion of an implied responsibility to watch ads is completely irrelevant in terms of the real impact of blocking advertisements. If advertisers do not believe that ads will be delivered, they will not purchase ads to support sites. Many sites' content will suffer as a result of this. Technology innovators like Google will not have the $$ to make great tools like Google search, maps and all the other cool things they do without the revenue from AdSense.
.org was intended but never regulated) would allow "ad-friendly" and "ad-free" regions of the net. Consider the real-world example of cigarette and alcohol advertising being banned near schools - people accept *some* sensible regulation of what's crammed into our minds.
Ads suck, but they are a necessary cost so people making good net content can eat and have a place to live. Sites in the commercial domain should be allowed to advertise. Perhaps more strict domain regulation - such as enforcing non-profit only domains (as
this is true in philadelphia as well, where an even larger percent of workers live outside the city
http://www.unc.edu/~cigar/PhilInqEIT.htm
...think about a business degree, but make sure you actually LIKE business and not just the idea of earning more (talk to friends that work in investment banks and the like).
If you haven't had any experience in business you may find that the people who gravitate towards "big business" are *not* like your engineering school buddies, usually. Often people in business have very different outlooks on the world and work than engineers.
Why would EA really want to do this? I think the answer lies less in interest in seeding game developers and more in PR.
Do you realize that EA has 10x the market value of, for example, Metro Goldwin Mayer? That EA is only 1/3 the value of DISNEY??
I've never worked for or met anyone from EA, but clearly this is now an entertainment company first, and a game developer second. The fact the USC has long standing ties to hollywood and EA wants to dominate the tie-in market is no coincidence.
If tomorrow it came out that EA was going to open a theme park, as a shareholder I'd applaud it!!
But make no mistake: EA might as well publish teeny-bopper magazines and make cell phone rings if it would be more profitable than games. Gaming was simply a vehichle to make an entertainment giant.