If you put out a PS3 game, Sony gets a cut. If you put out a Wii game, Nintendo gets a cut.
I've never understood how that works. I can understand an official Sony/Nintendo stamp of approval is worth money, or the ability to use their logos on your game, but if I develop a game and don't ask/pay for their approval, surely there's nothing they can legally do to stop me? Big companies in particular should have no problem publishing games on their own without any console maker's assistance or approval.
US predisents can be elected on even less than 50% of the popular vote, so in a way it's even possible for a minority to ignore the wishes of a majority.
Republic: Doesn't have a monarch. Simple as that. The US is a republic, so is Sudan and so is North Korea. I see what you did there, only problem is you stopped short. The wise and mighty wiki says, "A republic is a form of government in which the head of state is not a monarch and the people (or at least a part of its people) have an impact on its government
Doesn't have to be a very big part of the people, though. Only the heads of large families, for example. Or only members of The Party. Or only the cronies of the party leader, even.
Merely not having a monarch does in no way guarantee any sort of respect or freedom for the people in general. There's a lot of rotten, undemocratic republics out there.
Popularizing other types of games has never killed PC gaming and never will, unless it somehow manages to kill the PC itself. As long as people have PCs, they'll be playing games on it. If people use anything else that'd capable of handling games (phones, smartphones), then they'll be playing games on that. We play games on anything we can get our hands on.
Exactly, and that's why I didn't use it, despite the utterly useless T-Mobile reception of my iPhone.
Quite often I had no reception whatsoever. How the hell can my reception be that bad when I'm in Netherland on a big camping ground right next to an (inhabited) village? It's not like I'm in the middle of a desert or out at sea or anything. I'm completely disgusted by the crappy service from T-Mobile. I hear a new HTC Android phone uses KPN, which has far better coverage, so that's what I'm switching to as soon as my subscription ends. Apple will lose customers if they make exclusive deals with a network that has such lousy coverage.
What does that have to do with the open GSM network at HAR? Hopefully nothing, although for a moment I thought that they somehow blocked or interfered with my T-Mobile reception. I don't think that was it, though. Still losing my regular phone numer was just not acceptable to me, so I don't join this open network.
Compare it to the other music from the '60s. Especially their later albums pretty much wrote the book on psychedelic rock and albums as more than just a collection of loose hits, yet they somehow managed to never leave the mainstream. Very diverse music. They did a lot more than just Let It Be and Yesterday.
This summary almost tempts me to buying this game, as well as whatever console I'd need to play it on. I'm not a fan of consoles or gaming gadgets usually, but a psychedelic Beatles trip is something I'd sign on for.
One trend I don't like is a movement towards online delivery. I want the ability to burn a physical copy of the game I downloaded for resale and archive purposes (I don't trust microsoft to keep my copy available indefinitely) but right now making a copy is not an option.
I don't have any recent experience with it, but as far as I understand, burning a copy for archive purposes is perfectly possible with games downloaded through Impulse. Or maybe it's only the Stardock games. It's definitely an issue that Brad Wardel cares about (or used to, at least).
Go play them then but don't assume every one wants the same thing as you
I don't assume that at all. I'm fully aware I have different demands than the mass market. I value gameplay over eye candy, for example, and it's my impression that a lot of people at Slashdot agree. Slashdot isn't exactly a mainstream mass market site either.
don't live in the illusion that simplistic game play can cut it for the mass market today.
Simplistic gameplay does cut it for the mass market today, that's my entire point. The mass market doesn't want detailed complex games that require you to think. They want pretty games that are winnable. A game like nethack wouldn't cut it in the mass market because it's too detailed and too hard.
Now for my serious money ($50+AUD) I expect a great story, excellent voice acting (this is actually very important, voice acting can ruin a game),
If voice acting can ruin a game, I'd rather they just leave it out. Yes, good voice acting can be very nice indeed, but it won't save a crappy game, and it's not necessary for an excellent game.
sound effects and then also great game play and top notch graphics.
The problem is that for your $50 you usually get a buggy game with lame gameplay but top notch graphics, great sound effects and good voice acting. The superficial stuff is good enough for the mass market, but not for demanding hardcore gamers. Pretty soon, the graphics and sound don't matter much except to point out certain game play aspects, and it's only gameplay and content that really matter. To me at least.
Now games need everything else and that means they need to hire not just programmers but also writers, actors, musicians (midi music doesn't cut it anymore). That increases the cost of the game, but it also provides jobs.
But is the end result worth the increased cost? To me it rarely is. Especially when they cut costs on gameplay, as they often do.
But hey, let's agree to disagree. You like superficial mass market games with DRM, I prefer games with more detailed and innovative gameplay.
As for innovation, it's not the blockbuster games that offer it. The last blockbuster-type game that promised innovative gameplay (Spore) completely failed to deliver. Sometimes innovation does come out of a big game publisher (Portal), but those are not marketed as blockbusters.
I don't think you're in the minority here. People on Slashdot have been complaining about stupid eye candy, cut scenes, intro movies, crappy franchise games, DRM and general lack of creativity in games for ages.
I do love the rise of smaller game developers to the mainstream, like Stardock. The big giants can die for all I care, and clear the way for a new generation of game developers.
I think it's only stupid sensationalist reporters who have made the ridiculous claim that PC gaming is dead. The only way to kill PC gaming is to kill the PC.
There are other festivals that are similar to Burning Man--out in the middle of nowhere and dedicated to radical free expression--but which are still quite unknown. I'm obviously not going to name any, but if you are the sort who is into that sort of thing, you probably have friends who are also into that sort of thing and who know some cool places to attend.
I'm into that sort of thing, but all my friends have become really boring lately. There's lots of festivals I want to go to but don't have anyone to go with. Well, I'm at Hacking At Random now, and found two friends as well as making a lot of new ones.
Now if a company doesn't like this way of doing things, they are free to contact the original author(s) to license the code under different terms, one where money would more than likely have to change hands from the company to the author(s), thus putting up the costs, especially if a piece of GPL code has had a few modifications in which case EVERY one of those authors would have to be contacted and a licence agreed between each and every one of them (not needing to re-invent the wheel).
Well put. That's exacty why GPL is not suitable for many business enironments. BSD or Apache keeps the power with the customer, which means they're more suitable for expensive tailor made custom code. GPL is better for stuff you want to give away for free and never expect anyone to make money on (although I'm sure some people still manage to do that).
It's exactly the viral aspect of GPL that makes it unsuitable. It directly disqualifies lots of other software from working with it, and that restricts the freedom of the customer.
The only conclusion I can come to is that all those who moan about the GPL are those who would rather not pay the author(s) for their work - get something for nothing.
No, you said it better before: the problem is that paying for existing GPL code is too complex. But the real place for open source commercial code is code written specifically for a customer. That customer already paid for it, and wants freedom to use it the way he likes, including combining it with software that may have a different license. GPL doesn't allow for that, other licenses do.
When you release BSD software, you get equal support to all the other people who cooperate with you. However, your competitors have a possibility to get a specific advantage. They can take your software, use it as you do, but add their own proprietary changes which they do not share.
This means that companies should not contribute to BSD projects without considerable care. E.g. if a feature is basic and your competitor already has it in their products you can contribute it because your competitor won't benefit. If a feature is advanced and product differentiating then you should never release it to a BSD project.
What you're saying here is that GPL is similar to proprietary software: it protects the original creator of the software. But as a customer, I don't care about the original creator; I care about myself, and my abiliy to hire people to change my expensive custom software in whatever way I need. If the code I want added to it is only availlable as proprietary code, then I still want that option open (athough a BSD/Apache style license is ofcourse preferable because it gives me more freedom over future changes). GPL seriously denies me full control, which makes GPL very unsuitable to many businesses.
To make it even more confusing, the Reoublican party was originally founded in order to further civil rights, while the Democrats had a strong racist base until WW2.
I don't know what wattage it's pulling, but the CPU temperature is holding very steady at about 38 Celcius, and the fans don't even seem to be working very hard for that. It's working great, and at those temperatures, it should do fine for years to come.
What wattage it's pulling is highly relevant, however. That's the amount of energy turned into heat, after all. Did you measure this while idling, during typical use, or at full load? 38 degrees while not doing anything special is not anything special. If you can keep a 140W processor at 38 degrees at full load, that'd be quite spectacular.
Slashdot Mirror
If you put out a PS3 game, Sony gets a cut. If you put out a Wii game, Nintendo gets a cut.
I've never understood how that works. I can understand an official Sony/Nintendo stamp of approval is worth money, or the ability to use their logos on your game, but if I develop a game and don't ask/pay for their approval, surely there's nothing they can legally do to stop me? Big companies in particular should have no problem publishing games on their own without any console maker's assistance or approval.
US predisents can be elected on even less than 50% of the popular vote, so in a way it's even possible for a minority to ignore the wishes of a majority.
Republic: Doesn't have a monarch. Simple as that. The US is a republic, so is Sudan and so is North Korea.
I see what you did there, only problem is you stopped short. The wise and mighty wiki says, "A republic is a form of government in which the head of state is not a monarch and the people (or at least a part of its people) have an impact on its government
Doesn't have to be a very big part of the people, though. Only the heads of large families, for example. Or only members of The Party. Or only the cronies of the party leader, even.
Merely not having a monarch does in no way guarantee any sort of respect or freedom for the people in general. There's a lot of rotten, undemocratic republics out there.
Do you have a pic of Obama posing with Black Panthers?
A few million WoW gamers would like to discuss the dead PC Gaming world btw.
I doubt it. They'd much rather just play their favorite PC game.
Popularizing other types of games has never killed PC gaming and never will, unless it somehow manages to kill the PC itself. As long as people have PCs, they'll be playing games on it. If people use anything else that'd capable of handling games (phones, smartphones), then they'll be playing games on that. We play games on anything we can get our hands on.
Exactly, and that's why I didn't use it, despite the utterly useless T-Mobile reception of my iPhone.
Quite often I had no reception whatsoever. How the hell can my reception be that bad when I'm in Netherland on a big camping ground right next to an (inhabited) village? It's not like I'm in the middle of a desert or out at sea or anything. I'm completely disgusted by the crappy service from T-Mobile. I hear a new HTC Android phone uses KPN, which has far better coverage, so that's what I'm switching to as soon as my subscription ends. Apple will lose customers if they make exclusive deals with a network that has such lousy coverage.
What does that have to do with the open GSM network at HAR? Hopefully nothing, although for a moment I thought that they somehow blocked or interfered with my T-Mobile reception. I don't think that was it, though. Still losing my regular phone numer was just not acceptable to me, so I don't join this open network.
Another option might be a DECT cordless phone network - I vaguely remember it being used in Italian city centres as an alternative to cell phones.
DECT phones are also popular on HAR2009 and similar events. This time we had two alternative phone networks to choose from.
Compare it to the other music from the '60s. Especially their later albums pretty much wrote the book on psychedelic rock and albums as more than just a collection of loose hits, yet they somehow managed to never leave the mainstream. Very diverse music. They did a lot more than just Let It Be and Yesterday.
This summary almost tempts me to buying this game, as well as whatever console I'd need to play it on. I'm not a fan of consoles or gaming gadgets usually, but a psychedelic Beatles trip is something I'd sign on for.
One trend I don't like is a movement towards online delivery. I want the ability to burn a physical copy of the game I downloaded for resale and archive purposes (I don't trust microsoft to keep my copy available indefinitely) but right now making a copy is not an option.
I don't have any recent experience with it, but as far as I understand, burning a copy for archive purposes is perfectly possible with games downloaded through Impulse. Or maybe it's only the Stardock games. It's definitely an issue that Brad Wardel cares about (or used to, at least).
But people on slashdot also usually add an "I'm in the minority here" before endorsing the most popular viewpoint.
True. Just like they say "I'll probably get modded down for this" before getting modded up.
Go play them then but don't assume every one wants the same thing as you
I don't assume that at all. I'm fully aware I have different demands than the mass market. I value gameplay over eye candy, for example, and it's my impression that a lot of people at Slashdot agree. Slashdot isn't exactly a mainstream mass market site either.
don't live in the illusion that simplistic game play can cut it for the mass market today.
Simplistic gameplay does cut it for the mass market today, that's my entire point. The mass market doesn't want detailed complex games that require you to think. They want pretty games that are winnable. A game like nethack wouldn't cut it in the mass market because it's too detailed and too hard.
Now for my serious money ($50+AUD) I expect a great story, excellent voice acting (this is actually very important, voice acting can ruin a game),
If voice acting can ruin a game, I'd rather they just leave it out. Yes, good voice acting can be very nice indeed, but it won't save a crappy game, and it's not necessary for an excellent game.
sound effects and then also great game play and top notch graphics.
The problem is that for your $50 you usually get a buggy game with lame gameplay but top notch graphics, great sound effects and good voice acting. The superficial stuff is good enough for the mass market, but not for demanding hardcore gamers. Pretty soon, the graphics and sound don't matter much except to point out certain game play aspects, and it's only gameplay and content that really matter. To me at least.
Now games need everything else and that means they need to hire not just programmers but also writers, actors, musicians (midi music doesn't cut it anymore). That increases the cost of the game, but it also provides jobs.
But is the end result worth the increased cost? To me it rarely is. Especially when they cut costs on gameplay, as they often do.
But hey, let's agree to disagree. You like superficial mass market games with DRM, I prefer games with more detailed and innovative gameplay.
As for innovation, it's not the blockbuster games that offer it. The last blockbuster-type game that promised innovative gameplay (Spore) completely failed to deliver. Sometimes innovation does come out of a big game publisher (Portal), but those are not marketed as blockbusters.
I don't think you're in the minority here. People on Slashdot have been complaining about stupid eye candy, cut scenes, intro movies, crappy franchise games, DRM and general lack of creativity in games for ages.
I do love the rise of smaller game developers to the mainstream, like Stardock. The big giants can die for all I care, and clear the way for a new generation of game developers.
I think it's only stupid sensationalist reporters who have made the ridiculous claim that PC gaming is dead. The only way to kill PC gaming is to kill the PC.
There are other festivals that are similar to Burning Man--out in the middle of nowhere and dedicated to radical free expression--but which are still quite unknown. I'm obviously not going to name any, but if you are the sort who is into that sort of thing, you probably have friends who are also into that sort of thing and who know some cool places to attend.
I'm into that sort of thing, but all my friends have become really boring lately. There's lots of festivals I want to go to but don't have anyone to go with. Well, I'm at Hacking At Random now, and found two friends as well as making a lot of new ones.
That's because in public, there is no "expectation of privacy".
But on Burning Man, there is an expectation of artistry, fun and non-commercialism, which unexpectedly appearing on Girls Gone Wild videos isn't.
I'm from Amsterdam and even I understood it perfectly. Is Texan going to be the next lingua franca?
Now if a company doesn't like this way of doing things, they are free to contact the original author(s) to license the code under different terms, one where money would more than likely have to change hands from the company to the author(s), thus putting up the costs, especially if a piece of GPL code has had a few modifications in which case EVERY one of those authors would have to be contacted and a licence agreed between each and every one of them (not needing to re-invent the wheel).
Well put. That's exacty why GPL is not suitable for many business enironments. BSD or Apache keeps the power with the customer, which means they're more suitable for expensive tailor made custom code. GPL is better for stuff you want to give away for free and never expect anyone to make money on (although I'm sure some people still manage to do that).
It's exactly the viral aspect of GPL that makes it unsuitable. It directly disqualifies lots of other software from working with it, and that restricts the freedom of the customer.
The only conclusion I can come to is that all those who moan about the GPL are those who would rather not pay the author(s) for their work - get something for nothing.
No, you said it better before: the problem is that paying for existing GPL code is too complex. But the real place for open source commercial code is code written specifically for a customer. That customer already paid for it, and wants freedom to use it the way he likes, including combining it with software that may have a different license. GPL doesn't allow for that, other licenses do.
When you release BSD software, you get equal support to all the other people who cooperate with you. However, your competitors have a possibility to get a specific advantage. They can take your software, use it as you do, but add their own proprietary changes which they do not share.
This means that companies should not contribute to BSD projects without considerable care. E.g. if a feature is basic and your competitor already has it in their products you can contribute it because your competitor won't benefit. If a feature is advanced and product differentiating then you should never release it to a BSD project.
What you're saying here is that GPL is similar to proprietary software: it protects the original creator of the software. But as a customer, I don't care about the original creator; I care about myself, and my abiliy to hire people to change my expensive custom software in whatever way I need. If the code I want added to it is only availlable as proprietary code, then I still want that option open (athough a BSD/Apache style license is ofcourse preferable because it gives me more freedom over future changes). GPL seriously denies me full control, which makes GPL very unsuitable to many businesses.
To make it even more confusing, the Reoublican party was originally founded in order to further civil rights, while the Democrats had a strong racist base until WW2.
Things got seriously turned upside down somehow.
Why would you need 200 webpages open at once while you're playing a fullscreen game?
Because I can.
Where do you shop? There are much cheaper shops out there. Anything over $300 for CPU+MB isn't midprice anymore.
That's the best case scenario, actually. Overclocking may require increasing the voltage, which means your power consumption goes way up.
I don't know what wattage it's pulling, but the CPU temperature is holding very steady at about 38 Celcius, and the fans don't even seem to be working very hard for that. It's working great, and at those temperatures, it should do fine for years to come.
What wattage it's pulling is highly relevant, however. That's the amount of energy turned into heat, after all. Did you measure this while idling, during typical use, or at full load? 38 degrees while not doing anything special is not anything special. If you can keep a 140W processor at 38 degrees at full load, that'd be quite spectacular.