Sorry, but if your list doesn't contain Phantasmogoria, in which a non-pixelated woman is depicted being force-fed her own entrails and subsequently choking to death, you do not have a comprehensive list. Incidentally, I will remark that I played that game at age 12 and am still haunted by it.
It is not my claim that everyone in a capitalist society must act in an immoral manner, only an amoral one. Morality is not at issue here. Also, it's not a claim: it is fact demonstrated by centuries of economics and the pure logic that the employer is not required to give everyone a raise when they hire someone at a higher salary, nor will any free market impose such a restriction as it is contrary to the basis of the system.
Also, you appear to be equating morality to fairness, which is rather naive.
Oh, man, I am totally boycotting all these companies. Nike? No problem, I'm a Puma guy anyway. Just suck it! Ha ha! Looks like I'll need to get rid of my Callaway clubs as well. No big deal, they weren't a good fit for me. But I can't replace them with Nike, Cleveland Golf, or PING? Hrm. Okay, that might be a little tough-- Taylor Made! Ha! Sergio Garcia is awesome. Also looks like I can no longer watch professional baseball or football either. Right after my Bears made it into the playoffs! Packers at Soldier Field for the NFC Championship... No! Not my Columbia jacket, too!
While the end question of fairness is irrelevant (fairness is not and should not be considered in a capitalist society) (perhaps the younger developer is simply a better negotiator of salary and pressed the employer for more?), the end question of worth is. Much like experience in general, experienced IT developers know that there is simply no substitute for said experience. The skills of project estimation and proper time management are worth 30% or more in productivity alone, and young developers simply have no perception of these things. They are here to code! Right... so what's this environment thing you have going on here? This looks complicated...
The real question is why the senior developer has not learned the new technology already!
All 5,000 Does rolled up into one case? A case filed in Washington, DC...where almost none (if any) of the Does live?
They just filed the case against the ISPs. After they find out where the Does live, they will file in their individual, respective states. You can't file a reverse class action suit.
Fining these people so much money that the entire movie's budget is literally payed for by SUING people?
So, wait... they should be suing for less because their film is low production value?
If this isn't abusing the justice system, I don't know what is.
I'm pretty sure you don't know what abusing the justice system is. That's what it sounds like.
dealt with the claims they're entirely unable to prove
I was going to comment about the nature of independent films and low-budget studios like Voltage, but this statement interests me so much more. How, exactly, will they be unable to prove copyright infringement after matching the 5,000 IPs to people?
So you'd say an ice cream company doing research into making their ice cream more enjoyable to their target audience is doing something wrong by making changes based on that research? Unless they're lacing their ice cream with cocaine, no change is inherently wrong.
What if the ice cream company added a substance that provided no change in the taste, smell, or texture whatsoever, but was naturally addictive?
Plenty of people play MMOs without being addicted. The whole point of a game is that it should be fun - if a game developer is not researching ways to make the game more fun, they're not doing their job, and their customers are not getting what they're paying for.
No, plenty of people play MMOs and do not realize they are addicted because they do not recognize that spending 25-50 hours per week has moved your hobby into an obsession. "To be an alcholic, you have to admit that you have a problem." Sure, there are plenty of people that integrate playing MMOs into their normal lives, but plenty of people work a normal day job then go shoot up heroine three times a week in their basement. That doesn't mean that they aren't addicted!
Even if NCSoft did what you hypothesize, it would still not be wrong - if it were, then the mere act of making a game fun would be wrong, because somebody somewhere could get addicted to it. (It doesn't even have to be *fun* to be addicting - look at all the stupid Facebook games that people spend 12 hours a day playing...)
I'm not saying it is wrong to make your game more enjoyable. I'm just saying that the question is not pointless to ask: there must be a line out there that is dangerous. There must be a way to determine whether or not a product has been maliciously designed to control you. And I would like to know what it is.
You're thinking of criminality. This case questions whether or not NCSoft is civilly actionable (YIAAL). It sounds like you agree that there is a line between maliciously designing a product that will naturally addict a user versus designing one that will sell well (what cigarette manufacturers call "taste"). How does the First Amendment play into that argument? Does this game qualify as "art", and does that protect it? These are great legal questions and absolutely need to be litigated! Kudos to Craig for breaking ground, I guess.
I get it; you're hard and edgy, and by disagreeing with you, that makes me an emo pansy, but just to put up a decent counterargument...
What would you say if, during the discovery phase of Craig's claim, e-mails and documents subpoenaed reveal that NCSoft actively created their games with the intent not to entertain, but to entice and entangle? What if they commissioned a psychological research study on how to make their games more addictive, and made major alterations to the gameplay based on the results? What if they made it a primary goal to target certain segments of the population, what you would call the weak-willed and easily manipulated, what others might call aged 18-25 unmarried males?
What if their next game specifically targeted children, aged 9-15? Is it a parental responsibility to identify each game's level of addictiveness before purchasing it for their child? Isn't there no way to tell until the child has become addicted, and now both parent and child are forced to endure a period of withdrawal?
I think that this lawsuit is probably frivolous, but I can definitely see a situation where it is not. You certainly can't make the blanket assumption that this guy's claim is worthless before it plays out.
Maybe they are excellent programmers, but bad business men. It doesn't mean they deserve to have their blood sucked from them.
No, I'm pretty certain that capitalism dictates that this is exactly what it means they deserve. There's one born every minute, and if they're that unhappy with their salaries, then they should quit!
I am also quite impressed with how many people have been convinced that the executive branch of our federal government is some mysterious shamanistic coven that totally baffles the dunderheads that plague the legislative branch. Although I do not work in Washington D.C. politics, it seems likely that Senators (not an easy job to get in the first place) have plenty of experience working closely with most, if not all, of the executive branch. Also, I'm not sure it helps your position when your political party chose to run someone with "zero executive experience" in the last presidential election.
"I'm sorry, sir, but you have violated the Terms of Service of this call by referring to an external site. I will have to censor you for the remainder of our conversation. Is there anything else I can assist you with today?...Sir, by your silence I must conclude that I have resolved the issue. I went ahead and filled out a comment about how happy you are with our product on the Consumer Reports website. Thank you, and please remember that the new season of Glee is available on the iStore for $31.99."
I'm almost certain all police vehicles have a frontal camera for precisely that reason, but most times don't release it to the press. In a civil or criminal action, you are certainly free to request it during the discovery phase of the trial, and you can use it during trial (if properly authenticated). (Yes, I am a lawyer.)
But, as was the case in 1992, if the news media has the entire clip but only choose to show a small fraction of it, in an effort to create more a salacious story and sell newspapers or increase advertising revenue, there really isn't a point to it being freely available.
I'm also not sure how I feel about all cameras in public locations streaming to the public at all times: that seems like a slippery slope to invasion of privacy. It would certainly be a godsend for every stalker... well, ever. Imagine if facial recognition software got to the point where as soon as you stepped out into public, you could be immediately recognized and your movements tracked? Minority Report presents a decent idea of how that would go over. What about the grocery that had a security camera with a nice, clear view of your child's elementary school? The ATM across the street from Taylor Swift's apartment building? Street-level cameras streaming data that Google could use to track individual license plates and datamine their traveling habits? A fundamental religious group who sets up shop across the street from the strip club your bachelor party is at? Realtime viewing by your boss, your mother, your shady government organization, your terrorist attacker, and everyone in between? Like I said, I'm not certain that full public disclosure is the goal here.
Because in a court of law, the cop's word is more likely to win.
Wow... you have never served on a city jury, have you? Trust me, the cop will be naturally distrusted by a group of twelve of your peers if you live in a major metropolitan area.
*sigh*... Mixing metaphors already? Also, I'm not sure if the parable of the Sword of Damocles really portends where the sword belongs.
While I agree with the majority of us (seems like a high percentage of slashdot users are anti-Establishment) that this does seem like a move first made by the SS or the Gestapo, I think there is a fair counterpoint: the sad truth is that YouTube and modern journalism in general can grossly misrepresent accounts of encounters by editing or simply showing a few seconds of footage (Los Angeles 1992 ring any bells?). If a policeman's career can be ruined even by false accusations generated with a cellphone video and a pirated copy of Premiere, and we can all agree that this is wildly unfair treatment for people who actively choose dangerous, low-paid jobs necessary for our society's survival with little or no gratefulness by that society, what is their recourse? A law requiring YouTube and the press to show objective, balanced views of these incidents? Good luck with that.
I guess we are arguing two things then. I contend that my interpretation of intentional tort law is correct, and you argue some kind of alien, subjective morality which is totally false in modern times. I'm glad to hear you have such a fervent opinion. You should write your congressman, because (I don't know if you've heard this before) attorneys don't actually make laws. You may have to write a couple times, though, because this has been pretty well settled for a few centuries now.
Spoken like someone who has neither taken nor thrown a punch in his life.
Think about all the times you have heard that someone has broken a bone. Cracked ribs, broken pelvis, snapped tibia, etc. Of those, how many times have you heard of someone cracking their skull? Not often? This is because the skull, on the top and rear of the head, is one of the strongest bones in the body (as I stated above). There is no simply reason for it to be thin; it is only there to protect the brain. So God / Darwin / Your Genes / L. Ron Hubbard made it super thick. Contrarily, your hands, specifically, your knuckles, contain joints and connective tissue to your fingers. In comparison, they are much, much weaker.
All this means is that unless you are literally punching someone with an eggshell skull, or are extremely strong, you just aren't going to do any damage at all. The momentum of your fist will push the person's head, if going fast enough, violently forward, perhaps making them lose their balance. There may be some momentary dizziness. At worst, and this is the force of a blow from Mike Tyson, the brain will jostle a bit and you might suffer a concussion.
It has also become blatantly clear to me that you are not a lawyer. Bad news: I am. You do not surrender all rights and protections upon attacking someone, even unprovoked and from behind. There are special cases that apply if you are in your home (then you could kill the attacker, actually) or in defense of others, but none apply here. From a legal standpoint, OP admits he immediately knew he was in no danger, and would be liable for battery since he responded with overwhelming force, which is my point: he chose to counterattack the bully, which is great (more power to him), but he should be prepared to accept the consequences of his actions.
Uhhhh... no. You mention the eggshell skull rule, which makes me think you have some amount of legal training, but since you use it to apply precisely the opposite logic to that which it governs, I am not really sure who I am talking to. I will continue using a layman's rationale, since it doesn't sound like you want to discuss intentional torts with me.
The issue here is the proportional response. The thug posed no serious threat to the trained wrestler, and made no seriously dangerous actions. In response, the original poster beat him into unconsciousness. Unless OP had reason to believe that he or someone else was in imminent danger, why would you possibily license him with the right to use whatever force he happened to choose at the time?
Your electric fence analogy is also inapplicable. Fences are objects and have no choice about how much force they apply; OP chose to continue to punch the thug beyond what was necessary to deter him from counterattacking. They also are required to notify the reasonably aware of the danger; OP was not wearing a shirt that informed passersby that he would inflict serious bodily harm against any attackers (nor should he!).
The decision to fight with an schoolyard bully is, as the original article maintains, a social choice. It tells the bully and others that you will not be intimidated. You could have chose to walk away, or talk it out, or taken refuge among friends, or escaped to a teacher. But if you choose to fight, you must be prepared to accept the consequences. "He started it" is not a valid argument, especially in this case, where there was no danger to the defender.
Let me get this straight... you beat a thirteen-year-old boy until he was unconscious but do not think you deserved punishment? Keep in mind that in the next sentence that you admit that he posed no threat to you and, unless he hit you with a crow bar, probably did nothing by hitting one of the strongest bones in your body.
That would be because games require distribution, and distribution require publishers, and publishers have stockholders, and stockholders are only interested in one thing: the formula. If Buttonmasher I sold 1.3 million copies, then make Buttonmasher II roughly the same, try and make it with half the people, and sell 1.3 million copies again. Just like movies.
Stockholders are not interested in the newest indie concept game because a game like Portal is simply too risky to invest in, and why would you when the formula of Mortal Combat is tried-and-true? 60% of the time, every time.
Rapid, cheap distribution models like Steam and iStore will continue to let games like Braid drift into focus, but any serious development effort needs to be supported by a capital investment group, and those four guys in the office space above the sports bar just ain't getting it done. And if they happen to waste years of their lives and sink blood, sweat, and tears of money into a project, they will be rewarded by being bought out, enjoy their big payday, and watch in horror as the stockholders that bought them attempt to generalize their game into... a formula.
I think we are all missing the point: a Facebook petition has been started and it now has over 1,400 members. That is one thousand four hundred people who invested the time and effort into a) creating and/or logging into their Facebook account and b) clicking on a link. The people have spoken, guys. Disregard the fact that over 21,000 students attend NAU and that the Facebook petition to "Remake Full House with a new cast except for Bob Saget he is AMAZING" has more than 1,400 members.
Slashdot Mirror
Sorry, but if your list doesn't contain Phantasmogoria, in which a non-pixelated woman is depicted being force-fed her own entrails and subsequently choking to death, you do not have a comprehensive list. Incidentally, I will remark that I played that game at age 12 and am still haunted by it.
It is not my claim that everyone in a capitalist society must act in an immoral manner, only an amoral one. Morality is not at issue here. Also, it's not a claim: it is fact demonstrated by centuries of economics and the pure logic that the employer is not required to give everyone a raise when they hire someone at a higher salary, nor will any free market impose such a restriction as it is contrary to the basis of the system.
Also, you appear to be equating morality to fairness, which is rather naive.
Oh, man, I am totally boycotting all these companies. Nike? No problem, I'm a Puma guy anyway. Just suck it! Ha ha! Looks like I'll need to get rid of my Callaway clubs as well. No big deal, they weren't a good fit for me. But I can't replace them with Nike, Cleveland Golf, or PING? Hrm. Okay, that might be a little tough-- Taylor Made! Ha! Sergio Garcia is awesome. Also looks like I can no longer watch professional baseball or football either. Right after my Bears made it into the playoffs! Packers at Soldier Field for the NFC Championship... No! Not my Columbia jacket, too!
Can't I just sign a petition or something?
While the end question of fairness is irrelevant (fairness is not and should not be considered in a capitalist society) (perhaps the younger developer is simply a better negotiator of salary and pressed the employer for more?), the end question of worth is. Much like experience in general, experienced IT developers know that there is simply no substitute for said experience. The skills of project estimation and proper time management are worth 30% or more in productivity alone, and young developers simply have no perception of these things. They are here to code! Right... so what's this environment thing you have going on here? This looks complicated...
The real question is why the senior developer has not learned the new technology already!
Wow, what an amusing and highly unverifiable anecdote! On the internet, no less!
All 5,000 Does rolled up into one case? A case filed in Washington, DC...where almost none (if any) of the Does live?
They just filed the case against the ISPs. After they find out where the Does live, they will file in their individual, respective states. You can't file a reverse class action suit.
Fining these people so much money that the entire movie's budget is literally payed for by SUING people?
So, wait... they should be suing for less because their film is low production value?
If this isn't abusing the justice system, I don't know what is.
I'm pretty sure you don't know what abusing the justice system is. That's what it sounds like.
In the REAL WORLD, if a product's return is more than twice what it cost them, I'd say they are doing pretty good.
You would be wrong. It is remarkably poor performance for a film that won the Best Picture, regardless of its production value.
dealt with the claims they're entirely unable to prove
I was going to comment about the nature of independent films and low-budget studios like Voltage, but this statement interests me so much more. How, exactly, will they be unable to prove copyright infringement after matching the 5,000 IPs to people?
So you'd say an ice cream company doing research into making their ice cream more enjoyable to their target audience is doing something wrong by making changes based on that research? Unless they're lacing their ice cream with cocaine, no change is inherently wrong.
What if the ice cream company added a substance that provided no change in the taste, smell, or texture whatsoever, but was naturally addictive?
Plenty of people play MMOs without being addicted. The whole point of a game is that it should be fun - if a game developer is not researching ways to make the game more fun, they're not doing their job, and their customers are not getting what they're paying for.
No, plenty of people play MMOs and do not realize they are addicted because they do not recognize that spending 25-50 hours per week has moved your hobby into an obsession. "To be an alcholic, you have to admit that you have a problem." Sure, there are plenty of people that integrate playing MMOs into their normal lives, but plenty of people work a normal day job then go shoot up heroine three times a week in their basement. That doesn't mean that they aren't addicted!
Even if NCSoft did what you hypothesize, it would still not be wrong - if it were, then the mere act of making a game fun would be wrong, because somebody somewhere could get addicted to it. (It doesn't even have to be *fun* to be addicting - look at all the stupid Facebook games that people spend 12 hours a day playing...)
I'm not saying it is wrong to make your game more enjoyable. I'm just saying that the question is not pointless to ask: there must be a line out there that is dangerous. There must be a way to determine whether or not a product has been maliciously designed to control you. And I would like to know what it is.
You're thinking of criminality. This case questions whether or not NCSoft is civilly actionable (YIAAL). It sounds like you agree that there is a line between maliciously designing a product that will naturally addict a user versus designing one that will sell well (what cigarette manufacturers call "taste"). How does the First Amendment play into that argument? Does this game qualify as "art", and does that protect it? These are great legal questions and absolutely need to be litigated! Kudos to Craig for breaking ground, I guess.
I get it; you're hard and edgy, and by disagreeing with you, that makes me an emo pansy, but just to put up a decent counterargument...
What would you say if, during the discovery phase of Craig's claim, e-mails and documents subpoenaed reveal that NCSoft actively created their games with the intent not to entertain, but to entice and entangle? What if they commissioned a psychological research study on how to make their games more addictive, and made major alterations to the gameplay based on the results? What if they made it a primary goal to target certain segments of the population, what you would call the weak-willed and easily manipulated, what others might call aged 18-25 unmarried males?
What if their next game specifically targeted children, aged 9-15? Is it a parental responsibility to identify each game's level of addictiveness before purchasing it for their child? Isn't there no way to tell until the child has become addicted, and now both parent and child are forced to endure a period of withdrawal?
I think that this lawsuit is probably frivolous, but I can definitely see a situation where it is not. You certainly can't make the blanket assumption that this guy's claim is worthless before it plays out.
Maybe they are excellent programmers, but bad business men. It doesn't mean they deserve to have their blood sucked from them.
No, I'm pretty certain that capitalism dictates that this is exactly what it means they deserve. There's one born every minute, and if they're that unhappy with their salaries, then they should quit!
I am also quite impressed with how many people have been convinced that the executive branch of our federal government is some mysterious shamanistic coven that totally baffles the dunderheads that plague the legislative branch. Although I do not work in Washington D.C. politics, it seems likely that Senators (not an easy job to get in the first place) have plenty of experience working closely with most, if not all, of the executive branch. Also, I'm not sure it helps your position when your political party chose to run someone with "zero executive experience" in the last presidential election.
"I'm sorry, sir, but you have violated the Terms of Service of this call by referring to an external site. I will have to censor you for the remainder of our conversation. Is there anything else I can assist you with today? ...Sir, by your silence I must conclude that I have resolved the issue. I went ahead and filled out a comment about how happy you are with our product on the Consumer Reports website. Thank you, and please remember that the new season of Glee is available on the iStore for $31.99."
Of course not, I'm American!
"YouTube have pretty much come down on the side of Flash having major issues with the lack of features that the HTML5 tag has and may never have."
I guess my point is that this sentence is terrible. How did you possibly allow this, /. mod?
I'm almost certain all police vehicles have a frontal camera for precisely that reason, but most times don't release it to the press. In a civil or criminal action, you are certainly free to request it during the discovery phase of the trial, and you can use it during trial (if properly authenticated). (Yes, I am a lawyer.)
But, as was the case in 1992, if the news media has the entire clip but only choose to show a small fraction of it, in an effort to create more a salacious story and sell newspapers or increase advertising revenue, there really isn't a point to it being freely available.
I'm also not sure how I feel about all cameras in public locations streaming to the public at all times: that seems like a slippery slope to invasion of privacy. It would certainly be a godsend for every stalker... well, ever. Imagine if facial recognition software got to the point where as soon as you stepped out into public, you could be immediately recognized and your movements tracked? Minority Report presents a decent idea of how that would go over. What about the grocery that had a security camera with a nice, clear view of your child's elementary school? The ATM across the street from Taylor Swift's apartment building? Street-level cameras streaming data that Google could use to track individual license plates and datamine their traveling habits? A fundamental religious group who sets up shop across the street from the strip club your bachelor party is at? Realtime viewing by your boss, your mother, your shady government organization, your terrorist attacker, and everyone in between? Like I said, I'm not certain that full public disclosure is the goal here.
Because in a court of law, the cop's word is more likely to win.
Wow... you have never served on a city jury, have you? Trust me, the cop will be naturally distrusted by a group of twelve of your peers if you live in a major metropolitan area.
*sigh*... Mixing metaphors already? Also, I'm not sure if the parable of the Sword of Damocles really portends where the sword belongs.
While I agree with the majority of us (seems like a high percentage of slashdot users are anti-Establishment) that this does seem like a move first made by the SS or the Gestapo, I think there is a fair counterpoint: the sad truth is that YouTube and modern journalism in general can grossly misrepresent accounts of encounters by editing or simply showing a few seconds of footage (Los Angeles 1992 ring any bells?). If a policeman's career can be ruined even by false accusations generated with a cellphone video and a pirated copy of Premiere, and we can all agree that this is wildly unfair treatment for people who actively choose dangerous, low-paid jobs necessary for our society's survival with little or no gratefulness by that society, what is their recourse? A law requiring YouTube and the press to show objective, balanced views of these incidents? Good luck with that.
I guess we are arguing two things then. I contend that my interpretation of intentional tort law is correct, and you argue some kind of alien, subjective morality which is totally false in modern times. I'm glad to hear you have such a fervent opinion. You should write your congressman, because (I don't know if you've heard this before) attorneys don't actually make laws. You may have to write a couple times, though, because this has been pretty well settled for a few centuries now.
Spoken like someone who has neither taken nor thrown a punch in his life.
Think about all the times you have heard that someone has broken a bone. Cracked ribs, broken pelvis, snapped tibia, etc. Of those, how many times have you heard of someone cracking their skull? Not often? This is because the skull, on the top and rear of the head, is one of the strongest bones in the body (as I stated above). There is no simply reason for it to be thin; it is only there to protect the brain. So God / Darwin / Your Genes / L. Ron Hubbard made it super thick. Contrarily, your hands, specifically, your knuckles, contain joints and connective tissue to your fingers. In comparison, they are much, much weaker.
All this means is that unless you are literally punching someone with an eggshell skull, or are extremely strong, you just aren't going to do any damage at all. The momentum of your fist will push the person's head, if going fast enough, violently forward, perhaps making them lose their balance. There may be some momentary dizziness. At worst, and this is the force of a blow from Mike Tyson, the brain will jostle a bit and you might suffer a concussion.
It has also become blatantly clear to me that you are not a lawyer. Bad news: I am. You do not surrender all rights and protections upon attacking someone, even unprovoked and from behind. There are special cases that apply if you are in your home (then you could kill the attacker, actually) or in defense of others, but none apply here. From a legal standpoint, OP admits he immediately knew he was in no danger, and would be liable for battery since he responded with overwhelming force, which is my point: he chose to counterattack the bully, which is great (more power to him), but he should be prepared to accept the consequences of his actions.
Uhhhh... no. You mention the eggshell skull rule, which makes me think you have some amount of legal training, but since you use it to apply precisely the opposite logic to that which it governs, I am not really sure who I am talking to. I will continue using a layman's rationale, since it doesn't sound like you want to discuss intentional torts with me.
The issue here is the proportional response. The thug posed no serious threat to the trained wrestler, and made no seriously dangerous actions. In response, the original poster beat him into unconsciousness. Unless OP had reason to believe that he or someone else was in imminent danger, why would you possibily license him with the right to use whatever force he happened to choose at the time?
Your electric fence analogy is also inapplicable. Fences are objects and have no choice about how much force they apply; OP chose to continue to punch the thug beyond what was necessary to deter him from counterattacking. They also are required to notify the reasonably aware of the danger; OP was not wearing a shirt that informed passersby that he would inflict serious bodily harm against any attackers (nor should he!).
The decision to fight with an schoolyard bully is, as the original article maintains, a social choice. It tells the bully and others that you will not be intimidated. You could have chose to walk away, or talk it out, or taken refuge among friends, or escaped to a teacher. But if you choose to fight, you must be prepared to accept the consequences. "He started it" is not a valid argument, especially in this case, where there was no danger to the defender.
Let me get this straight... you beat a thirteen-year-old boy until he was unconscious but do not think you deserved punishment? Keep in mind that in the next sentence that you admit that he posed no threat to you and, unless he hit you with a crow bar, probably did nothing by hitting one of the strongest bones in your body.
That would be because games require distribution, and distribution require publishers, and publishers have stockholders, and stockholders are only interested in one thing: the formula. If Buttonmasher I sold 1.3 million copies, then make Buttonmasher II roughly the same, try and make it with half the people, and sell 1.3 million copies again. Just like movies.
Stockholders are not interested in the newest indie concept game because a game like Portal is simply too risky to invest in, and why would you when the formula of Mortal Combat is tried-and-true? 60% of the time, every time.
Rapid, cheap distribution models like Steam and iStore will continue to let games like Braid drift into focus, but any serious development effort needs to be supported by a capital investment group, and those four guys in the office space above the sports bar just ain't getting it done. And if they happen to waste years of their lives and sink blood, sweat, and tears of money into a project, they will be rewarded by being bought out, enjoy their big payday, and watch in horror as the stockholders that bought them attempt to generalize their game into... a formula.
I think we are all missing the point: a Facebook petition has been started and it now has over 1,400 members. That is one thousand four hundred people who invested the time and effort into a) creating and/or logging into their Facebook account and b) clicking on a link. The people have spoken, guys. Disregard the fact that over 21,000 students attend NAU and that the Facebook petition to "Remake Full House with a new cast except for Bob Saget he is AMAZING" has more than 1,400 members.