I think that there should be two different categories. Have one be a general best independent game award that has no barriers for entry. Then, there should be an award for independent games that had a budget below $100,000. I'd allow the ones below $100,000 to be potential winners of the general independent game award as well, because if they can produce a better game than people with larger budgets, they definitely deserve recognition for that.
I'd also be weary of calling a company like S2 an independent. Sure, they have no publisher, but they are able to do it in-house.
Remember, the video game industry isn't quite Hollywood yet. There's nowhere near as much of an entry barrier.
Soon, we'll find that John F. Kerry tries to counter this with 30 second flash intros. Listen to that thumping techno beat and kick ass effects!
Oh, what about Nader, you ask? He won't use computers. Apparently they pollute or something. He wants monitors banned because of their adverse health effects, too. But, his rumbling will be heard across the world anyways, so don't you worry!
Well, when it comes from Microsoft, it always seems to be FUD, no matter what. Yet, anything from the open source movement has their FUD deemed as proof. At least according to michael...
I'm not trying to validate either side's claims. I'm also not trying to say that one side was or was not tossing around the FUD. But, for a change, how about you let me try to draw my own conclusions, rather than give me yours?
Wow, when I saw this terrible post, I thought that I was going to bust a valve! How can somebody think this way?! Well, for the sake of trying to show you the light, I'll try to calm down...
I think you're totally wrong. By not only giving away Linux for free, but its source as well, we think that it's only a small request that you join our cult. It's not right that people take without giving back to the community. But by joining, you are indeed making a difference to further our cause. Posting our views loudly on internet discussions, with Slashdot being a favorite place to post, ensures that we indeed get noticed and that we gain members to further our cause.
Besides, why wouldn't you want to drink the Kool-Aid when it's so very sweet:):):)
prisoner-of-enigma, we would love to have you join us sometime. We're a very loving, sexually free group of people. We'd love to have you join us! Remember, you're not one of us if you don't join and share our views.
Hope to have you hop on the FOSS choo-choo train! All aboard!
-RMS
P.S. Call me, you can come to my ranch and see what being open is all about;)
I don't think that it will really matter how much progress is made in software development, especially in the desktop area, if nobody is using the software. Shunning non-contributors is only shooting yourself in the foot by scaring them off.
As far as the poster in question goes, what he said might not be considered the normal method of making a contribution, but it certainly isn't worthless nor trolling. He was expressing his opinion. I think the troll tag is applied too easily because people don't stick to the overly-positive, smiley laden posts. I can almost guarantee that the makers of Gimp are watching this discussion to find out what people are thinking.
You say that open source software isn't about catering to users, but yet you also say that if you don't cooperate with others you'll always be on the edges of the free software movement.
If that's the case, don't expect the "movement" to get much bigger.
What's the point of creating a piece of software for the public (as in not just a circle of friends) to use, then telling the very people that might want to use your software that they'll be out of the loop if they don't contribute something? And how about telling them that their opinion doesn't matter, and it's up to them to do something about it? Sounds like a pretty cold thing to do to the people that might use your software, huh?
Creators of open source software should listen to their users and try to help provide what they need. That's how you get the userbase. That userbase allows you to brag to others about how well open source software is making waves in the desktop and business realms. That userbase allows RMS to pin another medal on his chest because of its growth (boy, do I wish that wasn't a problem). Shouldn't you at least be grateful for one of those effects?
I believe that the suggestion of CMYK support is a contribution. That's letting the developers know that there's a feature out there that, if created, would the Gimp an option. That's an extremely valuable piece of information. Why be such a snob to tell somebody that what they want doesn't matter unless they do something about it themselves?
There's plenty of reasons why people might not be contributing. If you want contributors to a project, better yet, if you want some sort of a movement, it would help to be more receptive to an end user's ideas (which should be considered contributions). Being a jerk doesn't do that.
The problem with your views on software creation, the same view held by many others in the open source world, is that you believe it's a "beggars can't be choosers" situation, with the end user being the beggar and the software developer being the chooser. In reality, the software developer is the beggar and the end user is the chooser.
If open source software wants to make some real progress, then its proponents, including you, would drop the holier than thou attitude and realize that they need to cater to what their users want.
Not everybody codes or cares to code. And nobody cares to have an asshole barking in their ear, telling them to do something about it or shut up. If you ran a project and wanted to attract users, shouldn't the implementation of wanted features be up to you?
That's why proprietary software still continues to be successful, because most proprietary companies want to satisfy their users' needs.
Well, I keep hearing talks about Microsoft being a monopoly and needing to be punished. But, what I want to know is what are they actually being punished for.
Bonus points go to who can tell me if that's good or bad.
Well, we're bound to see some more gays in video games under the political climate. It really wouldn't surprise me to see quite a few titles.
Why? Instant publicity. Your game will get mentioned in the press if you give it a decent enough initial push. Gay influence has already saturated movies, television, and music. It hasn't really been a big issue in video games (this slight mention doesn't really make it a big issue). But, if you show that it's out there, you can get the mainstream press debating like mad. Imagine Bill O'Reilly and Rosie O'Donnell debating in a knife fight.
Those debates equal massive amounts of money, and gays will buy the game just to show support over the issue. A larger company might end up boycotted by some, but that would probably blow over.
Eventually, this whole thing will die down. But, if a game company were to play their cards right, it could equal massive amounts of money.
In pre-MS days, Bungie had a saying "we'll release it when it's done" none of this rushing things out the door with cut features to fit with X-box marketing.
Bungie's applying their "when it's done policy" to Halo 2. It was originally slated for an April 1st release.
David could totally revitalize the video game industry if he'd just learn how to code his own game. Hell, he could even be the star of his game! With a last name like Wong, just imagine the possibiliti... aw fuck it. Nevermind...
Kodak claimed to have a case, but we'll have to wait for it to develop. But with Sony's digital technology, they were able to have instant results!
Sony wants to send their case around to all of their friends in the form of an email attachment.
Whoops, there's a blemish. Hey, no problem! All Sony had to do was whip up an editor and remove it with a few clicks of the mouse!
Now that case is ready for primetime. All they had to do was open up their favorite email program, attach the case, and send it! That's it!
Let's go back to Kodak. It looks like Kodak spilt the beans a little bit too soon, huh? They're case is still developing! Not to mention all the work that it'll take to get it ready to send out. What a hassle!
That's why the clear choice is Sony. Their case comes out looking great, and is ready for quick editing and distribution. Instant and quality! That's what Sony is all about.
Developers should look at publishers as people they hire to sell the game they made.
If only they were in a position to do so. Most first time or independent developers have a very hard time getting the cash needed to finish a title. Who provides the cash? That's right, the publishers. Not only do they help get that game finished, they also provide marketing and get a game on the store shelves. Because of that, publishers get to be picky about what games they want due to the large amount of developers trying to get their attention.
Unless the world of game developers collectively decided to tell the publishers off on three, there's no way that the developer is going to become the one wearing the pants in the developer/publisher relationship. They have the power. Unless you can get your game onto a shelf and marketed without them, they always will be. But, you might just be able to become totally self-sufficient if you want to; as long as you don't believe that you'll be an industry player overnight.
Slashdot Mirror
I think that there should be two different categories. Have one be a general best independent game award that has no barriers for entry. Then, there should be an award for independent games that had a budget below $100,000. I'd allow the ones below $100,000 to be potential winners of the general independent game award as well, because if they can produce a better game than people with larger budgets, they definitely deserve recognition for that.
I'd also be weary of calling a company like S2 an independent. Sure, they have no publisher, but they are able to do it in-house.
Remember, the video game industry isn't quite Hollywood yet. There's nowhere near as much of an entry barrier.
Soon, we'll find that John F. Kerry tries to counter this with 30 second flash intros. Listen to that thumping techno beat and kick ass effects!
Oh, what about Nader, you ask? He won't use computers. Apparently they pollute or something. He wants monitors banned because of their adverse health effects, too. But, his rumbling will be heard across the world anyways, so don't you worry!
Well, we're all going to die anyway.
But, if I had my choice in the matter, I'd want to die by the hands of something cool enough to be named buckyballs.
Imagine the death certificate. CAUSE: Buckyballs.
Imagine the eulogy. "It's so sad that he was taken from us so soon by buckyballs..."
Yeah, so, you still don't want buckyballs to kill you?
If you want a good romantic game, this is all that you have to do.
1. Pick a prexisting game that allows skinnable characters and multiplayer. Don't worry, we're about to make it "our own" here shortly.
2. Make a skin of Hugh Grant and apply it to a male player model.
3. Pick another player in your skinnable game. It really doesn't matter, just blindly pick any player.
4. Go walk around, hang out in a corner, just go do something boring. Just make sure you're talking sweetly to the other person.
5. Whenever you want to end it, make your characters act like they're kissing.
6. Disconnect from the server, you just beat the game! Congratulation!
Well, when it comes from Microsoft, it always seems to be FUD, no matter what. Yet, anything from the open source movement has their FUD deemed as proof. At least according to michael...
I'm not trying to validate either side's claims. I'm also not trying to say that one side was or was not tossing around the FUD. But, for a change, how about you let me try to draw my own conclusions, rather than give me yours?
Well, I know how they could get a bunch of names easily, just get info on anybody who has a Slashdot ID number lower than 100,000.
Oh, you just know there's something up with them. Just look at them.
Wow, when I saw this terrible post, I thought that I was going to bust a valve! How can somebody think this way?! Well, for the sake of trying to show you the light, I'll try to calm down...
:) :) :)
;)
I think you're totally wrong. By not only giving away Linux for free, but its source as well, we think that it's only a small request that you join our cult. It's not right that people take without giving back to the community. But by joining, you are indeed making a difference to further our cause. Posting our views loudly on internet discussions, with Slashdot being a favorite place to post, ensures that we indeed get noticed and that we gain members to further our cause.
Besides, why wouldn't you want to drink the Kool-Aid when it's so very sweet
prisoner-of-enigma, we would love to have you join us sometime. We're a very loving, sexually free group of people. We'd love to have you join us! Remember, you're not one of us if you don't join and share our views.
Hope to have you hop on the FOSS choo-choo train! All aboard!
-RMS
P.S. Call me, you can come to my ranch and see what being open is all about
I don't think that it will really matter how much progress is made in software development, especially in the desktop area, if nobody is using the software. Shunning non-contributors is only shooting yourself in the foot by scaring them off.
As far as the poster in question goes, what he said might not be considered the normal method of making a contribution, but it certainly isn't worthless nor trolling. He was expressing his opinion. I think the troll tag is applied too easily because people don't stick to the overly-positive, smiley laden posts. I can almost guarantee that the makers of Gimp are watching this discussion to find out what people are thinking.
You say that open source software isn't about catering to users, but yet you also say that if you don't cooperate with others you'll always be on the edges of the free software movement.
If that's the case, don't expect the "movement" to get much bigger.
What's the point of creating a piece of software for the public (as in not just a circle of friends) to use, then telling the very people that might want to use your software that they'll be out of the loop if they don't contribute something? And how about telling them that their opinion doesn't matter, and it's up to them to do something about it? Sounds like a pretty cold thing to do to the people that might use your software, huh?
Creators of open source software should listen to their users and try to help provide what they need. That's how you get the userbase. That userbase allows you to brag to others about how well open source software is making waves in the desktop and business realms. That userbase allows RMS to pin another medal on his chest because of its growth (boy, do I wish that wasn't a problem). Shouldn't you at least be grateful for one of those effects?
I believe that the suggestion of CMYK support is a contribution. That's letting the developers know that there's a feature out there that, if created, would the Gimp an option. That's an extremely valuable piece of information. Why be such a snob to tell somebody that what they want doesn't matter unless they do something about it themselves?
There's plenty of reasons why people might not be contributing. If you want contributors to a project, better yet, if you want some sort of a movement, it would help to be more receptive to an end user's ideas (which should be considered contributions). Being a jerk doesn't do that.
The problem with your views on software creation, the same view held by many others in the open source world, is that you believe it's a "beggars can't be choosers" situation, with the end user being the beggar and the software developer being the chooser. In reality, the software developer is the beggar and the end user is the chooser.
If open source software wants to make some real progress, then its proponents, including you, would drop the holier than thou attitude and realize that they need to cater to what their users want.
Not everybody codes or cares to code. And nobody cares to have an asshole barking in their ear, telling them to do something about it or shut up. If you ran a project and wanted to attract users, shouldn't the implementation of wanted features be up to you?
That's why proprietary software still continues to be successful, because most proprietary companies want to satisfy their users' needs.
Well, I keep hearing talks about Microsoft being a monopoly and needing to be punished. But, what I want to know is what are they actually being punished for.
Bonus points go to who can tell me if that's good or bad.
Well, we're bound to see some more gays in video games under the political climate. It really wouldn't surprise me to see quite a few titles.
Why? Instant publicity. Your game will get mentioned in the press if you give it a decent enough initial push. Gay influence has already saturated movies, television, and music. It hasn't really been a big issue in video games (this slight mention doesn't really make it a big issue). But, if you show that it's out there, you can get the mainstream press debating like mad. Imagine Bill O'Reilly and Rosie O'Donnell debating in a knife fight.
Those debates equal massive amounts of money, and gays will buy the game just to show support over the issue. A larger company might end up boycotted by some, but that would probably blow over.
Eventually, this whole thing will die down. But, if a game company were to play their cards right, it could equal massive amounts of money.
Me, I just tape some cotton swabs to the top of my CPU fan.
It works like a charm. It takes that huge noise and makes it damn near inaudible.
In pre-MS days, Bungie had a saying "we'll release it when it's done" none of this rushing things out the door with cut features to fit with X-box marketing.
Bungie's applying their "when it's done policy" to Halo 2. It was originally slated for an April 1st release.
Actually, I'm going to steal all of his women with it. Considering that he's Nigerian, I need an extra edge...
That fucking Nigerian prince scammed me. But, I'm now ordering those penis enlargement pills that you've mentioned.
The price is going to wish he never fucked with me now!
The question is - how many nerds use Hotmail.com, and why does this non-event warrant a front page article?
First part; not many.
Second part; michael's on duty.
That downtime really blew. I couldn't read my spam.
Don't let it happen again, Microsoft.
David could totally revitalize the video game industry if he'd just learn how to code his own game. Hell, he could even be the star of his game! With a last name like Wong, just imagine the possibiliti... aw fuck it. Nevermind...
Considering that this one isn't about to blow, there's only one more we have to watch out for, that other Hilton sister.
Kodak claimed to have a case, but we'll have to wait for it to develop. But with Sony's digital technology, they were able to have instant results!
Sony wants to send their case around to all of their friends in the form of an email attachment.
Whoops, there's a blemish. Hey, no problem! All Sony had to do was whip up an editor and remove it with a few clicks of the mouse!
Now that case is ready for primetime. All they had to do was open up their favorite email program, attach the case, and send it! That's it!
Let's go back to Kodak. It looks like Kodak spilt the beans a little bit too soon, huh? They're case is still developing! Not to mention all the work that it'll take to get it ready to send out. What a hassle!
That's why the clear choice is Sony. Their case comes out looking great, and is ready for quick editing and distribution. Instant and quality! That's what Sony is all about.
Wait, anybody hear that?
Toot toot...That's a horn tooting!
Toot toot...Hey, hey... is somebody tooting their own horn?
Toot toot...
God, I swear it's coming from this post!
Lets see... one guy pisses off a buncha nerds. He's afraid of firepower?
Guess that they weren't fucking around when they called them zealots?
Developers should look at publishers as people they hire to sell the game they made.
If only they were in a position to do so. Most first time or independent developers have a very hard time getting the cash needed to finish a title. Who provides the cash? That's right, the publishers. Not only do they help get that game finished, they also provide marketing and get a game on the store shelves. Because of that, publishers get to be picky about what games they want due to the large amount of developers trying to get their attention.
Unless the world of game developers collectively decided to tell the publishers off on three, there's no way that the developer is going to become the one wearing the pants in the developer/publisher relationship. They have the power. Unless you can get your game onto a shelf and marketed without them, they always will be. But, you might just be able to become totally self-sufficient if you want to; as long as you don't believe that you'll be an industry player overnight.
Blame the spamblocker, AOL. Don't say that there was no way that email could have been forwarded.
Come on, use your heads! You could have gotten off, baby!