Because then you would have some griefer blowing you off a platform every five seconds. No fun for anyone wishing to simply hang out and chat/communicate in a somewhat-stable/safe environment, which is generally what Second Life (and similar metaverses) are all about.
I agree with you -- Second Life is, in the most general sense, free. But *everything* costs something, and so users are deluged with advertisements in Second Life, just like anywhere else. Billboards everywhere, corporation's names in the Search menus of the Second Life client app.
Perhaps some of these smaller, low-cost metaverses will provide ad-free environments for those willing to pay enough? Course, that'd be a rather elite (and IMO, probably a very dull) group...
Folks are quick to criticize Second Life, which offers new technology, (many) interesting participants, a few anonymous cowards, and generally a whole lot of information. Meanwhile, the same critics spend time reading and posting on/.
Linden Labs has kept to many of their promises to users -- for example, allowing users to build and then retain the objects they create in Second Life. After all, without the users doing all this building, there wouldn't be a Second Life (or at least one worth visiting). Linden Labs has also promised -- or at least, expressed on many occasions -- a commitment to open-operability, and this is being demonstrated with their experiments with IBM and OpenSim. Yet wouldn't they be potentially cannibalizing their profits by actually *releasing* this feature to users? I mean, if users can transport their avatars and all of their assets from Second Life to other metaverses, they'll lose users. At the same time, it can be argued that this very commitment to open-operability will attract more users in much the same way that other proprietary software/service developers attract more users once they "open up" a portion of their services. (Read: Sun.)
What do you think?
Better domain names are just around the corner -- the ICANN is about to release just about any "dot" you can think of. Once that happens, domains like.us will be forgotten quickly, replaced by more memorable names. (Like.coke,.pepsi, et cetera.)
You're talking about the Milton Berle days. Television has been supported by commercial "breaks" for the majority of its programming (and of its programming years). It's disingenuous to declare that TV has in-show advertising; compared to the early decades: hardly. You'll probably agree with me here, though: we're seeing a rennaissance of in-show advertising, and it's only going to get more blatant as more folks watch television online.
Not to criticize the original poster, but the summary/opening paragraph of this article is misleading. Reading the actual article referred to reveals that the term "free" is quite loosely applied. The writer argues that the games *will* be paid for by its players -- just not *all* players. A representative of one of the game devs states, "...there'll be a charge for things you might want to use in the game...Your character might have a plain white T-shirt. If you wanted a nicer one you could have it for a dollar. Or perhaps you could buy a magic sword for a knight for a dollar."
So it appears that "piracy", or "market correction", or "downright theft" -- however you wish to deem it -- will be counterbalanced *with real money* rather than completely free games.
True; but you can't skip in-show advertising, and we're just beginning to see more and more of that. It works: some shows are even based on advertising. (See the home improvement-type of shows, for example.)
Actually, there's no reason for your getting upset, since this article explicitly denies PC games dying. Read its first sentence, "PC gaming may not be dying..."
Your evidence is appreciated, however. I'll add this one as further evidence: EGM, recognizing PC Gaming's continuing relevance, just added a new column/pages to exclusively cover PC Gaming.
Exactly. In some sense, television has reached the point where much of the bad stuff can be filtered out: we no longer have just a few networks to choose from. Gaming is going to reach that point -- perhaps it already has -- and so we won't have to put up with the bad games put out as fast as possible just to cash in on the latest comic actionmovie. Indie devs -- or smaller indie devs, like Bungie once was -- will put out better-quality games that won't require the huge numbers of buyers in order to recoup the costs of distribution.
Just like television and radio, games will find a way to make money, and offering them "free" (with advertising in-game/around the game to pay for the production and distribution) will be the forum for many (if not most games). That's how "shared games" will be counterbalanced.
I guess I misread the article, then. (No sarcasm there.) It's been a few weeks since I read it. Here's the portion, from the article, that I recall having led me to believe water was not privately owned:
"The idea that water can be sold for private gain is still considered unconscionable by many," says James M. Olson, one of America's preeminent attorneys specializing in water- and land-use law. "But the scarcity of water and the extraordinary profits that can be made may overwhelm ordinary public sensibilities."
(See http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/08_25/b4089040017753.htm for this quote in its full context.)
Apparently you failed to read my entire comment: "Though we pay taxes to the government for our tap water, we haven't yet directly paid a private owner for water." Yes, we pay for water, but we don't yet pay private owners. We're not being price-gouged in the way we could if that was the case.
Sorry for essentially posting this twice (though both posts were somewhat different). I would like to add that Pickens' plans to capitalize on wind power are the result of his failure (thus far) to capitalize on his water plan. It's about the land he owns in Texas, and has owned for some time: he's so desperate to make more money off of it that he's willing to try just about anything. First, he tried (and is still trying) to make money from the water that he's claiming to be his own (even though it's arguably not, especially considering the fact that he'd like to suck it out of the ground at a rate that will not be replaceable). Now, he's trying to make money by placing the windmills. This isn't some altruistic move; I'm not saying it's ill-intenioned, either. Yet it's clear he wants to make alot more money (or a bigger name) before he passes on.
Slashdot Mirror
They *did* get rid of the casinos, though, didn't they? And casinos was a significant source of funding for Linden Labs, wasn't it?
Because then you would have some griefer blowing you off a platform every five seconds. No fun for anyone wishing to simply hang out and chat/communicate in a somewhat-stable/safe environment, which is generally what Second Life (and similar metaverses) are all about.
I agree with you -- Second Life is, in the most general sense, free. But *everything* costs something, and so users are deluged with advertisements in Second Life, just like anywhere else. Billboards everywhere, corporation's names in the Search menus of the Second Life client app. Perhaps some of these smaller, low-cost metaverses will provide ad-free environments for those willing to pay enough? Course, that'd be a rather elite (and IMO, probably a very dull) group...
Folks are quick to criticize Second Life, which offers new technology, (many) interesting participants, a few anonymous cowards, and generally a whole lot of information. Meanwhile, the same critics spend time reading and posting on /.
Linden Labs has kept to many of their promises to users -- for example, allowing users to build and then retain the objects they create in Second Life. After all, without the users doing all this building, there wouldn't be a Second Life (or at least one worth visiting). Linden Labs has also promised -- or at least, expressed on many occasions -- a commitment to open-operability, and this is being demonstrated with their experiments with IBM and OpenSim. Yet wouldn't they be potentially cannibalizing their profits by actually *releasing* this feature to users? I mean, if users can transport their avatars and all of their assets from Second Life to other metaverses, they'll lose users. At the same time, it can be argued that this very commitment to open-operability will attract more users in much the same way that other proprietary software/service developers attract more users once they "open up" a portion of their services. (Read: Sun.) What do you think?
I guess I never thought the use of ".us" was all that clever. Either that or I'm sore I didn't think of it first!
I don't know anything about Network Services, but I sure wish they'd speed up these Tubes!
Better domain names are just around the corner -- the ICANN is about to release just about any "dot" you can think of. Once that happens, domains like .us will be forgotten quickly, replaced by more memorable names. (Like .coke, .pepsi, et cetera.)
I take it back, then. Autonomo.us is a perfect name.
Great goals, but why'd they have to go and name it something you know the morons aren't going to be able to spell? (To keep the morons out, perhaps?)
"Yeah, but you would agree that Paris is the capital of France? Wouldn't you agree to that?"
You're talking about the Milton Berle days. Television has been supported by commercial "breaks" for the majority of its programming (and of its programming years). It's disingenuous to declare that TV has in-show advertising; compared to the early decades: hardly. You'll probably agree with me here, though: we're seeing a rennaissance of in-show advertising, and it's only going to get more blatant as more folks watch television online.
Not to criticize the original poster, but the summary/opening paragraph of this article is misleading. Reading the actual article referred to reveals that the term "free" is quite loosely applied. The writer argues that the games *will* be paid for by its players -- just not *all* players. A representative of one of the game devs states, "...there'll be a charge for things you might want to use in the game...Your character might have a plain white T-shirt. If you wanted a nicer one you could have it for a dollar. Or perhaps you could buy a magic sword for a knight for a dollar." So it appears that "piracy", or "market correction", or "downright theft" -- however you wish to deem it -- will be counterbalanced *with real money* rather than completely free games.
True; but you can't skip in-show advertising, and we're just beginning to see more and more of that. It works: some shows are even based on advertising. (See the home improvement-type of shows, for example.)
Actually, there's no reason for your getting upset, since this article explicitly denies PC games dying. Read its first sentence, "PC gaming may not be dying..." Your evidence is appreciated, however. I'll add this one as further evidence: EGM, recognizing PC Gaming's continuing relevance, just added a new column/pages to exclusively cover PC Gaming.
Not a very good analogy. The wife would now have the herpes you gave her, which would make her less fun in that particular aspect of the relationship.
On point A)Windows: Exactly. Halo 2 running only on Vista? What the...? That's plain wrong, considering most of us are still running XP.
Exactly. In some sense, television has reached the point where much of the bad stuff can be filtered out: we no longer have just a few networks to choose from. Gaming is going to reach that point -- perhaps it already has -- and so we won't have to put up with the bad games put out as fast as possible just to cash in on the latest comic actionmovie. Indie devs -- or smaller indie devs, like Bungie once was -- will put out better-quality games that won't require the huge numbers of buyers in order to recoup the costs of distribution.
Just like television and radio, games will find a way to make money, and offering them "free" (with advertising in-game/around the game to pay for the production and distribution) will be the forum for many (if not most games). That's how "shared games" will be counterbalanced.
I guess I misread the article, then. (No sarcasm there.) It's been a few weeks since I read it. Here's the portion, from the article, that I recall having led me to believe water was not privately owned: "The idea that water can be sold for private gain is still considered unconscionable by many," says James M. Olson, one of America's preeminent attorneys specializing in water- and land-use law. "But the scarcity of water and the extraordinary profits that can be made may overwhelm ordinary public sensibilities." (See http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/08_25/b4089040017753.htm for this quote in its full context.)
Someone marked this as "Troll"? Okay, who has it out for me and how do I report this?
How is this Flamebait?
Yeah, I'm with you on this. The moderation here seems broken, seriously flawed.
Apparently you failed to read my entire comment: "Though we pay taxes to the government for our tap water, we haven't yet directly paid a private owner for water." Yes, we pay for water, but we don't yet pay private owners. We're not being price-gouged in the way we could if that was the case.
Sorry for essentially posting this twice (though both posts were somewhat different). I would like to add that Pickens' plans to capitalize on wind power are the result of his failure (thus far) to capitalize on his water plan. It's about the land he owns in Texas, and has owned for some time: he's so desperate to make more money off of it that he's willing to try just about anything. First, he tried (and is still trying) to make money from the water that he's claiming to be his own (even though it's arguably not, especially considering the fact that he'd like to suck it out of the ground at a rate that will not be replaceable). Now, he's trying to make money by placing the windmills. This isn't some altruistic move; I'm not saying it's ill-intenioned, either. Yet it's clear he wants to make alot more money (or a bigger name) before he passes on.