Frankly, this all just seems like a guy running an "organization" out of his apartment looking for publicity, which Next Generation seems all too happy to give him.
Actually, I think he's worse than that. From other articles I've read, I think he's running a company, which is trying to get publishers and governments to license their brilliant idea of a ratings system.
Now granted, Red, Yellow, Green is certainly simpler than what we have - but they can't claim it's more powerful. From the article, "The Lion King" is a *yellow*! That means that games more mature than disney movies would all be indistinguishable - and there are definitely differences between Grand Theft Auto and Manhunt, for example, not to mention between Soul Calibur and BMX XXX (all of which would be rated Red in every category, as far as I can see).
But the problem isn't with the ratings - in fact, the ESRB ratings have been recognized as the best ratings system for entertainment by the government - the problem is with the parents not understanding or reading the ratings, or perhaps not believing that any video games are meant for adults, and not for children. Something like 85% of games played by kids are purchased by parents, not by the kids.
In all the salary surveys I have seen (and I'm in the industry), $60k is not what your average Entry-level Programmer makes. The industry average is 48-49k (based on last year's Game Developer Magazine survey).
That is slightly less than the IT industry whole at something like $52k (again, last one I saw). That makes sense, though, as people are willing to take a salary hit in order to work on something they enjoy. Game QA positions make something like $8-14 an hour, while regular software QA jobs make much more.
They're open to competition and they're a matter of individual choice. Don't like Google's results? Use Yahoo!'s or Teoma's or any of the hundreds that would spring up in response.
This sounds fantastic. "My website is at Yahoo! keyword 'MyBusiness', Google keyword 'MyBuziness', and Teoma keyword 'NakedLizardSandwich'... All the good ones were taken, sorry."
Seriously, would private corporations really be better than the UN? At least in the UN there would be vigorous debate about freedom-squashing changes. At Yahoo! headquarters, they'd censor in a heartbeat for the good of the bottom line.
On O'Reilly? I think he would just tell the PA people to "shut the hell up". Seeing as Jack is a right-wing Christian lawyer trying to suppress violence and sex in a threatening new medium...
I'd rather see them on the Daily Show, which generally does a pretty good job of understanding current technology enough to see past this guy's FUD.
There would be too much risk in committing a crime like that. The engineers who wrote the code would have to be kept quiet, and everyone who knew about it. If it was discovered, it would lead to legal action and public hatred for the company.
Plus in order to write code like that, you'd have to have access to a dev kit for the competition, which are carefully controlled by the console manufacturers.
I don't think it will change TV much, actually. It's not priced right.
It might do something to the DVDs of TV shows, because it's priced more in line with those, but think about it: at $30 a month for cable, if you were to buy single shows, you could afford 15 episodes. I'd imagine that many people watch much more TV than that (although I'm not sure... At the risk of getting linked to the Onion, I'll admit I don't have a TV).
When this was announced, my first thought was "Wow, I hope they put the Daily Show on this, I really want to watch that every day!" But then I thought "wait, do I want to watch it every day to the tune of 2 bucks a day? I don't know if that's worth it..."
If it were priced a bit lower, it might have a change at competing with broadcast TV. But I think the monthly all-you-can-eat subscription model will be what most people go for.
There is one bias you'll likely see in the media, however: They will likely never report (at least not seriously) anything that reflects negatively on themselves or their parent company.
There's also one point of view that almost all news stations share, and that's a pro-corporate, pro-business bias. This means that it's very hard to find stories that reflect badly on corporate America or the status quo. Look at some stories close to Slashdotters' hearts: it's very hard to find any anti-IP people being taken seriously, or even discussed. There's no way network news types are going to talk about the greed of television executives, for example.
I would also say that this tends them (mostly) towards the republicans (pro-big-business) although sometimes towards the democrats (censorship of entertainment industry).
Yeah, the Wall Street Journal article mentions something like that. It seems like they're concerned with the musical elements, not the lyrics or the theme of the song.
Certain people seem to operate that way, but personally I relate much more to lyrics and attitude than to the exact musical elements.
So while the Grateful Dead might musically be closer to country or bluegrass than psychedelic, I would more strongly associate them with other late 60s groups like Jefferson Airplane or the Pretty Things, or even Pink Floyd, than I would Garth Brooks. Not even necessarily for anything in the music, but for the history and atmosphere surrounding them.
There was an eBook company that tried doing this...
But, of course, that robs consumers of some other important rights, like the right to resell what they've bought, or the right to lend it to a friend.
If you buy a watermarked DVD, and it's got your CC number implanted in it, are you going to sell it to a secondhand store? Or donate it to the library?
Heck, even if it's just a serial number watermark, all someone has to do is buy the DVD secondhand, with cash, and they're untracable.
What's wrong with gaming becoming 'just another thing that "cool" people do'? If you enjoy gaming, great - why is your enjoyment so dependent on how other perceive gaming? If gaming becomes "cool", are you all of a sudden not 'counter culture' enough? Are you afraid that you're friends are so shallow that they'll abandon you for, in their eyes, 'trying to be cool'?
I can't speak for the original poster, of course, but here's my problem with it: I have nothing against gaming becoming cool, but for the fact that it affects gaming and changes it from what it was. Once companies are targetting the cool people instead of the geeks, we lose out. Instead of more post-apocalyptic RPGs or space colonization games, we get more football games and urban hip-hop subculture shoot-em-ups.
Sony's target demographic is someone they're referring to as "urban nomads" - the kind of people who like modded cars, hip-hop, celebrities, and cellphones. I don't fit that demographic, and consequently, they're not making many games for me any more.
So I wish gaming had stayed the realm of D&D geeks and anime fans, because I know they'll be the ones making dragon-flying games, space conquest games, alternate-history flight sims, and turn-based war games. I like those better than gangsta games, or underground street racing games, or urban basketball games.
It's too hassle-free. People are becoming accustomed to the idea that there's protection on songs, that they don't own their music, only license it... but they see that as harmless, because it's easy to bypass.
So when the record labels force Apple to upgrade to stronger DRM, and prevent the burning/re-ripping trick, people will look at it like a closed loophole, not like a right being stripped away. They'll shrug, and say "well, it was nice while it lasted!" and buy right into the New RIAA Model.
Basically, I see iTunes DRM as the judas goat leading us into the content lockdown.
Yeah, I've been thinking about something like this for a while - more tackling the problem of litter, though.
A law that fines a company for each piece of litter found with their name on it (in addition, of course, to fining someone caught littering) would encourage companies to make biodegradable packaging, less packaging, or somehow convince their customers to throw out the trash.
I think there are a huge number of practical problems with this, but it seems like the right approach, to somehow tie the litter problem back to the bottom line.
I think the picture next to the Joystiq article says it all, really. A 30s mobster car driving past a Starbucks - just what I want to see if I'm trying to immerse myself in the world of Al Capone. Starbucks is everywhere in the present, now they're colonizing the past as well...
I don't mind ads in videogames, but there are two rules: I have to benefit somehow by seeing the ads (like a lower price for the game) and the ads have to avoid breaking the illusion. Anything else will just end up ruining the game, and making it worthless to both the player and the advertiser.
Of course, in practice this means advertising will only really be viable in modern games (unless you could cleverly work in some dystopian future where Coke-Glaxxo-Lockheed oppresses citizens. Does that still count as marketing?)
So if you're digging through some murky basement, and you stumble across a pile of ichor-splattered, hand-scrawled notes of hitherto unknown Lovecraftian ghoulishness, you can publish that in 2007.
If the horror of it doesn't drive you mad first, of course.
Hmm. I have never watched the TV show, so I don't really know what it means, but to me the term "browncoat" calls to mind the Nazi "brownshirts" more than anything else. I wince when I see it used to identify a group.
And exactly how do you think you wound up with the freedom to point out flaws and make improvements?
So because we're free to point out flaws, that means we shouldn't point out the flaws? Or that because we are free to make improvements, nothing can be improved?
Slashdot Mirror
Frankly, this all just seems like a guy running an "organization" out of his apartment looking for publicity, which Next Generation seems all too happy to give him.
Actually, I think he's worse than that. From other articles I've read, I think he's running a company, which is trying to get publishers and governments to license their brilliant idea of a ratings system.
Now granted, Red, Yellow, Green is certainly simpler than what we have - but they can't claim it's more powerful. From the article, "The Lion King" is a *yellow*! That means that games more mature than disney movies would all be indistinguishable - and there are definitely differences between Grand Theft Auto and Manhunt, for example, not to mention between Soul Calibur and BMX XXX (all of which would be rated Red in every category, as far as I can see).
But the problem isn't with the ratings - in fact, the ESRB ratings have been recognized as the best ratings system for entertainment by the government - the problem is with the parents not understanding or reading the ratings, or perhaps not believing that any video games are meant for adults, and not for children. Something like 85% of games played by kids are purchased by parents, not by the kids.
In all the salary surveys I have seen (and I'm in the industry), $60k is not what your average Entry-level Programmer makes. The industry average is 48-49k (based on last year's Game Developer Magazine survey).
That is slightly less than the IT industry whole at something like $52k (again, last one I saw). That makes sense, though, as people are willing to take a salary hit in order to work on something they enjoy. Game QA positions make something like $8-14 an hour, while regular software QA jobs make much more.
What I can't imagine is how Joe Schmoe is going to protect his PC enough so that he doesn't get comprimised by a hacker/slacker.
Or a code cracker?
They're open to competition and they're a matter of individual choice. Don't like Google's results? Use Yahoo!'s or Teoma's or any of the hundreds that would spring up in response.
This sounds fantastic. "My website is at Yahoo! keyword 'MyBusiness', Google keyword 'MyBuziness', and Teoma keyword 'NakedLizardSandwich'... All the good ones were taken, sorry."
Seriously, would private corporations really be better than the UN? At least in the UN there would be vigorous debate about freedom-squashing changes. At Yahoo! headquarters, they'd censor in a heartbeat for the good of the bottom line.
On O'Reilly? I think he would just tell the PA people to "shut the hell up". Seeing as Jack is a right-wing Christian lawyer trying to suppress violence and sex in a threatening new medium...
I'd rather see them on the Daily Show, which generally does a pretty good job of understanding current technology enough to see past this guy's FUD.
There would be too much risk in committing a crime like that. The engineers who wrote the code would have to be kept quiet, and everyone who knew about it. If it was discovered, it would lead to legal action and public hatred for the company.
Plus in order to write code like that, you'd have to have access to a dev kit for the competition, which are carefully controlled by the console manufacturers.
And not like Sony's EQ "Station" or whatever.
You can buy the game for $5, and pay $5.99 a month in subscription fees, and you'll start at level 1, with the basic items.
Or, you can pay $15 for the game and $12.99 a month and start at level 30... and so forth.
I should patent this idea. Profit!!
It's a revolution in how we'll get TV delivered.
I don't think it will change TV much, actually. It's not priced right.
It might do something to the DVDs of TV shows, because it's priced more in line with those, but think about it: at $30 a month for cable, if you were to buy single shows, you could afford 15 episodes. I'd imagine that many people watch much more TV than that (although I'm not sure... At the risk of getting linked to the Onion, I'll admit I don't have a TV).
When this was announced, my first thought was "Wow, I hope they put the Daily Show on this, I really want to watch that every day!" But then I thought "wait, do I want to watch it every day to the tune of 2 bucks a day? I don't know if that's worth it..."
If it were priced a bit lower, it might have a change at competing with broadcast TV. But I think the monthly all-you-can-eat subscription model will be what most people go for.
There is one bias you'll likely see in the media, however: They will likely never report (at least not seriously) anything that reflects negatively on themselves or their parent company.
There's also one point of view that almost all news stations share, and that's a pro-corporate, pro-business bias. This means that it's very hard to find stories that reflect badly on corporate America or the status quo. Look at some stories close to Slashdotters' hearts: it's very hard to find any anti-IP people being taken seriously, or even discussed. There's no way network news types are going to talk about the greed of television executives, for example.
I would also say that this tends them (mostly) towards the republicans (pro-big-business) although sometimes towards the democrats (censorship of entertainment industry).
Next thing you know, you're thinking about spending $500 for something where you justified the purchase because it was cheap at $100.
You're entirely right. When the Mac Mini came out, I thought "Wow, now that Apples are affordable, I really want to try out OSX!"
A few weeks later, I bought myself a $2500 PowerBook.
Damn you and your marketing, Jobs!
This would work really well... ...At changing their advertising to use weasel wording to get around the issue. The software would stay the same.
Yeah, the Wall Street Journal article mentions something like that. It seems like they're concerned with the musical elements, not the lyrics or the theme of the song.
Certain people seem to operate that way, but personally I relate much more to lyrics and attitude than to the exact musical elements.
So while the Grateful Dead might musically be closer to country or bluegrass than psychedelic, I would more strongly associate them with other late 60s groups like Jefferson Airplane or the Pretty Things, or even Pink Floyd, than I would Garth Brooks. Not even necessarily for anything in the music, but for the history and atmosphere surrounding them.
The killer app, then:
Hands-free driving.
There was an eBook company that tried doing this...
But, of course, that robs consumers of some other important rights, like the right to resell what they've bought, or the right to lend it to a friend.
If you buy a watermarked DVD, and it's got your CC number implanted in it, are you going to sell it to a secondhand store? Or donate it to the library?
Heck, even if it's just a serial number watermark, all someone has to do is buy the DVD secondhand, with cash, and they're untracable.
What's wrong with gaming becoming 'just another thing that "cool" people do'? If you enjoy gaming, great - why is your enjoyment so dependent on how other perceive gaming? If gaming becomes "cool", are you all of a sudden not 'counter culture' enough? Are you afraid that you're friends are so shallow that they'll abandon you for, in their eyes, 'trying to be cool'?
I can't speak for the original poster, of course, but here's my problem with it: I have nothing against gaming becoming cool, but for the fact that it affects gaming and changes it from what it was. Once companies are targetting the cool people instead of the geeks, we lose out. Instead of more post-apocalyptic RPGs or space colonization games, we get more football games and urban hip-hop subculture shoot-em-ups.
Sony's target demographic is someone they're referring to as "urban nomads" - the kind of people who like modded cars, hip-hop, celebrities, and cellphones. I don't fit that demographic, and consequently, they're not making many games for me any more.
So I wish gaming had stayed the realm of D&D geeks and anime fans, because I know they'll be the ones making dragon-flying games, space conquest games, alternate-history flight sims, and turn-based war games. I like those better than gangsta games, or underground street racing games, or urban basketball games.
Here's my problem with the iTunes DRM:
It's too hassle-free. People are becoming accustomed to the idea that there's protection on songs, that they don't own their music, only license it... but they see that as harmless, because it's easy to bypass.
So when the record labels force Apple to upgrade to stronger DRM, and prevent the burning/re-ripping trick, people will look at it like a closed loophole, not like a right being stripped away. They'll shrug, and say "well, it was nice while it lasted!" and buy right into the New RIAA Model.
Basically, I see iTunes DRM as the judas goat leading us into the content lockdown.
Yeah, I've been thinking about something like this for a while - more tackling the problem of litter, though.
A law that fines a company for each piece of litter found with their name on it (in addition, of course, to fining someone caught littering) would encourage companies to make biodegradable packaging, less packaging, or somehow convince their customers to throw out the trash.
I think there are a huge number of practical problems with this, but it seems like the right approach, to somehow tie the litter problem back to the bottom line.
I think the picture next to the Joystiq article says it all, really. A 30s mobster car driving past a Starbucks - just what I want to see if I'm trying to immerse myself in the world of Al Capone. Starbucks is everywhere in the present, now they're colonizing the past as well...
I don't mind ads in videogames, but there are two rules: I have to benefit somehow by seeing the ads (like a lower price for the game) and the ads have to avoid breaking the illusion. Anything else will just end up ruining the game, and making it worthless to both the player and the advertiser.
Of course, in practice this means advertising will only really be viable in modern games (unless you could cleverly work in some dystopian future where Coke-Glaxxo-Lockheed oppresses citizens. Does that still count as marketing?)
Does posting legal advice on Slashdot count towards your quota?
So, obviously, the next bunch of Al Qeidea terrorists will all have very convincing papers indicating they are heart patients.
The next batch of Al-Qaeda terrorists won't worry about airplanes.
So if you're digging through some murky basement, and you stumble across a pile of ichor-splattered, hand-scrawled notes of hitherto unknown Lovecraftian ghoulishness, you can publish that in 2007.
If the horror of it doesn't drive you mad first, of course.
Yes, my year long MPAA boycott is at an end due to Serenity.
Kudos for keeping it going for a year, but is it really a boycott if you stop the minute they make something you want to see?
You're right, SBC thinks this is a very bad idea (surprise).
;-)
However, San Francisco is a city that doesn't necessarily listen to large companies. Half the city would be *proud* to be called Communist
Hmm. I have never watched the TV show, so I don't really know what it means, but to me the term "browncoat" calls to mind the Nazi "brownshirts" more than anything else. I wince when I see it used to identify a group.
Does anyone else feel that way?
And exactly how do you think you wound up with the freedom to point out flaws and make improvements?
So because we're free to point out flaws, that means we shouldn't point out the flaws? Or that because we are free to make improvements, nothing can be improved?
Interesting.