You make some valid points, but I think the unlockables the article was referring to are the other kind - where certain content is disabled not because of story concerns, or because the game isn't a "sandbox", but arbitrarily[1]. A prime example of this is racing or fighting games, where you have to beat certain times or characters in order to unlock playable cars, tracks, or arenas.
This works fine for hardcore gamers who are going to play every ouce of the game anyway, but for casual players it sucks. They bought a racing game so they could drive a Porsche through downtown Tokyo, only to discover they need to drive a Tercel for 49 races in order to unlock the Porsche, and that they have to make it around Denver in 14 seconds before they're allowed to race in Tokyo.
[1] Of course, the things you're talking about are pretty arbitrary too, but in a different way.
I wish more game store employees were like you. I have seen many employees sell games to parents with kids in tow, as well as to the kids themselves.
One conversation: Clerk: "Can I see your ID?" Teenager: "Uhh, I don't have it on me." Clerk: "Well... Are you 18?" Teenager: "Yeah." Clerk: "Well, ok, I guess you can buy it."
It almost made me wish there WERE a legal requirement to check ages. These store clerks are hurting the game industry far more than anyone else. I work for a game company, and I know that the target market _really is_ 18-35 year olds. They're the ones with money!
Of course, the root problem, as others have mentioned, is that parents think of video games as being primarily or exclusively for kids. It's like that case in Texas where a porn store got in trouble for selling a pornographic comic book to an adult - because everyone knows comics are meant for kids!
It's a bit like someone taking an enormous number of ketchup packets from a Burger King in order to have ketchup in his house, rather than using them on the fries he didn't buy there.
Burger King and FedEx made a business decision when they allowed people to take as many ketchup packets or boxes as they liked. Whoever made the decision thought that the loss of profit from ketchup or box freeloaders was worth the good will and lack of enforcement cost. If it turns out that's not true, then they have a recourse: change the policy; either for everyone or just for those people abusing it.
If you want to put a big box of ketchup packets out so that you don't have to pay someone to hand it to your customers every time they ask, you have to accept the tradeoffs.
The one that's currently giving Apple a run for its money is the iAudio series - they beat iPods hands down on features, but might suffer somewhat from usability and looks (of course that's subjective).
There's also the iRiver players, and Samsung makes several. Of course, the best player is still the Rio Karma, since they're the only company who has managed to figure out gapless playback...
I've actually been surprised lately at all the Ogg-supporting players coming out of South Korea (which seems to be the center for portable MP3 players). In light of this article, it makes sense though.
The thing that annoys me most about it is that it totally ignores the most basic facts of economics. It's obvious that the cheaper things are, the more people are going to buy it. This approaches infinity as the price approaches free. But rather than looking along that scale, the studios assume (well, probably not in reality, but they pretend to believe) that every downloader would be just as happy to pay 20 dollars for the disc.
It's like a kid setting up a lemonade stand. He sells 10 glasses one day, for 50 cents each, so the next day he charges a million dollars a glass. Obviously he'll make ten million dollars, since ten people are willing to buy his lemonade!
In reality, I think the sales of movies would go up only slightly if piracy were non-existant. I'm sure the movie studios have done extensive research to find the "sweet spot" to maximize sale price, and I'm sure they actually know how much money they're really losing. It's probably a closely-guarded secret.
Actually, intelligent design is taught in a number of philosophy classes, and rightfully so. NOt because it is correct, but because it is an important part of the philosophical history.
Many classes read Paley's "Watchmaker" essay, and other pieces that argue for intelligent design - it even has a formal name: the Cosmological Argument. Darwin essentially destroyed the formal argument behind it, though, since it relied on intelligence being the _only_ means for complexity to arise.
However, pre-Darwin it was considered a very strong argument, and a number of philosophers wrote about it.
I wouldn't say America, more like those stuck up Holier-Than-Thou retards at the ratings board.
Just to clear this up: There is no "ratings board" per se; what the ESRB does is get a panel of regular citizens (parents even, I think) and shows them the worst content in the game, as well as representative gameplay. Then these people tell the ESRB what the game should be rated. There's no single panel of "experts" or anything, it's just regular people with no ties to the gaming industry.
Oh, and do not blame the GTA deal on Prez. Shrub. He is not turning those gears in motion. Blame the nanny-state liberals for this one.
You're absolutely right, and I'm glad you put in the "nanny-state" qualifier. However, I'd like to point out that most liberals are socially libertarian. The people who danced around naked in the Summer of Love and the folks who brought us the sexual revolution are about as liberal as you can get.
This just shows once again that the Democrats are not REAL liberals. I suspect they would have more success if they were. I'm not really sure what to call soccer-mom puritanism - vote-whoring comes closest, I guess.
Exactly - Science is _supposed_ to be proven wrong. And "inaccuracy" can mean a lot of things - if a study finds a 12% increase in X, and then is amended to an 11% increase, was the first study inaccurate?
I can't help but feel that the wording and purpose of this story is to further cast doubt on science as a method, as part of the ongoing US crusade against science. It's all just a theory, after all!
Right, only rich people should be able to watch TV. Those poor people need to get off their butts and breathe some fresh air, maybe get a better job.
Well, honestly... I'd gladly vote for a program to subsidize PCs and Internet access for everyone, but TV? TV is by no stretch of the imagination educational, or anything other than entertainment. So yes, it is a luxury, and only those people who can afford it should be able to have it. Just like sports cars or caviar.
On the face of it this looks perfect for BitTorrent and other "legitimate" tools. Except... the Supreme Court left it up to the lower courts to make the decision about whether something was promoted for infringing uses.
If the MPAA went after Bram Cohen, alleging that he promoted his software for infringing uses, do you think that Cohen would have the money to fight their lawyers in that case? Or would he be more likely to just settle to avoid the hassle?
If any small software company or individual hacker were thinking about making a new file-sharing app, or CD-ripping program, or mp3 encoder, or DVD backup tool... DO you think they will take the chance, knowing that even if they pass the test, they will have to pay thousands in legal fees to fight some of the biggest companies in the US?
This ruling is another victory for big business. It means Sony and Toshiba and Pioneer will be able to make CD burners still, and Apple will be able to make iPods, but it means a linux hacker working in their basement will be essentially prevented from making any software that could potentially be seen as infringing.
Of course, it won't stop the people who actually want to enable piracy, they can just release pseudo-anonymously, the way they always have (Cracked by Razor911!).
I think it'll have a terrible effect on hobbyist software developers and small companies.
Consoles also have GPUs. ATI and Nvidia supplied current-generation consoles with their chipsets, so a lot of GPU programming techniques would be useful on current-generation consoles. Also, next generation consoles are also going to use graphics hardware by ATI and nVidia. Sony has already said the PS3 is going to use Cg (which is what this book focuses on).
But you're right that only the graphics team needs to worry about shaders, unless (as discussed in the review) other areas start to use the GPU for general programming.
If I were in the market for a copy of Windows, I'd go to one of those obviously-shady sites, given them 19.99 or whatever, and then turn them in. I get Genuine Windows(tm) at Haxx0red Windows(tm) prices!
I guess it's worth it to MS, though - a free OS for one less shady business is a good deal.
The other interesting thing about GreenCine is that they offer VOD titles. Some titles are _only_ VOD. Unfortunately, it's a DRM-encumbered timebomb-type VOD, but it's kind of cool. They release a lot of independent movies that way (that don't have DVD releases.) They're also doing an online-only film festival right now.
He's mostly wrong, but he's right about one thing: the modern gaming industry is driven by graphical improvements, much like the software industry is driven by processing power improvements. Once the upper limit in graphics is reached, games will have to find a new way to appeal to people.
However, I think there's a lot of people trying to do that already. Nintendo is the most high-profile, but a lot of people are trying to find new ways of approaching game development. And even if they didn't, all Grand Theft Auto sequels are selling very well, even though they dont really have any graphical improvements from GTAIII.
Before you get your undies in a bundle, I know that "Champions" is not a particularly complex game - I bring it up because it is, in style, very similar to Baldur's Gate (mentioned in numerous other comments) which is often bronzed and placed on a pedestal by CRPG enthusiasts (until it is no longer vogue).
Just to nitpick a little here - I think what you mean is that Champions of Norrath is similar to Baldur's Gate: *Dark Alliance* which is a very different game from the original Baldur's Gate. Baldur's Gate is the closest I've ever seen a game come to being D&D. Dark Alliance is just an attempt to market the name on consoles, with console-style gameplay.
No one has agreed to the trade-off between content and ads, not even implicitly. It's a gamble on the part of the business owners, like many other things. Many stores and restaurants give out free samples, in the _hopes_ that people who were lured in will buy their product. If you don't buy anything, you're not breaking a "contract", it's just that their gamble didn't pay off.
If a business decides that they can lower the price of their product by including ads, that's a business decision that carries some risk. It's not a requirement that consumers must follow. If a business came up with the idea that they'd give a free car to everyone who came into their ice-cream store, they'd go broke. That's not "breaking a social contract", that's bad planning.
Good luck getting inspectors into places in the US. If only there were someone with a camera with enough balls/stupidity/both to try that out? Michael Moore anyone?
He already did. On an episode of The Awful Truth he went around trying to be a "weapons inspector" for the US. It's an interesting and entertaining show, if you're looking for some of his work. Not as good as his more recent movies, but he makes some strong arguments sometimes.
Heh. I know you guys are being informative, but I love seeing these physics-dick-size contests! The poster whips out his 8 inch and is beat down by the 10 inch optics guy. It's great.
Can you expand on this a bit? I'm confused as to how releveling implies high powers. Are you saying that the need for additional power input in order to improve the eye is prohibitive? Are you talking power input or optical power density?
Slashdot Mirror
You make some valid points, but I think the unlockables the article was referring to are the other kind - where certain content is disabled not because of story concerns, or because the game isn't a "sandbox", but arbitrarily[1]. A prime example of this is racing or fighting games, where you have to beat certain times or characters in order to unlock playable cars, tracks, or arenas.
This works fine for hardcore gamers who are going to play every ouce of the game anyway, but for casual players it sucks. They bought a racing game so they could drive a Porsche through downtown Tokyo, only to discover they need to drive a Tercel for 49 races in order to unlock the Porsche, and that they have to make it around Denver in 14 seconds before they're allowed to race in Tokyo.
[1] Of course, the things you're talking about are pretty arbitrary too, but in a different way.
I wish more game store employees were like you. I have seen many employees sell games to parents with kids in tow, as well as to the kids themselves.
One conversation:
Clerk: "Can I see your ID?"
Teenager: "Uhh, I don't have it on me."
Clerk: "Well... Are you 18?"
Teenager: "Yeah."
Clerk: "Well, ok, I guess you can buy it."
It almost made me wish there WERE a legal requirement to check ages. These store clerks are hurting the game industry far more than anyone else. I work for a game company, and I know that the target market _really is_ 18-35 year olds. They're the ones with money!
Of course, the root problem, as others have mentioned, is that parents think of video games as being primarily or exclusively for kids. It's like that case in Texas where a porn store got in trouble for selling a pornographic comic book to an adult - because everyone knows comics are meant for kids!
and designs like my favorite, BREST
Slashdot poll: Your favorite nuclear reactor?
A) Pebble-bed
B) Thorium
C) Conventional
D) Breasts
It's a bit like someone taking an enormous number of ketchup packets from a Burger King in order to have ketchup in his house, rather than using them on the fries he didn't buy there.
Burger King and FedEx made a business decision when they allowed people to take as many ketchup packets or boxes as they liked. Whoever made the decision thought that the loss of profit from ketchup or box freeloaders was worth the good will and lack of enforcement cost. If it turns out that's not true, then they have a recourse: change the policy; either for everyone or just for those people abusing it.
If you want to put a big box of ketchup packets out so that you don't have to pay someone to hand it to your customers every time they ask, you have to accept the tradeoffs.
(I mean do other companies actually sit around in high backed chairs and think of how to "do evil"?)
Have you ever had dealings with a credit card company?
Just askin'.
The one that's currently giving Apple a run for its money is the iAudio series - they beat iPods hands down on features, but might suffer somewhat from usability and looks (of course that's subjective).
There's also the iRiver players, and Samsung makes several. Of course, the best player is still the Rio Karma, since they're the only company who has managed to figure out gapless playback...
I've actually been surprised lately at all the Ogg-supporting players coming out of South Korea (which seems to be the center for portable MP3 players). In light of this article, it makes sense though.
The thing that annoys me most about it is that it totally ignores the most basic facts of economics. It's obvious that the cheaper things are, the more people are going to buy it. This approaches infinity as the price approaches free. But rather than looking along that scale, the studios assume (well, probably not in reality, but they pretend to believe) that every downloader would be just as happy to pay 20 dollars for the disc.
It's like a kid setting up a lemonade stand. He sells 10 glasses one day, for 50 cents each, so the next day he charges a million dollars a glass. Obviously he'll make ten million dollars, since ten people are willing to buy his lemonade!
In reality, I think the sales of movies would go up only slightly if piracy were non-existant. I'm sure the movie studios have done extensive research to find the "sweet spot" to maximize sale price, and I'm sure they actually know how much money they're really losing. It's probably a closely-guarded secret.
Eclipse is great for Java development, but setting it up for C++ is a pain - especially compared to VS.
Actually, intelligent design is taught in a number of philosophy classes, and rightfully so. NOt because it is correct, but because it is an important part of the philosophical history.
Many classes read Paley's "Watchmaker" essay, and other pieces that argue for intelligent design - it even has a formal name: the Cosmological Argument. Darwin essentially destroyed the formal argument behind it, though, since it relied on intelligence being the _only_ means for complexity to arise.
However, pre-Darwin it was considered a very strong argument, and a number of philosophers wrote about it.
So philosophy class? Yes. Science class? No.
I wouldn't say America, more like those stuck up Holier-Than-Thou retards at the ratings board.
Just to clear this up: There is no "ratings board" per se; what the ESRB does is get a panel of regular citizens (parents even, I think) and shows them the worst content in the game, as well as representative gameplay. Then these people tell the ESRB what the game should be rated. There's no single panel of "experts" or anything, it's just regular people with no ties to the gaming industry.
Oh, and do not blame the GTA deal on Prez. Shrub. He is not turning those gears in motion. Blame the nanny-state liberals for this one.
You're absolutely right, and I'm glad you put in the "nanny-state" qualifier. However, I'd like to point out that most liberals are socially libertarian. The people who danced around naked in the Summer of Love and the folks who brought us the sexual revolution are about as liberal as you can get.
This just shows once again that the Democrats are not REAL liberals. I suspect they would have more success if they were. I'm not really sure what to call soccer-mom puritanism - vote-whoring comes closest, I guess.
Exactly - Science is _supposed_ to be proven wrong. And "inaccuracy" can mean a lot of things - if a study finds a 12% increase in X, and then is amended to an 11% increase, was the first study inaccurate?
I can't help but feel that the wording and purpose of this story is to further cast doubt on science as a method, as part of the ongoing US crusade against science. It's all just a theory, after all!
Right, only rich people should be able to watch TV. Those poor people need to get off their butts and breathe some fresh air, maybe get a better job.
Well, honestly... I'd gladly vote for a program to subsidize PCs and Internet access for everyone, but TV? TV is by no stretch of the imagination educational, or anything other than entertainment. So yes, it is a luxury, and only those people who can afford it should be able to have it. Just like sports cars or caviar.
On the face of it this looks perfect for BitTorrent and other "legitimate" tools. Except... the Supreme Court left it up to the lower courts to make the decision about whether something was promoted for infringing uses.
If the MPAA went after Bram Cohen, alleging that he promoted his software for infringing uses, do you think that Cohen would have the money to fight their lawyers in that case? Or would he be more likely to just settle to avoid the hassle?
If any small software company or individual hacker were thinking about making a new file-sharing app, or CD-ripping program, or mp3 encoder, or DVD backup tool... DO you think they will take the chance, knowing that even if they pass the test, they will have to pay thousands in legal fees to fight some of the biggest companies in the US?
This ruling is another victory for big business. It means Sony and Toshiba and Pioneer will be able to make CD burners still, and Apple will be able to make iPods, but it means a linux hacker working in their basement will be essentially prevented from making any software that could potentially be seen as infringing.
Of course, it won't stop the people who actually want to enable piracy, they can just release pseudo-anonymously, the way they always have (Cracked by Razor911!).
I think it'll have a terrible effect on hobbyist software developers and small companies.
Consoles also have GPUs. ATI and Nvidia supplied current-generation consoles with their chipsets, so a lot of GPU programming techniques would be useful on current-generation consoles. Also, next generation consoles are also going to use graphics hardware by ATI and nVidia. Sony has already said the PS3 is going to use Cg (which is what this book focuses on).
But you're right that only the graphics team needs to worry about shaders, unless (as discussed in the review) other areas start to use the GPU for general programming.
Nevermind, it's just an OCR error or typo of some kind.
I think the "dots per second" is probably supposed to be dot-product operations per second.
If I were in the market for a copy of Windows, I'd go to one of those obviously-shady sites, given them 19.99 or whatever, and then turn them in. I get Genuine Windows(tm) at Haxx0red Windows(tm) prices!
I guess it's worth it to MS, though - a free OS for one less shady business is a good deal.
The other interesting thing about GreenCine is that they offer VOD titles. Some titles are _only_ VOD. Unfortunately, it's a DRM-encumbered timebomb-type VOD, but it's kind of cool. They release a lot of independent movies that way (that don't have DVD releases.) They're also doing an online-only film festival right now.
He's mostly wrong, but he's right about one thing: the modern gaming industry is driven by graphical improvements, much like the software industry is driven by processing power improvements. Once the upper limit in graphics is reached, games will have to find a new way to appeal to people.
However, I think there's a lot of people trying to do that already. Nintendo is the most high-profile, but a lot of people are trying to find new ways of approaching game development. And even if they didn't, all Grand Theft Auto sequels are selling very well, even though they dont really have any graphical improvements from GTAIII.
Before you get your undies in a bundle, I know that "Champions" is not a particularly complex game - I bring it up because it is, in style, very similar to Baldur's Gate (mentioned in numerous other comments) which is often bronzed and placed on a pedestal by CRPG enthusiasts (until it is no longer vogue).
Just to nitpick a little here - I think what you mean is that Champions of Norrath is similar to Baldur's Gate: *Dark Alliance* which is a very different game from the original Baldur's Gate. Baldur's Gate is the closest I've ever seen a game come to being D&D. Dark Alliance is just an attempt to market the name on consoles, with console-style gameplay.
No one has agreed to the trade-off between content and ads, not even implicitly. It's a gamble on the part of the business owners, like many other things. Many stores and restaurants give out free samples, in the _hopes_ that people who were lured in will buy their product. If you don't buy anything, you're not breaking a "contract", it's just that their gamble didn't pay off.
If a business decides that they can lower the price of their product by including ads, that's a business decision that carries some risk. It's not a requirement that consumers must follow. If a business came up with the idea that they'd give a free car to everyone who came into their ice-cream store, they'd go broke. That's not "breaking a social contract", that's bad planning.
"Your failed business model is NOT MY PROBLEM."
Good luck getting inspectors into places in the US.
If only there were someone with a camera with enough balls/stupidity/both to try that out? Michael Moore anyone?
He already did. On an episode of The Awful Truth he went around trying to be a "weapons inspector" for the US. It's an interesting and entertaining show, if you're looking for some of his work. Not as good as his more recent movies, but he makes some strong arguments sometimes.
Heh. I know you guys are being informative, but I love seeing these physics-dick-size contests! The poster whips out his 8 inch and is beat down by the 10 inch optics guy. It's great.
Can you expand on this a bit? I'm confused as to how releveling implies high powers. Are you saying that the need for additional power input in order to improve the eye is prohibitive? Are you talking power input or optical power density?
Oh, SNAP!
Hehe.
Or you could just check Slashdot today.