If Nintendo goes after non-traditional gamers, and brings them into the fold, Thompson could face a backlash. If gamers' mothers start being told that the Revolution that they play Pikmin 4 and Nintendogs Revolution on is nothing but a murderer simulator, they should realize that Thompson is full of it.
Converting more people to casual gamers is probably our best defense against attacks from loons.
I think whether the compliment was backhanded or not is a valid question.
When I stopped by the gas station today, I made an attempt to win the Lottery by purchasing a ticket. Whether I won or not won't be decided until after the drawing.
Nintendo has made an attempt at innovation with their controller. Until it is backed up with new, original, fun games that wouldn't be possible without it, their innovation is still an attempt. I am an openly rabid Nintendo fanboy, and I still think they have a rather large opportunity for this new controller to turn into nothing more than a gimmick.
I read it as Microsoft saying "Wow, this could be a great idea. We'll be watching."
Note: Before someone says "innovation" was already decided by the act of introducing the controller, this sort of thing has been done before. It just hasn't been done well. The innovation will be what separates it from the Power Glove and U-Force, much like the Wavebird did with wireless controllers.
If Microsoft and Sony crushed Nintendo in the console market(for the sake of argument), Nintendo would probably not just end it all and go quietly into that good night. Especially not with their library of known and beloved characters and titles. Instead, it would make sense for them to become a third-party developer for one of the two bigger systems, a la Sega.
With Sony supplying Nintendo's only worthy hand-held competition, helping them out would perhaps not be the best idea. Microsoft is already looking into starting up developing for the Gameboy & DS lines. Nintendo developing for Microsoft would simply make the most sense of the two choices, ignoring cross-platform development for the time being.
If the XBox starts packing Zelda 360, and Master Chief becomes a character in Super Smash Bros. 360, not only would MS gain Nintendo's fanboy base (of which I am a rabid, card-carrying member), but open up competition with Sony in Japan.
If I were Microsoft, smashing Nintendo first would be a pretty tempting target.
However, not doing as well as the PS2 or XBox (which I will concede) does not make the Gamecube a failure as a console. It has made its maker gobs of money, has kept Nintendo in the spotlight even after the performance of the N64.
Basically, I understand what you were trying to say, but disagree with what you actually wrote.
I'm not sure Microsoft would be overly upset if they were the only supplier of controllers, memory cards, etc.
I really can't think of any accessories that have ever influenced anyone's decision whether or not to buy a console. GBA attaching to a Gamecube, maybe? Gameshark? Eh.
Knowing what you kid is doing isn't censorship. I may be fine with my kid watching a violent movie, or playing GTA. But I would be negligent if I didn't take the time to make sure I knew what he was playing/watching.
Compare with the probability of the locally stored data being hacked.
A reputable company should have better network security than "a small, private club". With some due-dillegence in checking out the company (beyond "Ask Slashdot"), the threat of hacking shouldn't be a reason to avoid online-backups altogether.
"My policy is that I no longer sign non-compete agreements of any sort unless my company is willing to sign an agreement saying they will never find someone to replace."
I know plenty of people who say this, and I would love to be able to say this myself. I'm just not sure how well it would work in practice.
I'm a programmer. I'm up to my neck in student loans. I'm not sure I could turn down a job strictly on the basis of the non-compete clause. Maybe after another fifteen years of experience, and a legion of referals, but certainly not early in my career.
It's not "can never work again at that job." It's determined by the length of time you agree to in your non-compete clause. I have had them range from two months to six months, but they have been at every non-government programming job I have gotten, even summer internships during college.
In some cases it is useful, allowing a company to recover from a loss of a valuable and knowledgable employee (or... er... summer intern) through changing strategies, locking in opportunities the employee knew about but hadn't become contractual yet, etc. In other cases it is a cudgel weilded by a corporation to keep employees from quitting.
"Sure, you can leave, but I sure hope you have six months salary sitting around..."
Some states find the latter unfair to workers, and take steps to limit what the company can claim under non-compete clauses. And don't think that managers at companies would be above using and abusing non-compete clauses to viciously hurt ex-employees rather than to protect their own interests. Non-friendly separations can cause serious anger on both sides, and companies can be unbelievably petty.
As for it being "unconstitutional", many things that do indeed suck are still "constitutional". Even unfair things. The right to ignore contracts that you have signed is not embodied in the Bill of Rights.
And unless they tied their legal team up for the six months prior to doing this, their attack-lawyers probably re-worded the EULA to cover their butts even with the Station Exchange.
If one accepts that the wording of the EULA protects the company that writes it, then re-writing of the EULA to make sure it still protects it is both trivial and necessary.
"defeating the fun the casual player would normally get."
I don't see why this has to be the case. There are plenty of people higher level than I am. There are plenty of people with better gear than I have. There are plenty of people with better spells than I have. I still enjoy the game, because I enjoy of what I do have.
If a game company keeps griefing by the better players down, keeps the economy on a more-or-less even keel, and doesn't scale the entire game towards the +20 Sword of Ungodly Smiting weilding titans, power gamers and casual gamers can easily have fun side by side.
One of the best content additions to Everquest 2 has been the mentoring system. By grouping with a lower level friend, and choosing to mentor them, my character and all my equipment drop down to his level. I still get experience for playing, as does he, plus a slight (5%) bonus to his experience to help catch him up. Conversely, I also don't worry about 'keeping up' with other friends who made the dash to level 50.
There are still problems with it (namely my hotkey banks pointing to spells that it won't let me cast), but I am still able to have fun with my RL friends who are new to MMORPGs, or are giving up on another one*.
[*] The other one will remain nameless to try to stave off 'Troll' and 'Flamebait' moderations. =P
The person in charge of maintaining the Perl code used to have (still has?) a stuffed pumpkin they used to pass around. Project manager is a good parallel.
They also have a loyal following of extreme gamers who pay big money for their Athlong 64 FX line of chips. This will appeal to those customers.
The Intel chips are cheaper, granted, but you have to buy new hardware to support them*. The AMD ones will work with current Socket 939 boards, providing the board maker provides a bios upgrade.
[*] Or so I've heard. If I'm wrong, letting me know I'm incorrect would be appreciated.
I agree with most of what you posted, just wanted to point out one more (large) downside. Apple retains the right to change the terms of the DRM whenever they want to. If I remember correctly, they did so not too long ago, changing the number of times a playlist could be burned. Nothing major. But if they wished to, they could put draconian restrictions on the file, such as 'may only listen to it once, on an alternate Tuesday, when Jupiter is in the second house and your state has one Republican and one Democrat in the U.S. Senate'. That's a heck of a lot of control over the file that I had bought the rights to under completely different terms and conditions.
Of course, I'm a complete slave to iTunes and my iPod, so I guess I'm taking the risk anyhow.
As always, someone please correct me if I'm wrong, remembering things incorrectly, or missing something.
"Were I a consumer electronics manufacturer, I'd be lining up behind strong IP as far as I could - it would be all pro and no con, as far as I could see."
The 'pro' you list is definitely a big one, but it only works if your device is the big cheese in the marketplace. In your above example, Sony may very well want a little less IP protection for Apple. iPod's market domination is a 'con'.
The reduction in IP protection would mean anyone could ATTEMPT to compete with the iPod, and the product that gave the best balance of price and quality would emerge the victor.
Well, okay, perhaps the most trendy and well marketed.
In the article they state that the argument could be made that the Rio was never meant to hold your entire library, and therefore is not prior art. Yes, I agree, sounds like baloney.
But if a full library storage unit is needed, there's always my old employer ReQuest multimedia: http://www.request.com/us/
They ended up canning my sorry ass, but their product met all the specifications, before August 2000.
I know I'm going over what you already know, but it's also for the benefit of anyone reading the comments as well.
Yup. Answering that question would solve all the problems. In fact, framing the debate around that question makes a lot of the demagoguery and bullshit on either side dry up.
However, many of us cannot say with any confidence when they believe life begins. If you believe that life begins at conception, then the answer is very discrete and cut and dry. Sperm meets egg. Boom. Life. If you do not, it becomes very cloudy. I don't think any pro-choicer would say that a baby is not life 1 minute before the mother gives birth. Nor would any pro-choicer say that conception is life (or their arguments fall apart). Well, what about 2 minutes before birth, or when the cell has split into two cells? And so on, and so forth.
Roe V. Wade recognized that the unborn have rights. That is why abortions must be done before a certain period, and the government has the right to say you may not decide to have an abortion as you enter labor. But a time had to be set to balance the two interests. That is why regulations are allowed to protect 'fetal life' in the third trimester. A cut off point had to be chosen, and based on the data available at the time, that was the 6 month mark. Evidence now may point to consciousness, pain, or a survival instinct before the six month mark. But no one can do anything to move the mark to a more accurate place, because pro-choicers (like myself) are terrified that pro-lifers (I'm assuming like yourself) want it moved back to conception, when they believe that life begins.
A parallel may be drawn to age of consent laws. No one believes sex with a 2 year old should be legal, but people would be hard pressed to say someone seventeen years, eleven months, and thirty days old would be any less capable of deciding whether or not to have sex than he or she would the next day on their 18th birthday. And because of this, very few people can tell you a specific, legally valid time when all individuals are mature enough for sex. But a law MUST be in place for protection of those on the ends of the spectrum. A cut off point must exist. Now many lawmakers may not have a belief in place of exactly when that is, but I'm guessing all of them have beliefs in place telling you when it is not.
In an ideal world, a panel of the most distinguished doctors and scientists would come together on a regular basis, and using all available hard, scientific data, put together a picture of when life actually begins. I would trust them a lot more than I would a bunch of politicians.
Long story short, in defense of your lawmakers, sometimes admitting that you just don't know, but doing what you feel is right is a good sign. I would be a little nervous if they all gave hard, concrete times.
Preface: Your point to the grandparent poster about these being adult stem cells, and Bush comments not having any bearing on this conversation are correct. I'm not trying to argue against them. Having said that, here's why many of us don't see his decision as "Wisdom". There goes my karma. *sigh*
Someone has their (rare typed) blood stored for a surgical procedure. There is less bleeding than predicted. Would it be morally wrong for the excess blood (with the patient's permission) to be moved to the local blood bank, for other people with the rare blood type, instead of disposed of as medical waste? Many of the fetuses that would be used in this situation come from fertility clinics whose patients have moved on, and have no more use for the embryos. Those of us who do NOT believe that life begins at conception, but rather later in gestation, see the fetuses as portions of the woman's body, more like blood cells than individuals. And they are cells that are to be destroyed anyway. Denying Federal funds to scientists whose research uses these cells is a problem for us.
You may disagree with me, and that's fine. But hopefully you'll have a better idea where we're coming from.
Slashdot Mirror
That could be fantastic for OUR side.
If Nintendo goes after non-traditional gamers, and brings them into the fold, Thompson could face a backlash. If gamers' mothers start being told that the Revolution that they play Pikmin 4 and Nintendogs Revolution on is nothing but a murderer simulator, they should realize that Thompson is full of it.
Converting more people to casual gamers is probably our best defense against attacks from loons.
I think whether the compliment was backhanded or not is a valid question.
When I stopped by the gas station today, I made an attempt to win the Lottery by purchasing a ticket. Whether I won or not won't be decided until after the drawing.
Nintendo has made an attempt at innovation with their controller. Until it is backed up with new, original, fun games that wouldn't be possible without it, their innovation is still an attempt. I am an openly rabid Nintendo fanboy, and I still think they have a rather large opportunity for this new controller to turn into nothing more than a gimmick.
I read it as Microsoft saying "Wow, this could be a great idea. We'll be watching."
Note: Before someone says "innovation" was already decided by the act of introducing the controller, this sort of thing has been done before. It just hasn't been done well. The innovation will be what separates it from the Power Glove and U-Force, much like the Wavebird did with wireless controllers.
If Microsoft and Sony crushed Nintendo in the console market(for the sake of argument), Nintendo would probably not just end it all and go quietly into that good night. Especially not with their library of known and beloved characters and titles. Instead, it would make sense for them to become a third-party developer for one of the two bigger systems, a la Sega.
With Sony supplying Nintendo's only worthy hand-held competition, helping them out would perhaps not be the best idea. Microsoft is already looking into starting up developing for the Gameboy & DS lines. Nintendo developing for Microsoft would simply make the most sense of the two choices, ignoring cross-platform development for the time being.
If the XBox starts packing Zelda 360, and Master Chief becomes a character in Super Smash Bros. 360, not only would MS gain Nintendo's fanboy base (of which I am a rabid, card-carrying member), but open up competition with Sony in Japan.
If I were Microsoft, smashing Nintendo first would be a pretty tempting target.
Well, this was a single quarter.
However, not doing as well as the PS2 or XBox (which I will concede) does not make the Gamecube a failure as a console. It has made its maker gobs of money, has kept Nintendo in the spotlight even after the performance of the N64.
Basically, I understand what you were trying to say, but disagree with what you actually wrote.
You've obviously not spent a week on the couch because you missed a heal, or aggroed a second mob.
If the licensing fee is too high, then nothing.
However, there is probably room for a "sweet spot" where the licensing fee is less than the cost of reverse engineering a work-around.
Heh, of course, then you get into the cost of putting the protection into the peripheral in the first place.
I'm not sure Microsoft would be overly upset if they were the only supplier of controllers, memory cards, etc.
I really can't think of any accessories that have ever influenced anyone's decision whether or not to buy a console. GBA attaching to a Gamecube, maybe? Gameshark? Eh.
Knowing what you kid is doing isn't censorship. I may be fine with my kid watching a violent movie, or playing GTA. But I would be negligent if I didn't take the time to make sure I knew what he was playing/watching.
Compare with the probability of the locally stored data being hacked.
A reputable company should have better network security than "a small, private club". With some due-dillegence in checking out the company (beyond "Ask Slashdot"), the threat of hacking shouldn't be a reason to avoid online-backups altogether.
"My policy is that I no longer sign non-compete agreements of any sort unless my company is willing to sign an agreement saying they will never find someone to replace."
I know plenty of people who say this, and I would love to be able to say this myself. I'm just not sure how well it would work in practice.
I'm a programmer. I'm up to my neck in student loans. I'm not sure I could turn down a job strictly on the basis of the non-compete clause. Maybe after another fifteen years of experience, and a legion of referals, but certainly not early in my career.
One of the reasons it's almost always a good idea to base your bare-minimum emergency savings on the length of your non-compete clause.
It's not "can never work again at that job." It's determined by the length of time you agree to in your non-compete clause. I have had them range from two months to six months, but they have been at every non-government programming job I have gotten, even summer internships during college.
In some cases it is useful, allowing a company to recover from a loss of a valuable and knowledgable employee (or... er... summer intern) through changing strategies, locking in opportunities the employee knew about but hadn't become contractual yet, etc. In other cases it is a cudgel weilded by a corporation to keep employees from quitting.
"Sure, you can leave, but I sure hope you have six months salary sitting around..."
Some states find the latter unfair to workers, and take steps to limit what the company can claim under non-compete clauses. And don't think that managers at companies would be above using and abusing non-compete clauses to viciously hurt ex-employees rather than to protect their own interests. Non-friendly separations can cause serious anger on both sides, and companies can be unbelievably petty.
As for it being "unconstitutional", many things that do indeed suck are still "constitutional". Even unfair things. The right to ignore contracts that you have signed is not embodied in the Bill of Rights.
And unless they tied their legal team up for the six months prior to doing this, their attack-lawyers probably re-worded the EULA to cover their butts even with the Station Exchange.
If one accepts that the wording of the EULA protects the company that writes it, then re-writing of the EULA to make sure it still protects it is both trivial and necessary.
"defeating the fun the casual player would normally get."
I don't see why this has to be the case. There are plenty of people higher level than I am. There are plenty of people with better gear than I have. There are plenty of people with better spells than I have. I still enjoy the game, because I enjoy of what I do have.
If a game company keeps griefing by the better players down, keeps the economy on a more-or-less even keel, and doesn't scale the entire game towards the +20 Sword of Ungodly Smiting weilding titans, power gamers and casual gamers can easily have fun side by side.
One of the best content additions to Everquest 2 has been the mentoring system. By grouping with a lower level friend, and choosing to mentor them, my character and all my equipment drop down to his level. I still get experience for playing, as does he, plus a slight (5%) bonus to his experience to help catch him up. Conversely, I also don't worry about 'keeping up' with other friends who made the dash to level 50.
There are still problems with it (namely my hotkey banks pointing to spells that it won't let me cast), but I am still able to have fun with my RL friends who are new to MMORPGs, or are giving up on another one*.
[*] The other one will remain nameless to try to stave off 'Troll' and 'Flamebait' moderations. =P
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/thebeat?bid=1&pid=4 246
Disclaimer: The Nation is a left-wing magazine. But at the bottom is a listing of rulings where O'Connor has been the swing vote in a 5-4 decision.
The person in charge of maintaining the Perl code used to have (still has?) a stuffed pumpkin they used to pass around. Project manager is a good parallel.
They also have a loyal following of extreme gamers who pay big money for their Athlong 64 FX line of chips. This will appeal to those customers.
The Intel chips are cheaper, granted, but you have to buy new hardware to support them*. The AMD ones will work with current Socket 939 boards, providing the board maker provides a bios upgrade.
[*] Or so I've heard. If I'm wrong, letting me know I'm incorrect would be appreciated.
Fortunately downloading a library of video games is coming soon anyway. Thank you, Nintendo Revolution.
Now if only they price the games/service competitively. . .
Hmmm...I wonder how a censored pr0n movie will be like
Short.
I agree with most of what you posted, just wanted to point out one more (large) downside. Apple retains the right to change the terms of the DRM whenever they want to. If I remember correctly, they did so not too long ago, changing the number of times a playlist could be burned. Nothing major. But if they wished to, they could put draconian restrictions on the file, such as 'may only listen to it once, on an alternate Tuesday, when Jupiter is in the second house and your state has one Republican and one Democrat in the U.S. Senate'. That's a heck of a lot of control over the file that I had bought the rights to under completely different terms and conditions.
Of course, I'm a complete slave to iTunes and my iPod, so I guess I'm taking the risk anyhow.
As always, someone please correct me if I'm wrong, remembering things incorrectly, or missing something.
"Were I a consumer electronics manufacturer, I'd be lining up behind strong IP as far as I could - it would be all pro and no con, as far as I could see."
The 'pro' you list is definitely a big one, but it only works if your device is the big cheese in the marketplace. In your above example, Sony may very well want a little less IP protection for Apple. iPod's market domination is a 'con'.
The reduction in IP protection would mean anyone could ATTEMPT to compete with the iPod, and the product that gave the best balance of price and quality would emerge the victor.
Well, okay, perhaps the most trendy and well marketed.
In the article they state that the argument could be made that the Rio was never meant to hold your entire library, and therefore is not prior art. Yes, I agree, sounds like baloney.
But if a full library storage unit is needed, there's always my old employer ReQuest multimedia: http://www.request.com/us/
They ended up canning my sorry ass, but their product met all the specifications, before August 2000.
I know I'm going over what you already know, but it's also for the benefit of anyone reading the comments as well.
Yup. Answering that question would solve all the problems. In fact, framing the debate around that question makes a lot of the demagoguery and bullshit on either side dry up.
However, many of us cannot say with any confidence when they believe life begins. If you believe that life begins at conception, then the answer is very discrete and cut and dry. Sperm meets egg. Boom. Life. If you do not, it becomes very cloudy. I don't think any pro-choicer would say that a baby is not life 1 minute before the mother gives birth. Nor would any pro-choicer say that conception is life (or their arguments fall apart). Well, what about 2 minutes before birth, or when the cell has split into two cells? And so on, and so forth.
Roe V. Wade recognized that the unborn have rights. That is why abortions must be done before a certain period, and the government has the right to say you may not decide to have an abortion as you enter labor. But a time had to be set to balance the two interests. That is why regulations are allowed to protect 'fetal life' in the third trimester. A cut off point had to be chosen, and based on the data available at the time, that was the 6 month mark. Evidence now may point to consciousness, pain, or a survival instinct before the six month mark. But no one can do anything to move the mark to a more accurate place, because pro-choicers (like myself) are terrified that pro-lifers (I'm assuming like yourself) want it moved back to conception, when they believe that life begins.
A parallel may be drawn to age of consent laws. No one believes sex with a 2 year old should be legal, but people would be hard pressed to say someone seventeen years, eleven months, and thirty days old would be any less capable of deciding whether or not to have sex than he or she would the next day on their 18th birthday. And because of this, very few people can tell you a specific, legally valid time when all individuals are mature enough for sex. But a law MUST be in place for protection of those on the ends of the spectrum. A cut off point must exist. Now many lawmakers may not have a belief in place of exactly when that is, but I'm guessing all of them have beliefs in place telling you when it is not.
In an ideal world, a panel of the most distinguished doctors and scientists would come together on a regular basis, and using all available hard, scientific data, put together a picture of when life actually begins. I would trust them a lot more than I would a bunch of politicians.
Long story short, in defense of your lawmakers, sometimes admitting that you just don't know, but doing what you feel is right is a good sign. I would be a little nervous if they all gave hard, concrete times.
Preface: Your point to the grandparent poster about these being adult stem cells, and Bush comments not having any bearing on this conversation are correct. I'm not trying to argue against them. Having said that, here's why many of us don't see his decision as "Wisdom". There goes my karma. *sigh*
Someone has their (rare typed) blood stored for a surgical procedure. There is less bleeding than predicted. Would it be morally wrong for the excess blood (with the patient's permission) to be moved to the local blood bank, for other people with the rare blood type, instead of disposed of as medical waste? Many of the fetuses that would be used in this situation come from fertility clinics whose patients have moved on, and have no more use for the embryos. Those of us who do NOT believe that life begins at conception, but rather later in gestation, see the fetuses as portions of the woman's body, more like blood cells than individuals. And they are cells that are to be destroyed anyway. Denying Federal funds to scientists whose research uses these cells is a problem for us.
You may disagree with me, and that's fine. But hopefully you'll have a better idea where we're coming from.