If I want to buy laundry soap, I can buy almost every brand at almost every store.
If I want to buy, say, a video game -- I can only buy certain ones at certain places. Unlike buying groceries, I can't just take them home and use them however. So you end up requiring an account and a running installed client for Steam, Origin, GOG, D2D, Impulse, Green Man Gaming, Beamdog, Desura, etc. It's a fucking mess and it only is a problem because every mother fucker wants to be the god damn distribution king, at the expense of just making something and selling it everywhere people want to sell and buy it.
I expect more remote control toys to Mars, nothing to any other planet, and no men to anywhere (except maybe back to the moon) for the rest of my life time. As a country, the US stopped giving a shit a very long time ago.
You realize that NASA has averaged only about $18b/yr for the last 56 years -- in current dollars, right? In more than half a century, they haven't even crossed the trillion dollar mark -- a thing we've done with the "war on terror" many times over. It accounts for something like 0.008% of the budget. While I'm all for needless small things getting cut (and big ones), the return on the trivial amount spent is massive and responsible for much of our economic and technological advancement of the last forty years.
I thought it meant they had finally stopped entertaining the self-delusions of 80% of the geeks out there who run around claiming to have asperger's, like they were a super model dropping names of rock-stars they've hung out with.
Agreed. Whining teachers who got into a shitty career when it was shitty and spend the majority of their career telling everyone about how shitty their career is -- is an actual problem.
I probably won't get my SS, either. It'll end up being a nice little extra $350k (not counting interest and investment over the years) to the government and, then, to someone else. Only difference is I actually had to pay into it.
The civics of, say, giving teachers in Portland a pension at 105% of the income they retired at, per year, with "PERS" that essentially bankrupted the education system?
There's a (not necessarily too) fine line between education and indoctrination.
I really hope that the more successful projects don't succumb to an overwhelming need to meet the "estimated delivery date" of their crowd-funded project statements. As you mention, Double Fine Adventure was looking for $400k and had estimated it'd take a certain amount of time to make it. They wound up with more than $3.5m. Considerably bigger budget, which means they can do more, which will take more time.
Same with other games that have looked for a few hundred grand or a million -- and gotten several million. I'd rather those guys -- as long as they keep updating the community with meaningful stuff -- take the time to make something great; rather than try to cram it all in by a certain date.
The smart thing about self-censorship is that we have all of these industries gleefully starting up complex censorship systems to censor their own content, because they're under threat of the government doing it if they don't do it to themselves (and their users).
If the government did it, you could shout "CENSORSHIP!" and take them to court. And win.
When the private industries do it (MPAA, ESRB, RIAA), everyone says "Only governments can censor things. This isn't censorship, because it's private industries doing it. If you don't like it, don't watch movies, listen to music, or buy software!"
The same thing is accomplished. Perhaps more effectively, without any of the accountability under the law. It's sickeningly clever.
That usenet is essentially a decentralized discussion facility and you don't need to be forced into an online forum for the discussions? That it's just simple text without pages full of ads and idiots putting a hundred megabytes worth of shit in their signature line? That you can participate in discussions of over 100,000 subjects without having to sign up for 100,000 different accounts at centralized websites, each owned and moderated and maintained by different guys?
Usenet has remained a great resource all these years. Even today. (Look at the wealth of create comp.lang groups). Between ISPs dropping Usenet as part of their service and dedicated usenet services being shutdown under the crush of harassment and threats -- it seems like it's almost time to say our goodbye's to something that really shouldn't be dying.:/
No, sorry. Once I find out that my neighbor tells racist jokes around the dinner table, thinks "fags are an abomination unto gaaawd", and goes on daily frothing mindless political rants about "libtards" or "republithugs", I can't deal with them in the same way again. If a neighbor beats his wife and kids, that doesn't impact me, either, but it will sure as hell change the frequency and way in which I deal with him. And I simply don't need to know all of these details about people who are at various distances from the center of my life. There is a reason we have relationships that consist of different degrees of closeness throughout our lives. Sort of how there are some people you ignore, some you nod to as you walk by, some you shake hands with, and some you go have lunch with.
In general, I approach crowd-funding as a mix of "damn, I really want this to happen and I really want this thing that is the final product" and a poor man's being a patron-of-the-arts. Not every project catches my personal attention, but they're often still worth kicking a couple bucks in just to show support and encourage the creator of the thing to continue creating. Sure, I'm not some wealthy benefactor, but a buck or five is a buck or five.
I also use a buck as a sort of bookmark. Most crowd-funding platforms have a "reminder" type of system, but I figure that if I'm interested enough to bookmark your project, I can man-up and give you a dollar for it, too. (Though there are a few exceptions for things I really don't want to necessarily support, but do want to remember before the fundraising ends). And, in a few cases, I'll kick in a dollar just so I can have access to the comments and updates for projects that I may even *not* like. For instance, there have been a couple projects that I found very questionable. One that I was sure was an outright scam. After doing a lot of research on the people behind it, I pledged a dollar so I could keep getting their updates and comment, if necessary, in the comment page.
Overall, I guess it falls into the following categories:
* I really want this thing to happen! * Huh. That's sort of interesting. I guess I'll support that and get the thing when it's done. * Doesn't really appeal to me, but here's a few bucks, because we need more people making more neat stuff to balance out all the AAA-Bro-Dude-Face-Shooter billion dollar games/movies/whatever. * I don't really want to part with much money for this, but here's a buck to show my support. And/Or: This is worth bookmarking, so I'll man-up and give you a buck, too (in some cases this also means I'm unsure of the support I want to ultimately offer and may go back by the end of the fundraising and pledge more). * I want to keep an eye on this, even if it's shady or dumb, so here's a buck so I can participate. (This isn't something I would otherwise be doing, if I weren't also gaining knowledge/experience of crowd-funding in general, to help other people. If I were only funding stuff entirely as an "end-user/buyer", these are things I would just skip over entirely and never think about again).
I think most crowd-funding is positioned very much in a "you're pre-ordering this thing!" sort of way, so it's reasonable for people to approach backing them as such. They just need to recognize that there is an assumed risk, here. If you must have a guarantee, then only buy finished products on shelves (which sometimes end up sucking, anyway). Though not the case with all crowd-funding projects, I see backing many of them as saying "If people don't support this, it won't ever BE a finished product on shelves that you can buy. Your risk and "investment" is in making sure this thing has a shot at actually ever EXISTING, because publishers aren't going to make a hundred million bucks off of it and wont' show any interest."
I wouldn't advise people chip $15 into a project if that $15 is precious to them. If times are tight, spend that $15 toward a solid game that exists now and that you can get entertainment and pleasure out of.
Of course, there are other things you can get in return, from these projects. For example, I got to spend a bunch of time with John Romero and, separately, Will Wright. Under no other condition would I have had that opportunity. Even if the project that was for fails, I still got something pretty sweet out of it.
Sure. Here's a google docs spreadsheet of it that I keep fairly up-to-date (maybe not to-the-minute, but I update it maybe weekly or more).
I might write an article some day about it or something, but other than that, I have no particular "claim" to the work, so people are welcome to use it however it may be of interest to them.
I can chip in a few bucks for the chance to have a game that I'm interested in developed down the road, accepting all the risks that come with game development.
Or, I can say I'm only going to pay for finished games that I can definitely get with no risk (except for the risk of buggy stuff that's never fixed or shitty console to PC ports that I regret buying) and, because nobody bother taking a risk on the smaller guy trying something that a niche audience is interested in, it never was able to be made and therefore, it'll never be on any shelf for me to buy. But I can go ahead and spend $65 on the next Bro-Face-Shooter-Dude-Of-Duty-Honor-Medals 14.
I would not advise someone drops their last $15 supporting a crowd-funded project, but if you have some "disposable" income and you care enough to see something created that has an audience, but not a big enough audience to appeal to a publisher who only wants games that'll turn $100 million into half a billion and doesn't give as hit about turning a million into five million, then go for it. It's better than playing the lottery and even if it doesn't ultimately result in a finished product, you often get something out of it.
For example, Project GODUS -- Peter Molyneux is engaging with the community on a nearly daily basis by sharing in brief design discussion sessions and then taking the resulting community commentary into consideration for the next discussion. And others are doing documentaries or constant blogging for their projects. And some offer interesting opportunities to meet people you might not otherwise get to do. Or get collectible things you might not otherwise have a chance to get. Stuff a finished product published by EA on a Walmart shelf won't ever allow you.
The ultimate future of crowd-funding is questionable. We just don't know, yet. But it definitely has potential and while it has a reasonable appeal to some of us, there are also very rational reasons for not wanting to participate. And that's the great thing about the whole crowd-funding thing, potentially: All it should need is enough dedicated fans of a person/product/franchise/genre/whatever to make it a reality. It doesn't have to be a million people. Even if the majority of people hate it, there only need to be enough people who care for it to see it succeed. Direct value-for-value. Directly addressing an audience. A niche. The goal of a smart businessman. There are plenty of things that get produced/funded (both in crowd-funding and in the regular publishing model) that I don't understand or think are total shit. And that's just fine. There is an audience and market for them and they are able to fund it. Good for them and the people who want to play them!
And that's why I don't use social networks (well, I use LinkedIN).
I don't need to know every person I ever come in contact with at a deep level. I barely need to know most family members that well. So, I sure as hell don't need to know every detail and thought and view of my neighbors, my UPS delivery guy, the guy I traded business cards with at a conference last year, every person I ever have a conversation with at a bar, every person I interact with online in a community, family members, extended family members, in-laws, friends of friends, and colleagues at that level.
There is value in just knowing that my neighbor is a nice guy and treats me well and that we can rely on each other for help. In trading a friendly smile and a brief conversation with the UPS guy or the person at the bus stop. In getting along with my coworkers and other acquaintances and family members.
I do not need reasons to dislike these people. Their views on politics, religion, science, and current events are not relevant to me. The last thing I need is for the neighbor that I'll spend much or most of my life dealing with to leave me with a bad taste in my mouth, because I see his constant stream of "libtards durp durp durp" and "republithugs durp durp" and "fuckin' pinko communist atheist scientists need to accept that the world is created by gawwwwd" every day.
In other words, there is a great deal of value in obscuring many thoughts and having various levels of interaction with people. I may need to know my potential mate that well. And maybe my closest family members (though not necessarily even that). I do NOT need to know all of that (nor the daily activities) of every other person in my life. They do more harm than good and knowing that someone I deal with on a daily basis holds some pretty repugnant views on the world doesn't improve everything. I can't do anything about it. All it does is colors every interaction I'll have with them in the future.
So, I don't use social networks. If someone has something to tell me, they can call me or email me or even write a letter. I don't need to have them broadcast "at me" constantly. And I don't need to let my view of people be tainted by things that would otherwise NEVER HAVE COME UP IN OUR INTERACTIONS if it weren't for social networks.
Slashdot Mirror
I wish that was the way it already worked.
If I want to buy laundry soap, I can buy almost every brand at almost every store.
If I want to buy, say, a video game -- I can only buy certain ones at certain places. Unlike buying groceries, I can't just take them home and use them however. So you end up requiring an account and a running installed client for Steam, Origin, GOG, D2D, Impulse, Green Man Gaming, Beamdog, Desura, etc. It's a fucking mess and it only is a problem because every mother fucker wants to be the god damn distribution king, at the expense of just making something and selling it everywhere people want to sell and buy it.
I would settle for taking the interim step of just building some shit on the moon. Preferably not M.A.D. nukes.
That's an excellent point. It works for getting us into military actions overseas and would definitely work for space exploration.
I expect more remote control toys to Mars, nothing to any other planet, and no men to anywhere (except maybe back to the moon) for the rest of my life time. As a country, the US stopped giving a shit a very long time ago.
You realize that NASA has averaged only about $18b/yr for the last 56 years -- in current dollars, right? In more than half a century, they haven't even crossed the trillion dollar mark -- a thing we've done with the "war on terror" many times over. It accounts for something like 0.008% of the budget. While I'm all for needless small things getting cut (and big ones), the return on the trivial amount spent is massive and responsible for much of our economic and technological advancement of the last forty years.
I thought it meant they had finally stopped entertaining the self-delusions of 80% of the geeks out there who run around claiming to have asperger's, like they were a super model dropping names of rock-stars they've hung out with.
Agreed. Whining teachers who got into a shitty career when it was shitty and spend the majority of their career telling everyone about how shitty their career is -- is an actual problem.
You mean, anti-irresponsible spending.
Could be worse. They could be peddling religion.
But, yeah, while I initially admire the basis of Khan Academy, there's an awful lot of hype and bullshit surrounding it that puts me off.
*shrug*
I probably won't get my SS, either. It'll end up being a nice little extra $350k (not counting interest and investment over the years) to the government and, then, to someone else. Only difference is I actually had to pay into it.
The civics of, say, giving teachers in Portland a pension at 105% of the income they retired at, per year, with "PERS" that essentially bankrupted the education system?
There's a (not necessarily too) fine line between education and indoctrination.
The interface spends too much time trying to sell me shit. I just want to play my music and podcasts.
Why the fuck doesn't Wikipedia include the heights of celebrities? Afraid of the backlash when the world realizes how short all the men are?
Put it on YOUR fat idiot!
Idle doesn't belong there, in the first place. This isn't reddit -- no mater how hard the editors want it to be.
What are you talking about?
What does paying to watch or listen to something and intellectual property rights have to do with content ratings of music, movies, and software?
I really hope that the more successful projects don't succumb to an overwhelming need to meet the "estimated delivery date" of their crowd-funded project statements. As you mention, Double Fine Adventure was looking for $400k and had estimated it'd take a certain amount of time to make it. They wound up with more than $3.5m. Considerably bigger budget, which means they can do more, which will take more time.
Same with other games that have looked for a few hundred grand or a million -- and gotten several million. I'd rather those guys -- as long as they keep updating the community with meaningful stuff -- take the time to make something great; rather than try to cram it all in by a certain date.
The smart thing about self-censorship is that we have all of these industries gleefully starting up complex censorship systems to censor their own content, because they're under threat of the government doing it if they don't do it to themselves (and their users).
If the government did it, you could shout "CENSORSHIP!" and take them to court. And win.
When the private industries do it (MPAA, ESRB, RIAA), everyone says "Only governments can censor things. This isn't censorship, because it's private industries doing it. If you don't like it, don't watch movies, listen to music, or buy software!"
The same thing is accomplished. Perhaps more effectively, without any of the accountability under the law. It's sickeningly clever.
That usenet is essentially a decentralized discussion facility and you don't need to be forced into an online forum for the discussions? That it's just simple text without pages full of ads and idiots putting a hundred megabytes worth of shit in their signature line? That you can participate in discussions of over 100,000 subjects without having to sign up for 100,000 different accounts at centralized websites, each owned and moderated and maintained by different guys?
Usenet has remained a great resource all these years. Even today. (Look at the wealth of create comp.lang groups). Between ISPs dropping Usenet as part of their service and dedicated usenet services being shutdown under the crush of harassment and threats -- it seems like it's almost time to say our goodbye's to something that really shouldn't be dying. :/
No, sorry. Once I find out that my neighbor tells racist jokes around the dinner table, thinks "fags are an abomination unto gaaawd", and goes on daily frothing mindless political rants about "libtards" or "republithugs", I can't deal with them in the same way again. If a neighbor beats his wife and kids, that doesn't impact me, either, but it will sure as hell change the frequency and way in which I deal with him. And I simply don't need to know all of these details about people who are at various distances from the center of my life. There is a reason we have relationships that consist of different degrees of closeness throughout our lives. Sort of how there are some people you ignore, some you nod to as you walk by, some you shake hands with, and some you go have lunch with.
In general, I approach crowd-funding as a mix of "damn, I really want this to happen and I really want this thing that is the final product" and a poor man's being a patron-of-the-arts. Not every project catches my personal attention, but they're often still worth kicking a couple bucks in just to show support and encourage the creator of the thing to continue creating. Sure, I'm not some wealthy benefactor, but a buck or five is a buck or five.
I also use a buck as a sort of bookmark. Most crowd-funding platforms have a "reminder" type of system, but I figure that if I'm interested enough to bookmark your project, I can man-up and give you a dollar for it, too. (Though there are a few exceptions for things I really don't want to necessarily support, but do want to remember before the fundraising ends). And, in a few cases, I'll kick in a dollar just so I can have access to the comments and updates for projects that I may even *not* like. For instance, there have been a couple projects that I found very questionable. One that I was sure was an outright scam. After doing a lot of research on the people behind it, I pledged a dollar so I could keep getting their updates and comment, if necessary, in the comment page.
Overall, I guess it falls into the following categories:
* I really want this thing to happen!
* Huh. That's sort of interesting. I guess I'll support that and get the thing when it's done.
* Doesn't really appeal to me, but here's a few bucks, because we need more people making more neat stuff to balance out all the AAA-Bro-Dude-Face-Shooter billion dollar games/movies/whatever.
* I don't really want to part with much money for this, but here's a buck to show my support. And/Or: This is worth bookmarking, so I'll man-up and give you a buck, too (in some cases this also means I'm unsure of the support I want to ultimately offer and may go back by the end of the fundraising and pledge more).
* I want to keep an eye on this, even if it's shady or dumb, so here's a buck so I can participate. (This isn't something I would otherwise be doing, if I weren't also gaining knowledge/experience of crowd-funding in general, to help other people. If I were only funding stuff entirely as an "end-user/buyer", these are things I would just skip over entirely and never think about again).
I think most crowd-funding is positioned very much in a "you're pre-ordering this thing!" sort of way, so it's reasonable for people to approach backing them as such. They just need to recognize that there is an assumed risk, here. If you must have a guarantee, then only buy finished products on shelves (which sometimes end up sucking, anyway). Though not the case with all crowd-funding projects, I see backing many of them as saying "If people don't support this, it won't ever BE a finished product on shelves that you can buy. Your risk and "investment" is in making sure this thing has a shot at actually ever EXISTING, because publishers aren't going to make a hundred million bucks off of it and wont' show any interest."
I wouldn't advise people chip $15 into a project if that $15 is precious to them. If times are tight, spend that $15 toward a solid game that exists now and that you can get entertainment and pleasure out of.
Of course, there are other things you can get in return, from these projects. For example, I got to spend a bunch of time with John Romero and, separately, Will Wright. Under no other condition would I have had that opportunity. Even if the project that was for fails, I still got something pretty sweet out of it.
Sure. Here's a google docs spreadsheet of it that I keep fairly up-to-date (maybe not to-the-minute, but I update it maybe weekly or more).
I might write an article some day about it or something, but other than that, I have no particular "claim" to the work, so people are welcome to use it however it may be of interest to them.
http://goo.gl/AiGW2
I think of it this way:
I can chip in a few bucks for the chance to have a game that I'm interested in developed down the road, accepting all the risks that come with game development.
Or, I can say I'm only going to pay for finished games that I can definitely get with no risk (except for the risk of buggy stuff that's never fixed or shitty console to PC ports that I regret buying) and, because nobody bother taking a risk on the smaller guy trying something that a niche audience is interested in, it never was able to be made and therefore, it'll never be on any shelf for me to buy. But I can go ahead and spend $65 on the next Bro-Face-Shooter-Dude-Of-Duty-Honor-Medals 14.
I would not advise someone drops their last $15 supporting a crowd-funded project, but if you have some "disposable" income and you care enough to see something created that has an audience, but not a big enough audience to appeal to a publisher who only wants games that'll turn $100 million into half a billion and doesn't give as hit about turning a million into five million, then go for it. It's better than playing the lottery and even if it doesn't ultimately result in a finished product, you often get something out of it.
For example, Project GODUS -- Peter Molyneux is engaging with the community on a nearly daily basis by sharing in brief design discussion sessions and then taking the resulting community commentary into consideration for the next discussion. And others are doing documentaries or constant blogging for their projects. And some offer interesting opportunities to meet people you might not otherwise get to do. Or get collectible things you might not otherwise have a chance to get. Stuff a finished product published by EA on a Walmart shelf won't ever allow you.
The ultimate future of crowd-funding is questionable. We just don't know, yet. But it definitely has potential and while it has a reasonable appeal to some of us, there are also very rational reasons for not wanting to participate. And that's the great thing about the whole crowd-funding thing, potentially: All it should need is enough dedicated fans of a person/product/franchise/genre/whatever to make it a reality. It doesn't have to be a million people. Even if the majority of people hate it, there only need to be enough people who care for it to see it succeed. Direct value-for-value. Directly addressing an audience. A niche. The goal of a smart businessman. There are plenty of things that get produced/funded (both in crowd-funding and in the regular publishing model) that I don't understand or think are total shit. And that's just fine. There is an audience and market for them and they are able to fund it. Good for them and the people who want to play them!
And that's why I don't use social networks (well, I use LinkedIN).
I don't need to know every person I ever come in contact with at a deep level. I barely need to know most family members that well. So, I sure as hell don't need to know every detail and thought and view of my neighbors, my UPS delivery guy, the guy I traded business cards with at a conference last year, every person I ever have a conversation with at a bar, every person I interact with online in a community, family members, extended family members, in-laws, friends of friends, and colleagues at that level.
There is value in just knowing that my neighbor is a nice guy and treats me well and that we can rely on each other for help. In trading a friendly smile and a brief conversation with the UPS guy or the person at the bus stop. In getting along with my coworkers and other acquaintances and family members.
I do not need reasons to dislike these people. Their views on politics, religion, science, and current events are not relevant to me. The last thing I need is for the neighbor that I'll spend much or most of my life dealing with to leave me with a bad taste in my mouth, because I see his constant stream of "libtards durp durp durp" and "republithugs durp durp" and "fuckin' pinko communist atheist scientists need to accept that the world is created by gawwwwd" every day.
In other words, there is a great deal of value in obscuring many thoughts and having various levels of interaction with people. I may need to know my potential mate that well. And maybe my closest family members (though not necessarily even that). I do NOT need to know all of that (nor the daily activities) of every other person in my life. They do more harm than good and knowing that someone I deal with on a daily basis holds some pretty repugnant views on the world doesn't improve everything. I can't do anything about it. All it does is colors every interaction I'll have with them in the future.
So, I don't use social networks. If someone has something to tell me, they can call me or email me or even write a letter. I don't need to have them broadcast "at me" constantly. And I don't need to let my view of people be tainted by things that would otherwise NEVER HAVE COME UP IN OUR INTERACTIONS if it weren't for social networks.