Capitalism is a political ideal, as I say, economics just a framewrok for looking at how it works.
Right now, there is little difference between capitalism and economics. So-called economics is what is driving capitalism. Who are the elites that control capitalism? They are the economists. You may even end up as one--if you haven't already;)
My problem is that no one considers alternatives. Anyone that comes up with alternatives that is even remotely leftist is driven out of town. If you mention Keynesian economics or refer to Paul Krugman, you are deemed an evil person.
If you think there is a better idea then get off your ass and start working it through, get a implementation going and get the voting public to elect you.
There are people working on it. It's too controversial and these guys will never get elected but it remains to be seen.
Instead of complainig, write a paper, get critical comment and do something. But it's easier to post on/. and bitch at others isn't it?
I'm not an economist so I wouldn't be doing much, although I suppose I can be like Marx and still do it even though I'm not in the field.
I won't claim to be a historian, but Mongolia isn't what it used to be, Japan is still a small group of islands, and Hong Kong aside, Europe is still in Europe. Despite pockets of defeat, China did ok dealing with the other reasons.
Mongols destroyed the ancient Chinese civilization. China used to the one of the top civilizations at that time (along with India, Egypt, etc) but it was destroyed. That damage certainly must have had an impact. More recently, Europe and Japan have influenced/controlled/ruled China. The Communists came to power on a nationalist platform. Most Chinese didn't even know what communism was yet there was massive support for the Communists. The reason was because it was a nationalist movement (like many so-called Communist or Marixst groups). The Communists basically kicked Japan (and other foreign interests) out. In the late 1800's and early 1900's, China was a lapdog of Europe and Japan. Not anymore. Therefore, one will logically expect China to do better in the future--just like how people expect India to do better in the future (or even Africa).
The real question with China is, what will they practice? They are running a totalitarian system (Stalinism) on top of capitalism. I don't really know how this is going to work out. It seems so unstable to me.
Why can't I? If you expect only a certain percentage of a market will buy a certain item, then you have to price it accordingly. Many games typically only expect to sell a few hundred thousand copies. To recoup the 5M or so they spent on development, plus try to gain some profit, companies have to price it higher.
Since there are other factors (like the fact that a game costs $1-$5million vs $10-$100million for a movie, market size, replay value, etc) you can't really compare them as well as you did.
Game prices have come down as the market has grown, and I expect they will continue to do so. If Playstation3 sells 150 million units worldwide, I'd expect to see AAA titles start cracking the $30 mark.
I haven't been into gaming recently but computer game prices seem to have gone up. Maybe it's different for consoles.
The real question is, why do movie prices continue to exceed inflation in terms of rising costs?
My theory is that the movie theaters are monopolizing the industry. Large chains have basically driven smaller theaters out of business. All you have left are 2 or 3 chains (sometimes with exclusive rights to some movies). They can literally charge whatever they want. Once upon a time, movies were very attractive to a fan like me. Nowadays, renting is far more attractive.
You sound like a totalitarian to me. You are basically justifying the killing/jailing/torture/etc of innocent people in order to protect the status quo. That's totalitarianism!
First of all, there isn't a democratic country on earth. Some are better than others but none are really democratic. Even USA is nothing more than a plutocracy. People have simply been brainwashed to believe that the elites are doing everyone a favour. Of course, the elites only enrich themselves. You say "people of the country must be smart and active to vote right." But voting has nothing to do with this. The only thing that matters is whether the leaders (or others) abuse/oppress/etc others. It doesn't matter how "smart" people are, how many people vote, etc. Interestingly, you'll note that voter turnout is lower in countries that are more democracy-like than others which are not. For example, voter turnout in most Asian countries (not China obviously) is very high. In contrast, turnout in Canada (clearly a modre democratic country) is far lower. My recent provincial election had a turnout of around 50% and the municipal election had less than 40% I think. Voters have nothing to do with this. The only thing that matters are those in power and what they do. There is no excuse for abusing others.
Of course it is bad to jail dissidents just because they are thinking differently and talking about something.
Not only is it bad, it is totally unacceptable! No one supports jailing anyone except totalitarians. It is against human principles.
"How many people you are willing to kill to save 1 million people?"
That's not the question. The real question is: How many are you willing to kill to keep the PRESENT system? Your question is completely wrong because it assumes PRIOR knowledge of the outcome. That is, you are assuming that you can save 1 million. No one knows how many you will save. If you knew for sure of the outcome, then the answer is easy. Killing one to save a million will generally be accepted by most humans. The problem is that no one knows of the outcome. How many people will die if North Korea collapses? How about if China collapses? How about India? How about USA? How about Saudi Arabia? How about Kuwait? How about Iran? No one knows.
You should read up more before you take a stance on these issues. It seems like you are not sure what is really going on and simply toeing the government line.
in the US those protestors were (if they were peaceful) wrongfully arrested and have grounds to sue the city/state and win. It wouldn't take much to find a lawyer who would take the case for free (no money up front) if they don't have a lawyer friend in their mist already.
I hate to break it to you but there are VERY FEW lawyers that will do this for free (by free, I mean without up front fee). You can find a ton of lawyers to handle frivilous lawsuits with a potential for massive payoffs. Defending human rights on the other hand is another story. Very few will take up the cause. The only one that do are non-profit organizations like ACLU and other civil liberty groups. One of the reasons for this is because the payoff is so low. Unless it is frivolous or something crazy, you are not going to win millions, let alone hundreads of thousands. So, if you want to sue McDonald's because their food made you fat, I'm sure you can find a 100 lawyers; but if you want to sue a police department because they didn't follow proper procedures during your arrest during an anti-war demonstration, tough luck.
In any case, attempting to use the courts to battle for rights is a futile effort. Women didn't gain equality (of whatever is there) and blacks (and other minorites) didn't gain their rights through the courts. Ever wonder why someone like Martin Luther King never sued the FBI for tracking and spying on him? Think about why...
The reason Guantanamo holds *FOREIGN* prisoners is because they don't have the same rights we as citizens do. Just because you're on American soil doesn't make you a citizen with all the rights and priviages that entails.
First of all, the actions of the US government are contrary to American principles. I'm not an American but you go and find one and ask them. They will all say that it is not normal to hold people without any charges.
In any case, the US govt is simply circumventing the law by using a loophole. Think about why all those guys are in Guantanomo Bay and not in USA. It's not for by random chance that they are not held in USA. The reason they are held in Guantanomo Bay is precisely because you can circumvent the legal system because the laws don't apply outside USA. If these laws were re-written (with the present knowledge), I'm sure that the laws will not make an exception for other "territories" and illegally occupied lands. As long as USA is holding people, they should be responsible. It's too bad, and is simply a loophole, that the laws don't apply even though the government is holding them.
It's amazing the kind of stuff I put on my web-site without fearing for my freedom. Mein Kampf, the Communist Manifesto, every historically banned book I could find, all kinds of other political documents like the Declaration of Independence.
Yes, USA is the only country that grants "full" freedoms. However, this is at the whim of the government and the population. Just 40 years ago, communists were being persecuted simply for their beliefs. Around the same time, black (and other) civil rights activists were harassed, tracked, and monitored by the FBI (among others).
...But calling the US a police state is just dense.
USA isn't a police state.... yet. There are dark clouds moving over USA...
I completely disagree with your view of ideology. I might be biased since I'm ideologically driven but anyway...
Ideologies are for the stronger minds. The weaker ones are the centrists and moderates who have no ideologies and instead follow pragmatism. The people that are not ideological are the sheep that can be brainwashed to do anyone's bidding. Consider the Iraqi war. For all intensive purposes, it is a bogus war that has nothing to do with terrorism. Most of the people against the war are ideologically driven (people left of left, radicals, even liberatarian-conservatives). Those that not ideological, namely the centrists and moderates, are the ones that support the war. These are the ones that can't place Iraq on a map yet know for sure that Iraq and Al-Qaida is connected with no proof. These are the ones that send themselves to war and pay a price. These are the ones that will vote for Bush because Bush is protecting USA with his pre-emptive perpetual war for peace...
Bush will likely win the election because, if the Republicans know what they are doing (which they do), this election will be over abortion and not war. Already the Republican propaganda is trying to avoid the bogus Iraqi war at all costs.
Mitnick was mistreated and had his crimes exagerated, but he was a criminal who got himself into the situation. The Guantanamo prisoners are mistreated, but they traveled to another country and took up arms fighting for a terrorist regime. This girl did nothing that you and I don't do every day. Could we gain some perspective please!
Actually it's YOU who is losing the perspective. No one is saying that USA is as totalitarian as China. What matters is not the specifics! Instead, it is the PRINCIPLE that matters. The Kevin Mitnick case, Guantanomo Bay, and the Stainless Steel Mouse case are all different--no doubt. BUT what matters it he principle. In all cases, a government held people without charges (not too sure about the Mitnick one) or without accepted norms. So, the Guantanomo Bay (or even the Jose Padilla) case and the Stainless Steel Mouse case are same in the sense that people are being held without charges or with bogus charges for unreasonable periods of time.
If you listen to the patriots, they'll point out that these people aren't jailed in USA.
Welcome to an inverse Orweillian world where Bad is Good, Nationalism is Patriotism, Slavery is Freedom, and Anti-war Protestors are Terrorists... yes, it's it's that bizarre...
I'm not defending totalitarians like the so-called Communist Party in China but you cannot blame politicians or freedom/democracy for the descent of China. If you look at history, Europe was pretty autocratic (controlled by monarchs, Lords, dictators, etc) for most of the last few hundread years. Democracy and "freedom" were only achieved in the last 150 years or so.
Descent of China is most likely due to other reasons (like invasions from Mongols, European imperialists, Japanese imperialists, etc).
I think 90% of all economists are a bunch of fools. Why? Because what people--and I'm sure you--call economics is nothing more than CAPITALIST economics. Instead of asking the question: 'what is best for humans?', modern day economics asks, 'Given capitalism, what is best?'
Until you guys start considering alternatives to capitalism, I have little respect for you... and NO, capitalism isn't the starting ground for everything...
Sivaram Velauthapillai, who is in favour of moving the Economics department from the Faculty of Social Science to the Faculty of Business:(
You seem like a capitalist and may be able to answer this. My question is this: why would anyone purchase a product if they are engaging in piracy (assuming that the penalties aren't that high)? Even if Sony, Microsoft, EA, or whoever sells something for cheap, why would a pirate buy it when he/she can get it for free?
I really don't see how piracy does anything in the long term. Piracy is simply another market, a black market. I don't see how the black market is connected to the legal market.
That will never work... at least with my understanding of capitalism. Under capitalism, if you cannot afford it, you don't get it. There are millions starving or without water simply because they cannot afford it.
I don't see how piracy will do much in the long term. If piracy is present, people will always rever to it (assuming you cannot be caught or the penalties are low). For instance, as long as people can download an MP3 for free, why would they buy a music CD even if it were 1 cent?
I am not a capitalist so I can't really answer that without reverting to markets. I have a feeling the "solution" is that people with lower wealth simply wouldn't be buying things (i.e. they cannot afford it). It makes no sense for anyone to reduce prices depending on cost of living. Under capitalism, if you cannot afford it, you don't buy it! Simple as that! Of course, you can also engage in illegal activities such as buying bootlegged versions but that's no different than other industries. I mean, the vast majority of the people on earth cannot afford a tv. Does this mean tv will sell for less in poor countries? Not really*...
* When I say no, I am implying that there are free markets. That is, if you sell something low in one country, someone can engage in "arbitrage" by reselling it another higher priced country.
Then they are not reusing enough resources. I dont see why they need to remake captures, physics etc for each game.
It's not easy to re-use stuff in games. I agree that it should be improved upon. But games aren't like business software applications where the algorithms, toolkits, etc are well-defined and repeat all the time.
Games, like movies, are an art form. This basically means that things are improving all the time. You cannot develop a good UI because the game is always changing. Things are always improving. For example, an OS' UI doesn't change THAT much (compare Win 3.1 vs win 95 vs win 98 vs win xp vs Linux/KDE vs Mac OS/X). All these desktops look similar and progress slowly. The icons, menus, file systems, etc are pretty similar across all OS. In contrast, pick a few games over several generations and they are all different. In many cases, there are major improvements. Pick even one genre, say RPG and you'll see that the UI completely changes over generations. When side view was popular (late 80's/early 90's), the UI was one way, but when isometric views was popular (90's), the UI had to change to accomodate the difference. And now with first person or over the shoulder 3D view, the interface is even more different. These things didn't just change for the sake of change. They are all improving.
Graphics, in particular, are even more difficult to reuse. The graphics card industry changes very rapidly. In fact, modern graphics cards have more transistors than some CPUs. If you designed an engine using 16 bit colour, then you may need to redo things when using 24bit or 32bit colour (I just cooked up this example. I don't know much about graphics...someone jump in to correct me). The way graphics were rendered 3 years ago is very different from now. FPS games are ones with the most reusability yet even they go through rewrites.
Lastly, things like AI are not often re-used. AI is changing so much that you literally have to write new stuff. In some cases, you re-use stuff but not always. For instance, it looks like genetic algorithms are gaining popularity right now. This basically means older ones will be avoided.
It seems like I'm replying to you a lot... I'm not picking on you...
What are you comparing the Blizzard games to? Blizzard games had cutting edge graphics (for the most part). 3D graphics weren't really popular for the RTS genre when SC came out (the closest was Total Annihiliation and it wasn't really fully 3D either). And it certainly wasn't around in any meaningful fashion when WCII came out. The only Blizzard game with graphics that were "inferior" to the competition was Diablo II (by this time, 3D was popular).... games like WCII and Diablo (one) had AMAZING graphics for its time...
What else will it take for you to see that the potential target audience for gaming is much much smaller and justifies the higher cost?
It looks like a million people are saying a million different things, often agreeing with some points. I agree with EVERYTHING you said except the above. You can't claim that higher game costs are justified by their small market size. On top of that, games cost less to make.
The only movie that grossed over a billion in the modern era is Titanic. Overall, I think the highest grossing film of all time is Gone with the Wind (adjusted for inflation).
Then write real-time 2D apps. You can usually count on having enough OpenGL power to get a sprite display running on any Windows desktop machine in the last four years.
It's getting to the point where people won't buy 2D games, except in certain genres (like turn-based strategy). You cannot go back to the past because customers demand something better.
What we need is a standardized gaming platform with an open specification.
DirectX is supposed to be that (although it is not open). On the PC it is hard to standardize anything. DirectX tries its best but it isn't perfect. There are always different video card manufacturers pushing different things, diverse configurations, different types of internet connection, etc.
There ARE some attempts at standardizing stuff but it isn't going anywhere. For example, OpenGL was supposed to be a platform-independent standard comparable to Direct3D (as it was called back then). Well, it couldn't keep up with DirectX. You also have a push for OpenAL for the audio standard but it is new and not popular.
I have to defend FnkMaster here....You (and the others here) make it sound so easy...
Look, people can license a good 3d engine, and theres many to choose from.
Can you name some engines? I'll let you pick one for the following types of games:
RPG (eg. Never Winter Nights)
action RPG (eg. Diablo II)
RTS (eg. Warcraft III)
TBS (eg. Civilization III)
sports (eg. FIFA Soccer 2002)
Tell me which engine you would use. I'll bet you can't come up with an engine for half of these genres. Outside of the FPS genre, there really aren't many engines available. Most non-FPS engines are too complicated and don't have enough customization (eg. changing something "trivial" like the speech/dialogue in an RPG may require major engine changes).
Eye candy alone does not sell games. Quake does not sell because of eye candy, the game looks ugly, its in a closed in area, its dark, it sells because its a shooting game that people like.
Graphics DO sell games. This is especially true with action oriented genres like FPS and racing. A lot of the people buy Quake for hte graphics, just like how a lot of people buy Need For Speec for the graphics! Quake has had nothing other than graphics. Its story sucks; It's not well known for its game modes; etc. Quake has always had the best graphics. They are not as pretty or colourful as other FPS games (like Unreal or UT) but they have superior graphics. Even Quake III had "curved" surfaces!
You pay one or two testers, then you offer a demo or announce on your website you are looking for beta testers and let the world test it for free. You do not have to pay alot of beta testers.
It's not as easy as you are saying. Unless you have an extremely popular game (this almost means that the previous game was a success), getting beta testers is not easy. There are many games where companies don't get the RIGHT beta testers. By right I mean the fact that you need a diverse number of testers using diverse systems. On top of all this, you need people to support these public beta testers.
also, very often a standard engine is used, e.g. Quake 3 engine, which costs money in licensing but is probably still a good deal.
FPS games aren't the only type of games around, ok? Most non-FPS games don't license their engines (mostly because they need to differentiate their stuff, but also because there isn't any good one out there eg. what engine would you use for a TBS (turn-based strategy)?)
then there's the Valve business model; take an existing mod, burn it to CD, stick it in a box with an absurd price tag.
I don't play FPS games but if you think it is too expensive, why are you even playing it? Or buying it? Or interested in it?
Your numbers are way off... not surprising considering fascists suck at the truth;)
First of all, you can't count the cost of a music CD at $1. You have to pay the artists at the minimum and possibly advertising/promotions/etc. I would say an audio CD costs hundreads of thousands of dollars.
Second, the vast majority of games on the PC do NOT sell anywhere close to 1 million. Only the big hits (eg. Quake, Unreal, Half-Life, Diablo, Starcraft, Warcraft, etc) do. Selling around 300,000 is considered very good in the PC game industry. Consoles sell a lot more though.
Third, a game may cost you $60+ compared to $10 for a movie, but compare the number of hours you are playing. I play my games a lot more than 3 hours. In fact, I used to play (when I was gaming--unemployed and no money now:( ) 40 hours+ for each game. I easily hit 150 hours for the ones I really like (eg. Starcraft, Civilization III, Diablo II, etc).
My guess comparisons would be:
Type: Cost -> Your cost
Movies: $25m-$125million -> $10/view
Music: $150,000-$400,000 -> $20/CD
Computer Games: $1m-$3million -> $60/game
Of all these, the only one that is overpriced IMO is the music CD. Music CD prices should be around $5 to $7.
Slashdot Mirror
Capitalism is a political ideal, as I say, economics just a framewrok for looking at how it works.
;)
/. and bitch at others isn't it?
Right now, there is little difference between capitalism and economics. So-called economics is what is driving capitalism. Who are the elites that control capitalism? They are the economists. You may even end up as one--if you haven't already
My problem is that no one considers alternatives. Anyone that comes up with alternatives that is even remotely leftist is driven out of town. If you mention Keynesian economics or refer to Paul Krugman, you are deemed an evil person.
If you think there is a better idea then get off your ass and start working it through, get a implementation going and get the voting public to elect you.
There are people working on it. It's too controversial and these guys will never get elected but it remains to be seen.
Instead of complainig, write a paper, get critical comment and do something. But it's easier to post on
I'm not an economist so I wouldn't be doing much, although I suppose I can be like Marx and still do it even though I'm not in the field.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
I won't claim to be a historian, but Mongolia isn't what it used to be, Japan is still a small group of islands, and Hong Kong aside, Europe is still in Europe. Despite pockets of defeat, China did ok dealing with the other reasons.
Mongols destroyed the ancient Chinese civilization. China used to the one of the top civilizations at that time (along with India, Egypt, etc) but it was destroyed. That damage certainly must have had an impact. More recently, Europe and Japan have influenced/controlled/ruled China. The Communists came to power on a nationalist platform. Most Chinese didn't even know what communism was yet there was massive support for the Communists. The reason was because it was a nationalist movement (like many so-called Communist or Marixst groups). The Communists basically kicked Japan (and other foreign interests) out. In the late 1800's and early 1900's, China was a lapdog of Europe and Japan. Not anymore. Therefore, one will logically expect China to do better in the future--just like how people expect India to do better in the future (or even Africa).
The real question with China is, what will they practice? They are running a totalitarian system (Stalinism) on top of capitalism. I don't really know how this is going to work out. It seems so unstable to me.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Why can't I? If you expect only a certain percentage of a market will buy a certain item, then you have to price it accordingly. Many games typically only expect to sell a few hundred thousand copies. To recoup the 5M or so they spent on development, plus try to gain some profit, companies have to price it higher.
Since there are other factors (like the fact that a game costs $1-$5million vs $10-$100million for a movie, market size, replay value, etc) you can't really compare them as well as you did.
Game prices have come down as the market has grown, and I expect they will continue to do so. If Playstation3 sells 150 million units worldwide, I'd expect to see AAA titles start cracking the $30 mark.
I haven't been into gaming recently but computer game prices seem to have gone up. Maybe it's different for consoles.
The real question is, why do movie prices continue to exceed inflation in terms of rising costs?
My theory is that the movie theaters are monopolizing the industry. Large chains have basically driven smaller theaters out of business. All you have left are 2 or 3 chains (sometimes with exclusive rights to some movies). They can literally charge whatever they want. Once upon a time, movies were very attractive to a fan like me. Nowadays, renting is far more attractive.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
You sound like a totalitarian to me. You are basically justifying the killing/jailing/torture/etc of innocent people in order to protect the status quo. That's totalitarianism!
First of all, there isn't a democratic country on earth. Some are better than others but none are really democratic. Even USA is nothing more than a plutocracy. People have simply been brainwashed to believe that the elites are doing everyone a favour. Of course, the elites only enrich themselves. You say "people of the country must be smart and active to vote right." But voting has nothing to do with this. The only thing that matters is whether the leaders (or others) abuse/oppress/etc others. It doesn't matter how "smart" people are, how many people vote, etc. Interestingly, you'll note that voter turnout is lower in countries that are more democracy-like than others which are not. For example, voter turnout in most Asian countries (not China obviously) is very high. In contrast, turnout in Canada (clearly a modre democratic country) is far lower. My recent provincial election had a turnout of around 50% and the municipal election had less than 40% I think. Voters have nothing to do with this. The only thing that matters are those in power and what they do. There is no excuse for abusing others.
Of course it is bad to jail dissidents just because they are thinking differently and talking about something.
Not only is it bad, it is totally unacceptable! No one supports jailing anyone except totalitarians. It is against human principles.
"How many people you are willing to kill to save 1 million people?"
That's not the question. The real question is: How many are you willing to kill to keep the PRESENT system? Your question is completely wrong because it assumes PRIOR knowledge of the outcome. That is, you are assuming that you can save 1 million. No one knows how many you will save. If you knew for sure of the outcome, then the answer is easy. Killing one to save a million will generally be accepted by most humans. The problem is that no one knows of the outcome. How many people will die if North Korea collapses? How about if China collapses? How about India? How about USA? How about Saudi Arabia? How about Kuwait? How about Iran? No one knows.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
You should read up more before you take a stance on these issues. It seems like you are not sure what is really going on and simply toeing the government line.
...But calling the US a police state is just dense.
in the US those protestors were (if they were peaceful) wrongfully arrested and have grounds to sue the city/state and win. It wouldn't take much to find a lawyer who would take the case for free (no money up front) if they don't have a lawyer friend in their mist already.
I hate to break it to you but there are VERY FEW lawyers that will do this for free (by free, I mean without up front fee). You can find a ton of lawyers to handle frivilous lawsuits with a potential for massive payoffs. Defending human rights on the other hand is another story. Very few will take up the cause. The only one that do are non-profit organizations like ACLU and other civil liberty groups. One of the reasons for this is because the payoff is so low. Unless it is frivolous or something crazy, you are not going to win millions, let alone hundreads of thousands. So, if you want to sue McDonald's because their food made you fat, I'm sure you can find a 100 lawyers; but if you want to sue a police department because they didn't follow proper procedures during your arrest during an anti-war demonstration, tough luck.
In any case, attempting to use the courts to battle for rights is a futile effort. Women didn't gain equality (of whatever is there) and blacks (and other minorites) didn't gain their rights through the courts. Ever wonder why someone like Martin Luther King never sued the FBI for tracking and spying on him? Think about why...
The reason Guantanamo holds *FOREIGN* prisoners is because they don't have the same rights we as citizens do. Just because you're on American soil doesn't make you a citizen with all the rights and priviages that entails.
First of all, the actions of the US government are contrary to American principles. I'm not an American but you go and find one and ask them. They will all say that it is not normal to hold people without any charges.
In any case, the US govt is simply circumventing the law by using a loophole. Think about why all those guys are in Guantanomo Bay and not in USA. It's not for by random chance that they are not held in USA. The reason they are held in Guantanomo Bay is precisely because you can circumvent the legal system because the laws don't apply outside USA. If these laws were re-written (with the present knowledge), I'm sure that the laws will not make an exception for other "territories" and illegally occupied lands. As long as USA is holding people, they should be responsible. It's too bad, and is simply a loophole, that the laws don't apply even though the government is holding them.
It's amazing the kind of stuff I put on my web-site without fearing for my freedom. Mein Kampf, the Communist Manifesto, every historically banned book I could find, all kinds of other political documents like the Declaration of Independence.
Yes, USA is the only country that grants "full" freedoms. However, this is at the whim of the government and the population. Just 40 years ago, communists were being persecuted simply for their beliefs. Around the same time, black (and other) civil rights activists were harassed, tracked, and monitored by the FBI (among others).
USA isn't a police state.... yet. There are dark clouds moving over USA...
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Regarding your quote...
I completely disagree with your view of ideology. I might be biased since I'm ideologically driven but anyway...
Ideologies are for the stronger minds. The weaker ones are the centrists and moderates who have no ideologies and instead follow pragmatism. The people that are not ideological are the sheep that can be brainwashed to do anyone's bidding. Consider the Iraqi war. For all intensive purposes, it is a bogus war that has nothing to do with terrorism. Most of the people against the war are ideologically driven (people left of left, radicals, even liberatarian-conservatives). Those that not ideological, namely the centrists and moderates, are the ones that support the war. These are the ones that can't place Iraq on a map yet know for sure that Iraq and Al-Qaida is connected with no proof. These are the ones that send themselves to war and pay a price. These are the ones that will vote for Bush because Bush is protecting USA with his pre-emptive perpetual war for peace...
Sivaram Velauthapillai
I don't think mules are that popular in China but... if you did post that, I'm sure you'll go to jail.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Bush will likely win the election because, if the Republicans know what they are doing (which they do), this election will be over abortion and not war. Already the Republican propaganda is trying to avoid the bogus Iraqi war at all costs.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Mitnick was mistreated and had his crimes exagerated, but he was a criminal who got himself into the situation. The Guantanamo prisoners are mistreated, but they traveled to another country and took up arms fighting for a terrorist regime. This girl did nothing that you and I don't do every day. Could we gain some perspective please!
Actually it's YOU who is losing the perspective. No one is saying that USA is as totalitarian as China. What matters is not the specifics! Instead, it is the PRINCIPLE that matters. The Kevin Mitnick case, Guantanomo Bay, and the Stainless Steel Mouse case are all different--no doubt. BUT what matters it he principle. In all cases, a government held people without charges (not too sure about the Mitnick one) or without accepted norms. So, the Guantanomo Bay (or even the Jose Padilla) case and the Stainless Steel Mouse case are same in the sense that people are being held without charges or with bogus charges for unreasonable periods of time.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
If you listen to the patriots, they'll point out that these people aren't jailed in USA.
Welcome to an inverse Orweillian world where Bad is Good, Nationalism is Patriotism, Slavery is Freedom, and Anti-war Protestors are Terrorists... yes, it's it's that bizarre...
Sivaram Velauthapillai
I'm not defending totalitarians like the so-called Communist Party in China but you cannot blame politicians or freedom/democracy for the descent of China. If you look at history, Europe was pretty autocratic (controlled by monarchs, Lords, dictators, etc) for most of the last few hundread years. Democracy and "freedom" were only achieved in the last 150 years or so.
Descent of China is most likely due to other reasons (like invasions from Mongols, European imperialists, Japanese imperialists, etc).
Sivaram Velauthapillai
I think 90% of all economists are a bunch of fools. Why? Because what people--and I'm sure you--call economics is nothing more than CAPITALIST economics. Instead of asking the question: 'what is best for humans?', modern day economics asks, 'Given capitalism, what is best?'
:(
Until you guys start considering alternatives to capitalism, I have little respect for you... and NO, capitalism isn't the starting ground for everything...
Sivaram Velauthapillai, who is in favour of moving the Economics department from the Faculty of Social Science to the Faculty of Business
Greed is the problem, has been with us since the beginning of time, and it is not going away, anytime soon, so wishful thinking.
CAPITALISM rewards greed, hence making it worse than it should be. Why else is MATERIALISM so prevalent in capitalist societies?
Sivaram Velauthapillai
You seem like a capitalist and may be able to answer this. My question is this: why would anyone purchase a product if they are engaging in piracy (assuming that the penalties aren't that high)? Even if Sony, Microsoft, EA, or whoever sells something for cheap, why would a pirate buy it when he/she can get it for free?
I really don't see how piracy does anything in the long term. Piracy is simply another market, a black market. I don't see how the black market is connected to the legal market.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
That will never work... at least with my understanding of capitalism. Under capitalism, if you cannot afford it, you don't get it. There are millions starving or without water simply because they cannot afford it.
I don't see how piracy will do much in the long term. If piracy is present, people will always rever to it (assuming you cannot be caught or the penalties are low). For instance, as long as people can download an MP3 for free, why would they buy a music CD even if it were 1 cent?
Sivaram Velauthapillai
I am not a capitalist so I can't really answer that without reverting to markets. I have a feeling the "solution" is that people with lower wealth simply wouldn't be buying things (i.e. they cannot afford it). It makes no sense for anyone to reduce prices depending on cost of living. Under capitalism, if you cannot afford it, you don't buy it! Simple as that! Of course, you can also engage in illegal activities such as buying bootlegged versions but that's no different than other industries. I mean, the vast majority of the people on earth cannot afford a tv. Does this mean tv will sell for less in poor countries? Not really*...
* When I say no, I am implying that there are free markets. That is, if you sell something low in one country, someone can engage in "arbitrage" by reselling it another higher priced country.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Then they are not reusing enough resources. I dont see why they need to remake captures, physics etc for each game.
It's not easy to re-use stuff in games. I agree that it should be improved upon. But games aren't like business software applications where the algorithms, toolkits, etc are well-defined and repeat all the time.
Games, like movies, are an art form. This basically means that things are improving all the time. You cannot develop a good UI because the game is always changing. Things are always improving. For example, an OS' UI doesn't change THAT much (compare Win 3.1 vs win 95 vs win 98 vs win xp vs Linux/KDE vs Mac OS/X). All these desktops look similar and progress slowly. The icons, menus, file systems, etc are pretty similar across all OS. In contrast, pick a few games over several generations and they are all different. In many cases, there are major improvements. Pick even one genre, say RPG and you'll see that the UI completely changes over generations. When side view was popular (late 80's/early 90's), the UI was one way, but when isometric views was popular (90's), the UI had to change to accomodate the difference. And now with first person or over the shoulder 3D view, the interface is even more different. These things didn't just change for the sake of change. They are all improving.
Graphics, in particular, are even more difficult to reuse. The graphics card industry changes very rapidly. In fact, modern graphics cards have more transistors than some CPUs. If you designed an engine using 16 bit colour, then you may need to redo things when using 24bit or 32bit colour (I just cooked up this example. I don't know much about graphics...someone jump in to correct me). The way graphics were rendered 3 years ago is very different from now. FPS games are ones with the most reusability yet even they go through rewrites.
Lastly, things like AI are not often re-used. AI is changing so much that you literally have to write new stuff. In some cases, you re-use stuff but not always. For instance, it looks like genetic algorithms are gaining popularity right now. This basically means older ones will be avoided.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
It seems like I'm replying to you a lot... I'm not picking on you...
What are you comparing the Blizzard games to? Blizzard games had cutting edge graphics (for the most part). 3D graphics weren't really popular for the RTS genre when SC came out (the closest was Total Annihiliation and it wasn't really fully 3D either). And it certainly wasn't around in any meaningful fashion when WCII came out. The only Blizzard game with graphics that were "inferior" to the competition was Diablo II (by this time, 3D was popular).... games like WCII and Diablo (one) had AMAZING graphics for its time...
Sivaram Velauthapillai
It's why I still play WarCraft II: Tides of Darkness.
:)
Starcraft is where it's at...
My zerglings can beat your bloodlusted ogres
Sivaram Velauthapillai
What else will it take for you to see that the potential target audience for gaming is much much smaller and justifies the higher cost?
It looks like a million people are saying a million different things, often agreeing with some points. I agree with EVERYTHING you said except the above. You can't claim that higher game costs are justified by their small market size. On top of that, games cost less to make.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
The only movie that grossed over a billion in the modern era is Titanic. Overall, I think the highest grossing film of all time is Gone with the Wind (adjusted for inflation).
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Then write real-time 2D apps. You can usually count on having enough OpenGL power to get a sprite display running on any Windows desktop machine in the last four years.
It's getting to the point where people won't buy 2D games, except in certain genres (like turn-based strategy). You cannot go back to the past because customers demand something better.
What we need is a standardized gaming platform with an open specification.
DirectX is supposed to be that (although it is not open). On the PC it is hard to standardize anything. DirectX tries its best but it isn't perfect. There are always different video card manufacturers pushing different things, diverse configurations, different types of internet connection, etc.
There ARE some attempts at standardizing stuff but it isn't going anywhere. For example, OpenGL was supposed to be a platform-independent standard comparable to Direct3D (as it was called back then). Well, it couldn't keep up with DirectX. You also have a push for OpenAL for the audio standard but it is new and not popular.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
I have to defend FnkMaster here....You (and the others here) make it sound so easy...
Look, people can license a good 3d engine, and theres many to choose from.
Can you name some engines? I'll let you pick one for the following types of games:
RPG (eg. Never Winter Nights) action RPG (eg. Diablo II) RTS (eg. Warcraft III) TBS (eg. Civilization III) sports (eg. FIFA Soccer 2002)
Tell me which engine you would use. I'll bet you can't come up with an engine for half of these genres. Outside of the FPS genre, there really aren't many engines available. Most non-FPS engines are too complicated and don't have enough customization (eg. changing something "trivial" like the speech/dialogue in an RPG may require major engine changes).
Eye candy alone does not sell games. Quake does not sell because of eye candy, the game looks ugly, its in a closed in area, its dark, it sells because its a shooting game that people like.
Graphics DO sell games. This is especially true with action oriented genres like FPS and racing. A lot of the people buy Quake for hte graphics, just like how a lot of people buy Need For Speec for the graphics! Quake has had nothing other than graphics. Its story sucks; It's not well known for its game modes; etc. Quake has always had the best graphics. They are not as pretty or colourful as other FPS games (like Unreal or UT) but they have superior graphics. Even Quake III had "curved" surfaces!
You pay one or two testers, then you offer a demo or announce on your website you are looking for beta testers and let the world test it for free. You do not have to pay alot of beta testers.
It's not as easy as you are saying. Unless you have an extremely popular game (this almost means that the previous game was a success), getting beta testers is not easy. There are many games where companies don't get the RIGHT beta testers. By right I mean the fact that you need a diverse number of testers using diverse systems. On top of all this, you need people to support these public beta testers.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
also, very often a standard engine is used, e.g. Quake 3 engine, which costs money in licensing but is probably still a good deal.
FPS games aren't the only type of games around, ok? Most non-FPS games don't license their engines (mostly because they need to differentiate their stuff, but also because there isn't any good one out there eg. what engine would you use for a TBS (turn-based strategy)?)
then there's the Valve business model; take an existing mod, burn it to CD, stick it in a box with an absurd price tag.
I don't play FPS games but if you think it is too expensive, why are you even playing it? Or buying it? Or interested in it?
Sivaram Velauthapillai
We meet again Hitler ;)
;)
:( ) 40 hours+ for each game. I easily hit 150 hours for the ones I really like (eg. Starcraft, Civilization III, Diablo II, etc).
Your numbers are way off... not surprising considering fascists suck at the truth
First of all, you can't count the cost of a music CD at $1. You have to pay the artists at the minimum and possibly advertising/promotions/etc. I would say an audio CD costs hundreads of thousands of dollars.
Second, the vast majority of games on the PC do NOT sell anywhere close to 1 million. Only the big hits (eg. Quake, Unreal, Half-Life, Diablo, Starcraft, Warcraft, etc) do. Selling around 300,000 is considered very good in the PC game industry. Consoles sell a lot more though.
Third, a game may cost you $60+ compared to $10 for a movie, but compare the number of hours you are playing. I play my games a lot more than 3 hours. In fact, I used to play (when I was gaming--unemployed and no money now
My guess comparisons would be:
Type: Cost -> Your cost
Movies: $25m-$125million -> $10/view
Music: $150,000-$400,000 -> $20/CD
Computer Games: $1m-$3million -> $60/game
Of all these, the only one that is overpriced IMO is the music CD. Music CD prices should be around $5 to $7.
Sivaram Velauthapillai