"We're outsourcing so that we don't have to worry about cultural compatibility; we just want the best technical systems and the best possible price."
Surely managers can see that by doing this, you wind up hiring a bunch of techs with lots of skills on paper, but with next to no interpersonal skills with your client base? That's what cultural compatibility really means. Sure you have Indian companies reading English newspapers, speaking English names but you can't just give these people a crash course on Western civilization and expect them to pick it all up anymore than you expect the paper MCSEs and CCNAs to actually have a clue.
My dad is a system admin/operations manager. The other day he tried calling up several major name computer suppliers to purchase some servers and because they were Indian and couldn't understand his request, he decided to ditch them in favor of a swifter, local manufacturer. This attitude is what is causing these people to lose their customers.
"We don't want cultural compatibility, we want the best tech skills."
Fine, let's run with that for a sec. We've already seen what happens when you have zero cultural compatibility.
The number of times I've received shitty escalations from Indian technical staff who are supposed to be CCNPs with B.Comp degrees, escalating to me network abuse complaints originating from 127.0.0.1... I've lost count. I've lost count the number of times people I know haven't been able to place an order for a part because they have never heard of it. I've lost count how many times these people state that our firewall is the reason their network is dropping routes, etc. Christ I know people who changed entire software products because they relied on English speaking support for those products and now they can't get it because it has also been outsourced to India.
We've all heard the horror stories and we know they're out there. So my question is how do the managers guage the technical competency of these people? Given the average CIO has the IQ of chimp and is far more skilled at scratching his arse rather than making informed, intelligent outsourcing decisions, just how are they guaging that. I can't see many CIO's listening to their technical staff in house preaching "this would be a bad thing". They would probably see it as nothing more than someone trying to save their jobs.
For so long, IT staff have often been the bad guys or the doomsayers for preaching factual and logical information that these people need to hear only to have it dismissed or thrown back in their face. I see this as no different and see far, far worse times ahead.
As long as managers refuse to listen to or take the advice of the professionals they hire to know more than them in their areas of expertise, then they are effectively shooting themselves and their business in the foot.
They need to stop being a dinosaur and adapt to the times. These heavy handed tactics will be their downfall. They need to adapt rather than trying to stop change. Talk about plugging your fingers in the dike to stop the leaking.
Are you saying that Kazaa is used to communicate? That's what webpages and blogs are for. Just because Kazaa has a chat client doesn't mean it exists as a "press". People use it to share files, not to communicate news or information to the world. You could argue that files represent nothing more than information but that isn't exactly a grey area. We are talking about a network that is being used to distribute copyrighted material (be it porn, movies, mp3s, etc).
That is a rather weak analogy IMHO. The freedom of speech does not entitle one to copyright infringement, particularly if said infringement can be linked to a loss of profit to the copyright holder. Whether these losses exist is another issue, I am only arguing the legality of the freedom of speech and the press and it's application here.
The right to swing your fist ends where the other person's nose begins.
Back to the subject at hand - Australians should be screaming murder. This is a blatant infringement of their rights and we should be adopting the US legal system. Intimidation tactic or not, no private citizen has the right to organise and conduct a search. If they have legal grounds, petition the courts and let the court take care it (like the Europeans have). Otherwise they can kiss my a$$.
After all, it's the video game developers' responsibility to censor what your children come into contact with, right?
I have a relative who has been playing games lika GTA from when he was old enough to pick up a controller and start playing. Contrary to what everyone else told him, his dad said he would be fine. It's been made very clear to him that it's all a game and you never do this stuff in real life. In that respect this kid is lightyears ahead of his peers. Not once has this kid been picked up for executing wrestling moves on school kids, sniping people in the street or kicking old ladies to the curb.
Censorship is no substitute for proper parenting.
This is ridiculous.
This game will never be released.
If it does come out, it will be be so outdated that Quake 3 will still play better than it.
Get your sh1t together guys.
VERY few companies ever receive funding to the tune of 18 million. I don't know of NONE that sourced if from venture capitalists either (as opposed to the usual developer-publisher relationship). From what I've read, after the whole dot-com crash post 2000, venture capitalists were VERY reluctant to invest in gaming companies. This is EXTREMELY good news for developers in and by itself. ESPECIALLY if Turbine can pull it off, as it will hopefully encourage greater spending and investing in game development.
Given that history however, I guess there are still enough VCs out there who love D&D and more than willing to sink money into it though:)
The good news here is that Turbine will probably have greater control over the creative aspects of the game (VCs historically do not get as involved as publishers do). I guess the bad news is that Turbine will probably have greater control over the creative aspects of the game....
What seems to be missing, in my opinion anyway, is the ability for players to become content creators in a fixed world. In the MUD system there was generally the possibility that a dedicated player who showed some interest and aptitude could become part of the world's development staff. Usually this required some basic pre-requisites (time online, a level reached, a % of the game world explored, some sort of 'builder test', etc). Provided that they were fulfilled, one could attain a staff-member status on the MUD and go on to create the fixed or semi-fixed world in which the players moved.
This can be easily achieved for MMORPGs. It's just a case of building the tools (and a system) to allow a player to do this.
Any issues of IP can be waivered on an agreement (e.g.by use of these tools and use of our MMORPG game, you agree that all IP created on our servers using our tools based on our themes are ours) or similarly drafted legal document. That's really not a big issue.
CEG represented what could have been a glorious new age to the developer-publisher relationship.
The reason behind it's inception IIRC, was that developers were getting shafted by publishers who were reluctant to fork over money for production of a product without basically gaining complete control over the product being developed.
CEG was there to try and help guide new startup development companies by providing initial funding and middleware to develop games to construct a suitable demo, which could be then used to present to publishers to acquire additional funding to create the completed game. The fact that the devs have an existing arrangement with CEG and a working demo would give them more leverage over the publisher and their rights in the deal, which is what is truly needed in order to encourage developers to try and create truly unique games and IP. Anyone who says the fall of companies like CEG is a good thing I really don't think understands what it means.
This is really tragic. I hope people keep trying because the existing developer-publisher relationship really isn't working as best as I can tell.
The big issues people addressed are that most big games are dumbing down games in an effort to cater to the masses and compensating by way of boosting the graphics. I agree this has been the trend since the emergence of 3d and it has come at the expense of gameplay. I remember the leap between Kings Quest IV to V and despite the awesome graphics, shuddering at the new mouse/icon driven interface.
Gamers in general (and developers) I think focus on building what they think is "fun" rather than counterbalance it with a healthy dose of business sense. Not all, but as a rule of thumb. A good gaming company will be run by an individual(s) that has a good head for business as well as a gamer at heart. They need to know not just what is fun, but how to find the right market, tap it, cater a product to it and develop a business plan to get it out there and maximise the profit. I think a lot of game developers really do not grasp it is a BUSINESS and not just a hobby and this I believe it the downfall of MOST indie developers.
There are several ways to address this I believe:
1) Focus on niche market. Do your market research. Find a viable untapped area of games. Develop a product based on tapping that market. If you want to develop your own game (surveys be damned!), fine - go for it! But just don't expect it to be successful.
2) DON'T compete with the big boys. Screw paying $300k to use a Quake or Unreal engine. Screw paying $20k for PS2 dev kits. You don't need to. Don't focus on tech. Focus on gameplay. Focus on the story. Focus on giving the players options. Focus on giving different reactions based on their actions. Gameplay largely consists of choice and replayability to explore those choices. Adventure games are good examples of games that can do well and don't require killer game engines to be successful.
3) Create a viable business model for funding and managing development as well as a way to market and distribute your product for maximum profit. Nobody argues with the likes of ID. If they can do it, so can you. And no arguments about those being different times either. A good entrepreneur will be able to exploit any situation or economy for profit.
4) Focus on business partnerships and alliances. Find people who are interested in your project or if you are interested in theirs and try to build strategic alliances which can boost both your businesses (either through extra funding, partnerships, development, etc). If you pick the right partners, you increase your business clout.
Worlds (or Galaxies rather) for Star Wars have been so well defined in the books, rpgs, computer games, movies, etc. across sooo many mediums and in such detail it would be near impossible to create an MMORPG setting that remains true to all of it and has enough depth to keep hard core SW fans interested as well as appeal to casual gamers. Granted MMORPGs don't tend to lend themselves to casual gamers but my point is for someone who only plays a few hours a week and/or isn't a well versed SW fan, the depth of such a setting would be lost on them. As gamers we are often critical of the absence of such detail or any inconsistencies too, so it is very hard indeed to create a game based on SW and have it considered to be true to the original spirit.
Therefore, it stands to reason the less detail has already been established in books and movies, the easier it is on the developer in many respects, simply because they have more freedom within which to build.
Take the Matrix - we will have (soon) one game, 3 movies, and one anime film which details the setting. A lot of information to build the Matrix Online with, but not so much that you will be overwhelmed by the details.
On a side note -
You don't need to have ten thousand 'Ones' running around to make the player special. You just need them to have a sense of control or purpose - that they can affect the world. I'd be perfectly content playing an Agent in The Matrix. I'd have a purpose, some measure of power, and a lot of fun taking down other players and roleplaying it out.
Irrespective of economics, employees still have rights - even temp workers. If they discard an employee and they don't have an airtight excuse then they better be damned ready to defend themselves if said worker decides to sue.
Sad fact is however, companies do this all the time. One time I had a contract not renewed because I believe I was perceived as a "troublemaker". My contract was not due for renewal for another three weeks but they decided to tell me way in advance that it would not be renewed. Fair notice? Hardly I think. I was told this not two days after I lodged a formal complaint against a senior system administrator for workplace harassment.
It happens.
Coincidence? No not really. My manager and I didn't get along, and he was itching to get me out. Could I have pursued it further? Probably. But my circumstances were special, so I left it alone as it was not worth my time and effort.
Sometimes companies just want to get rid of a person and they will go out of their way to make it happen. Drumming BS warnings is just one way. Using and abusing temp/contract workers is another.
There's a big difference between a disciplinary slap on the wrist and chopping off a hand, so to speak.
If they guy had previous warnings from MS management and this was his third strike, then yeah I can understand MS letting him go.
On the other hand, if the guy has no prior history of any warnings of any kind, then I can hardly justify this action. I mean it's not like he leaked source code or anything....
Many players get into gaming for a chance to accumulate some measure of power and that is part of the escapism experience. If people want a sense of reality they can go weave baskets and dance in SWG or play The Sims.
A player wants a sense of power and making them more "mortal" does not grant it. Ensuring that players do not create situations that a player cannot avoid (like rampant PKing) and that admins are not called in to settle every agreement is the answer.
Admins should only get involved when a situation is so bad that a player has to deal with it and they have no option not to.
I agree with the rest of your points on how the players should control their own games and create their own plots. I just don't see how making a player more mortal achieves this. I would say a finer solution would be to reduce admin involvement in disputes and stronger controls and rules to prevent unwanted behaviour.
The only true innovation in the industry these days is left to the independent developer. Either that or one with a very loose leash (if they exist anymore) from the publisher.
I think as more female developers push into the industry I think they will be able to flex more proverbial muscle so to speak but like you said, the economics of computer games, especially in the MMORPG market are irrefutable. Guys spend a lot of money on these - far more than women. Period. Of those guys, most are adolescent to young guys. The game developers are merely catering to the market.
That being said however, more and more women are getting involved in computer games. RPGs and adventure games in particular. So I think we will see an increase in female gamers in MMORPGs gradually. Also, I do believe that developers are doing what they can to try and strike a happy medium between the two different 'worlds' so to speak, and always trying to find ways to reach a broader market. The evolution of MMORPGs has already come a long way. I'm just going to hold my breath and wait and see what WoW holds:)
UO is a particularly bad example because that game was literally the first of it's kind, in terms of a huge MMORPG. Even MUDs don't come close to something on the scope of UO when it's released.
I'm sure everyone at Origin learned from the mistakes they made with that particular release but in hindsight I really think that MMORPGs really do require a lot of player feedback in order to not only create a balanced setting but a fun (and working game). That said, Origin's QA/testing methodology is a far cry from the reports of what I'm hearing about SWG. I really don't think it's fair to compare the two.
Realistically no other software market has the swiftest response to poor designed/poorly programmed or implemented product than games. If a game is crap, we can read 3-5 different reviews EASILY before the game is even available on shelves! The game is often doomed before it's released because of a bad review.
The fact is at the end of the day, how we spend our money will determine a lot. It will determine who is designing the better games, who is producing more entertaining games and who is doing a lot more to support them and ensure they are of the highest standard. Survival of the fittest will eventually weed out the weak and ensure that the strong survive.
In other words, how we choose to spend our money will determine what QA practises are prevailing.
He really doesn't answer the questions adequately and I also think he's muddling up several key issues.
Is he saying that commercialising the Internet will lead to enhanced security?
Is he saying there is a need for greater security in general?
Is he decrying the fact that the technical community is blocking "innovation" over some "cultural divide"?
Whatever point he's trying to make, he fails to establish reasonable grounds to substantiate any of these three points.
Commercialisation does not necessarily lead to enhanced security (ala. Microsoft) nor does it ensure the development of innovation. I would argue that commercialisation, particularly if it's within the wrong hands, would lead to an eventual suppression of ideas that threaten enterprise (alternate fuel engines being a prime example).
My favorite quote is:
"The one thing I'd question is there doesn't seem to be a process to effectively combat the claims and accusations and the rest. "
I read that as "We want to defend ourselves but really, we have no defence against our critics because practically everything they're saying is true." Fact is, there is *nothing* that ICANN have stated against them is refutable. So of course they have no defence!
I think he's just having a whinge because he didn't get his way with SiteFinder. Still, it would have been a more interesting article if he substantiated any of his bullshit claims with REAL evidence.
Someone needs to take away registry control from Verisign. They just have no clue. If this puts them out of business then so be it. I really don't care.
Slashdot Mirror
Surely managers can see that by doing this, you wind up hiring a bunch of techs with lots of skills on paper, but with next to no interpersonal skills with your client base? That's what cultural compatibility really means. Sure you have Indian companies reading English newspapers, speaking English names but you can't just give these people a crash course on Western civilization and expect them to pick it all up anymore than you expect the paper MCSEs and CCNAs to actually have a clue.
My dad is a system admin/operations manager. The other day he tried calling up several major name computer suppliers to purchase some servers and because they were Indian and couldn't understand his request, he decided to ditch them in favor of a swifter, local manufacturer. This attitude is what is causing these people to lose their customers.
"We don't want cultural compatibility, we want the best tech skills."Fine, let's run with that for a sec. We've already seen what happens when you have zero cultural compatibility.
The number of times I've received shitty escalations from Indian technical staff who are supposed to be CCNPs with B.Comp degrees, escalating to me network abuse complaints originating from 127.0.0.1 ... I've lost count. I've lost count the number of times people I know haven't been able to place an order for a part because they have never heard of it. I've lost count how many times these people state that our firewall is the reason their network is dropping routes, etc. Christ I know people who changed entire software products because they relied on English speaking support for those products and now they can't get it because it has also been outsourced to India.
We've all heard the horror stories and we know they're out there. So my question is how do the managers guage the technical competency of these people? Given the average CIO has the IQ of chimp and is far more skilled at scratching his arse rather than making informed, intelligent outsourcing decisions, just how are they guaging that. I can't see many CIO's listening to their technical staff in house preaching "this would be a bad thing". They would probably see it as nothing more than someone trying to save their jobs.
For so long, IT staff have often been the bad guys or the doomsayers for preaching factual and logical information that these people need to hear only to have it dismissed or thrown back in their face. I see this as no different and see far, far worse times ahead.
As long as managers refuse to listen to or take the advice of the professionals they hire to know more than them in their areas of expertise, then they are effectively shooting themselves and their business in the foot.
...Of the world as we know it And I feel fine...
in the way that I trust a rabid dog.
You're right.
Give a woman a copy of The Sims and they will be addicted within hours.
If not, then dump her.
Lift weights
/end thread
Do martial arts
Get a weapon
Look mean.
Yay, so maybe now we can look forward to pulling out entire /16s+ from our filters.
Next stop for Steve Linford: Brazil.
They need to stop being a dinosaur and adapt to the times. These heavy handed tactics will be their downfall. They need to adapt rather than trying to stop change. Talk about plugging your fingers in the dike to stop the leaking.
71% of spam originates from China
yet...
80% of the worlds spammers operate from the USA?
Maybe non-tech people will finally start drawing the connection on how spam is delivered.
Then again maybe pigs will fly too...
Are you saying that Kazaa is used to communicate? That's what webpages and blogs are for. Just because Kazaa has a chat client doesn't mean it exists as a "press". People use it to share files, not to communicate news or information to the world. You could argue that files represent nothing more than information but that isn't exactly a grey area. We are talking about a network that is being used to distribute copyrighted material (be it porn, movies, mp3s, etc).
That is a rather weak analogy IMHO. The freedom of speech does not entitle one to copyright infringement, particularly if said infringement can be linked to a loss of profit to the copyright holder. Whether these losses exist is another issue, I am only arguing the legality of the freedom of speech and the press and it's application here.
The right to swing your fist ends where the other person's nose begins.
Back to the subject at hand - Australians should be screaming murder. This is a blatant infringement of their rights and we should be adopting the US legal system. Intimidation tactic or not, no private citizen has the right to organise and conduct a search. If they have legal grounds, petition the courts and let the court take care it (like the Europeans have). Otherwise they can kiss my a$$.
After all, it's the video game developers' responsibility to censor what your children come into contact with, right? I have a relative who has been playing games lika GTA from when he was old enough to pick up a controller and start playing. Contrary to what everyone else told him, his dad said he would be fine. It's been made very clear to him that it's all a game and you never do this stuff in real life. In that respect this kid is lightyears ahead of his peers. Not once has this kid been picked up for executing wrestling moves on school kids, sniping people in the street or kicking old ladies to the curb. Censorship is no substitute for proper parenting.
Amen.
So much for land of the free... seems less and less so these days....
This is ridiculous. This game will never be released. If it does come out, it will be be so outdated that Quake 3 will still play better than it. Get your sh1t together guys.
VERY few companies ever receive funding to the tune of 18 million. I don't know of NONE that sourced if from venture capitalists either (as opposed to the usual developer-publisher relationship). From what I've read, after the whole dot-com crash post 2000, venture capitalists were VERY reluctant to invest in gaming companies.
:)
This is EXTREMELY good news for developers in and by itself. ESPECIALLY if Turbine can pull it off, as it will hopefully encourage greater spending and investing in game development.
Given that history however, I guess there are still enough VCs out there who love D&D and more than willing to sink money into it though
The good news here is that Turbine will probably have greater control over the creative aspects of the game (VCs historically do not get as involved as publishers do). I guess the bad news is that Turbine will probably have greater control over the creative aspects of the game....
What seems to be missing, in my opinion anyway, is the ability for players to become content creators in a fixed world. In the MUD system there was generally the possibility that a dedicated player who showed some interest and aptitude could become part of the world's development staff. Usually this required some basic pre-requisites (time online, a level reached, a % of the game world explored, some sort of 'builder test', etc). Provided that they were fulfilled, one could attain a staff-member status on the MUD and go on to create the fixed or semi-fixed world in which the players moved.
This can be easily achieved for MMORPGs. It's just a case of building the tools (and a system) to allow a player to do this.
Any issues of IP can be waivered on an agreement (e.g.by use of these tools and use of our MMORPG game, you agree that all IP created on our servers using our tools based on our themes are ours) or similarly drafted legal document. That's really not a big issue.
CEG represented what could have been a glorious new age to the developer-publisher relationship.
The reason behind it's inception IIRC, was that developers were getting shafted by publishers who were reluctant to fork over money for production of a product without basically gaining complete control over the product being developed.
CEG was there to try and help guide new startup development companies by providing initial funding and middleware to develop games to construct a suitable demo, which could be then used to present to publishers to acquire additional funding to create the completed game. The fact that the devs have an existing arrangement with CEG and a working demo would give them more leverage over the publisher and their rights in the deal, which is what is truly needed in order to encourage developers to try and create truly unique games and IP. Anyone who says the fall of companies like CEG is a good thing I really don't think understands what it means.
This is really tragic. I hope people keep trying because the existing developer-publisher relationship really isn't working as best as I can tell.
The big issues people addressed are that most big games are dumbing down games in an effort to cater to the masses and compensating by way of boosting the graphics. I agree this has been the trend since the emergence of 3d and it has come at the expense of gameplay. I remember the leap between Kings Quest IV to V and despite the awesome graphics, shuddering at the new mouse/icon driven interface.
Gamers in general (and developers) I think focus on building what they think is "fun" rather than counterbalance it with a healthy dose of business sense. Not all, but as a rule of thumb. A good gaming company will be run by an individual(s) that has a good head for business as well as a gamer at heart. They need to know not just what is fun, but how to find the right market, tap it, cater a product to it and develop a business plan to get it out there and maximise the profit. I think a lot of game developers really do not grasp it is a BUSINESS and not just a hobby and this I believe it the downfall of MOST indie developers.
There are several ways to address this I believe:
1) Focus on niche market. Do your market research. Find a viable untapped area of games. Develop a product based on tapping that market. If you want to develop your own game (surveys be damned!), fine - go for it! But just don't expect it to be successful.
2) DON'T compete with the big boys. Screw paying $300k to use a Quake or Unreal engine. Screw paying $20k for PS2 dev kits. You don't need to. Don't focus on tech. Focus on gameplay. Focus on the story. Focus on giving the players options. Focus on giving different reactions based on their actions. Gameplay largely consists of choice and replayability to explore those choices. Adventure games are good examples of games that can do well and don't require killer game engines to be successful.
3) Create a viable business model for funding and managing development as well as a way to market and distribute your product for maximum profit. Nobody argues with the likes of ID. If they can do it, so can you. And no arguments about those being different times either. A good entrepreneur will be able to exploit any situation or economy for profit.
4) Focus on business partnerships and alliances. Find people who are interested in your project or if you are interested in theirs and try to build strategic alliances which can boost both your businesses (either through extra funding, partnerships, development, etc). If you pick the right partners, you increase your business clout.
the more work the developers have.
Worlds (or Galaxies rather) for Star Wars have been so well defined in the books, rpgs, computer games, movies, etc. across sooo many mediums and in such detail it would be near impossible to create an MMORPG setting that remains true to all of it and has enough depth to keep hard core SW fans interested as well as appeal to casual gamers. Granted MMORPGs don't tend to lend themselves to casual gamers but my point is for someone who only plays a few hours a week and/or isn't a well versed SW fan, the depth of such a setting would be lost on them. As gamers we are often critical of the absence of such detail or any inconsistencies too, so it is very hard indeed to create a game based on SW and have it considered to be true to the original spirit.
Therefore, it stands to reason the less detail has already been established in books and movies, the easier it is on the developer in many respects, simply because they have more freedom within which to build.
Take the Matrix - we will have (soon) one game, 3 movies, and one anime film which details the setting. A lot of information to build the Matrix Online with, but not so much that you will be overwhelmed by the details.
On a side note -
You don't need to have ten thousand 'Ones' running around to make the player special. You just need them to have a sense of control or purpose - that they can affect the world. I'd be perfectly content playing an Agent in The Matrix. I'd have a purpose, some measure of power, and a lot of fun taking down other players and roleplaying it out.
And only hunted in the heat?
That was clearly stated in the second Predator movie and was consistent in just about most of the outstanding literature.
Don't tell me we've found plot holes before it's even begun!
Irrespective of economics, employees still have rights - even temp workers. If they discard an employee and they don't have an airtight excuse then they better be damned ready to defend themselves if said worker decides to sue.
Sad fact is however, companies do this all the time. One time I had a contract not renewed because I believe I was perceived as a "troublemaker". My contract was not due for renewal for another three weeks but they decided to tell me way in advance that it would not be renewed. Fair notice? Hardly I think. I was told this not two days after I lodged a formal complaint against a senior system administrator for workplace harassment.
It happens.
Coincidence? No not really. My manager and I didn't get along, and he was itching to get me out. Could I have pursued it further? Probably. But my circumstances were special, so I left it alone as it was not worth my time and effort.
Sometimes companies just want to get rid of a person and they will go out of their way to make it happen. Drumming BS warnings is just one way. Using and abusing temp/contract workers is another.
There's a big difference between a disciplinary slap on the wrist and chopping off a hand, so to speak.
If they guy had previous warnings from MS management and this was his third strike, then yeah I can understand MS letting him go.
On the other hand, if the guy has no prior history of any warnings of any kind, then I can hardly justify this action. I mean it's not like he leaked source code or anything....
I disagree.
Many players get into gaming for a chance to accumulate some measure of power and that is part of the escapism experience. If people want a sense of reality they can go weave baskets and dance in SWG or play The Sims.
A player wants a sense of power and making them more "mortal" does not grant it. Ensuring that players do not create situations that a player cannot avoid (like rampant PKing) and that admins are not called in to settle every agreement is the answer.
Admins should only get involved when a situation is so bad that a player has to deal with it and they have no option not to.
I agree with the rest of your points on how the players should control their own games and create their own plots. I just don't see how making a player more mortal achieves this. I would say a finer solution would be to reduce admin involvement in disputes and stronger controls and rules to prevent unwanted behaviour.
This is my take on this as well.
:)
The only true innovation in the industry these days is left to the independent developer. Either that or one with a very loose leash (if they exist anymore) from the publisher.
I think as more female developers push into the industry I think they will be able to flex more proverbial muscle so to speak but like you said, the economics of computer games, especially in the MMORPG market are irrefutable. Guys spend a lot of money on these - far more than women. Period. Of those guys, most are adolescent to young guys. The game developers are merely catering to the market.
That being said however, more and more women are getting involved in computer games. RPGs and adventure games in particular. So I think we will see an increase in female gamers in MMORPGs gradually. Also, I do believe that developers are doing what they can to try and strike a happy medium between the two different 'worlds' so to speak, and always trying to find ways to reach a broader market. The evolution of MMORPGs has already come a long way. I'm just going to hold my breath and wait and see what WoW holds
UO is a particularly bad example because that game was literally the first of it's kind, in terms of a huge MMORPG. Even MUDs don't come close to something on the scope of UO when it's released.
I'm sure everyone at Origin learned from the mistakes they made with that particular release but in hindsight I really think that MMORPGs really do require a lot of player feedback in order to not only create a balanced setting but a fun (and working game). That said, Origin's QA/testing methodology is a far cry from the reports of what I'm hearing about SWG. I really don't think it's fair to compare the two.
Realistically no other software market has the swiftest response to poor designed/poorly programmed or implemented product than games. If a game is crap, we can read 3-5 different reviews EASILY before the game is even available on shelves! The game is often doomed before it's released because of a bad review.
The fact is at the end of the day, how we spend our money will determine a lot. It will determine who is designing the better games, who is producing more entertaining games and who is doing a lot more to support them and ensure they are of the highest standard. Survival of the fittest will eventually weed out the weak and ensure that the strong survive.
In other words, how we choose to spend our money will determine what QA practises are prevailing.
He really doesn't answer the questions adequately and I also think he's muddling up several key issues.
Is he saying that commercialising the Internet will lead to enhanced security?
Is he saying there is a need for greater security in general?
Is he decrying the fact that the technical community is blocking "innovation" over some "cultural divide"?
Whatever point he's trying to make, he fails to establish reasonable grounds to substantiate any of these three points.
Commercialisation does not necessarily lead to enhanced security (ala. Microsoft) nor does it ensure the development of innovation. I would argue that commercialisation, particularly if it's within the wrong hands, would lead to an eventual suppression of ideas that threaten enterprise (alternate fuel engines being a prime example).
My favorite quote is:
"The one thing I'd question is there doesn't seem to be a process to effectively combat the claims and accusations and the rest. "
I read that as "We want to defend ourselves but really, we have no defence against our critics because practically everything they're saying is true." Fact is, there is *nothing* that ICANN have stated against them is refutable. So of course they have no defence!
I think he's just having a whinge because he didn't get his way with SiteFinder. Still, it would have been a more interesting article if he substantiated any of his bullshit claims with REAL evidence.
Actually... I take that back.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/33432.html
Someone needs to take away registry control from Verisign. They just have no clue. If this puts them out of business then so be it. I really don't care.