Economically, a horizontal Monopoly is a situation where the market is controlled by a single entity, new market entrants are outpriced or outlitigated or what have you. Linux, whilst being an alternative, does not compete on price with Microsoft, and many believe that Linux does not offer the same features that Microsoft's product does, determining suitability for the desktop. Linux is also not interchangeable with Windows. I can't go into EB, buy a PC game or Adobe photoshop and install it directly onto a Linux desktop.
Microsoft was legally determined by the US DoJ to hold and illegally use a monopoly on desktop operating systems. This is a legal definition. I would suggest that any other definitions you have for Monopoly are irrelevant, because we're only concerned with the legal and economic definitions of monopoly here.
Where did you get that figure from? Your rear end? I tell you what though. Every one of those Windows PC's with Real/Winamp/Quicktime is also running WMP. And every Windows PC that isn't running Real/Winamp/Quicktime? That's also running WMP. Makes you think what a monopoly really does mean, doesn't it?
How many other media players are you aware of that come bundled with Windows?
(windows being the OS that got MS busted for having a monopoly in the first place).
I'm assuming that since every Windows PC has WMP, and MS has a OS and browser monopoly because a large enough proportion of PC's run Windows, the same extension applies to media players.
Ahh... but you see, all new Windows PC's will come with this software installed, just like they came with MSIE. So at first it didn't seem like anything really because there were so many PC's around without MSIE on it. And nobody would go out of their way to upgrade or download MSIE, you're right about that.
To paraphrase a little if I may... "and after that, many people will still use Netscape, Mosaic..."
Kazaa and Gnutella will never come integrated into Windows. Although it would be, potentially, one of the most comical and entertaining battles of our lifetimes to see MS head to head with the RIAA, the world doesn't work that way.
Winamp can integrate Napster, iTunes, everything in the world if it wants to, but that will never change the very same fact that destroyed Netscape.
Has nobody noticed the great implications of this?
Finally MS is leveraging the Windows Media Player monopoly! This fits in nicely with their ongoing world domination plans.
iTunes is getting loads of publicity lately. And iTunes is being used on many Windows PC's! This is not what Bill Gates likes.
But Bill knows that every Windows has his media player on it. Why not make it so that you can buy Bills media files online which will only play with Bills player than will only run on Bills O/S? And let's make it so that when you launch Bills OS it pops up Bills media player that connects instantly to Bills online music download service? Why not have the payments bundled with MSN which is bundled on the OS?
This would be nice for Bill. Especially when he has about 90% of desktops in the wild.
Generally when a gaming house goes into recievership, the game franchises they own go up for sale, the proceeds going to the creditors to pay all that backrent.
So for all you Descent/Freespace fans, there's a chance that somebody decent (are there still decent game houses now?) will pick it up and make it gold again in a year or so.
It's pretty straightforward. The Australian government is driven primarily and irrevocably by budget. Budget is king and lord of all machinations of the Australian government at the functional level. (At the upper levels of course it's driven by backscratching, porkbarreling, ignorance, and the usual corruption, and at the lower levels it's driven by apathy and the job security of the public service).
If a government department, federal, state or local, uses all of it's budget, it gets the same budget next year. If it doesn't, it loses budget. This is of course why government IT buying is always frenzied just before budget time.
Also, in government, there is a perception, a strong perception, that money spent = value, as money spent increases, value increases. A product that is given freely therefore has no value. It does not therefore work properly because it is valueless. If, in the case of vendorless open source software, it can not be made to work because you cannot pay the vendor to make it work. All tasks in government resolve around expenditure rather than functionality. For example, they don't put up a website for australian heritage, they spend money on doing... something... for australian heritage. Senator Alston doesn't have a website, instead he spends $4M on an IT project of great importance.
So you see why they can't just use web based forms. No vendor to spend money on.
Ahh yes, but as Ani Defranco put into some lyrics, a record used to be a recording of an event of people playing music, and now it's about what shoes and drugs you buy. I'd say that's almost 100% the responsibility of the RIAA and cohorts, too.
The reality is, piracy doesn't actually take that much money away from the publisher, because people who pirate would generally go without instead of shelling out $99AUD for the latest cludged console converted catastrophy for PC. Much like the MP3 market where it's shown time and time again that if people don't pirate MP3's, it doesn't mean they'll buy more CD's.
But the person who walks into a game shop and shells out $99 for two used games would otherwise have spent that money on a brand new game and given that money to the publisher instead of the shop owner. Again the RIAA/ARIA are pretty livid about the second hand CD market. This market represents an even bigger threat to the RIAA than 2nd hand selling computer games... because SimCity 2000 looks awful by todays standards, but The Beatles still sound as good as they did all those years ago.
Currently, yeah, but Valve's overall strategy is to lever Steam as much as they can so that they can turn it into a giant subscription gameplay engine.
If you look closely at their roadmaps, you can see more and more services and games being bundled and wheedled into Steam-only franchises.
It's almost like they're copying the microsoft business model sometimes.
Hmm, stop taking LSD? Or have you never seen a MUD before?
Seriously, graphical muds are referred to as "MMORPG's".
The majority of MUDs (Diku, Circle, LP) are all combat driven with a specific hp, xp, level, attack, damage system, generally ripped off D&D on a larger scale. TinyMUD is the only engine I could think of that allows a bit more player flexibility.
There is no self moderation - you either can do something or you can't based on the rules of the mud, just like an MMORPG. If you do something you can't, then it's a bug. Some social rules also exist on MUDs, but they also exist on MMORPG's, ie, not spamming, etc etc.
Also, the point of a MUD, much like an MMORPG, is to advance yourself to the highest level you can, collect the most stuff and the coolest items and so on. Which is essentially to make yourself a god... which is what the parent is suggesting is something that never happens on a MUD?
They usually fail a couple of times before they get the product just good enough that people will fall for it.
MSIE is an excellent example because while it was initially bundled with the OS and everything, it was so completely useless anyone with half a mind would download Netscape and use that. After IE5 came out however, it was adequate enough that people didn't feel the need to look for better alternatives. It was everywhere, it did the job, and the price was right. So it succeeded.
Good question! There are two key differences between a Text adventure and a MUD.
1) Multiplayer dynamic (this includes chatting to people, interacting, etc, if you don't know what multiplayer is by now, get off my planet). 2) Combat. Most text adventures didn't deal with levelling, combat, and so on, apart from nethack/rogue/angband/whatever. And those really can be set apart from text adventure because they differ in many aspects from MUDs, whereas the text adventure uses the same interface as a mud, more or less.
These are not differences experienced by MUDs and MMORPGs however. The only difference between a MUD and a MMORPG is that the MMORPG has a 3D graphical interface compared to a text one. The combat systems are a bit different because of the interface mechanism, but in the end they both play out differently.
Text adventures have really died out a lot, being replaced by 3D puzzle adventure games like Uru, RPG's, MUDs, MMORPGs, and so on. MUDs are still in swing but they are bleeding a lot of players directly into MMORPG's because the transition is not so hard to make.
So yes the evolution in technology causes the old to fade and the new to rise, however in terms of overall genre I am not sure I can imagine anything rushing up any time soon that will be as evolutionary.
The bizarre thing is that the mechanics of just about every MMORPG are identical to the mechanics of MUDs, only the interface is significantly altered.
Now, with most MUDs, especially free muds, the client is free but you can use a commercial one (telnet, tf, zmud). With MMORPGs, you have to pay for the client, and it's the same price as most modern PC retail box games.
MUD: $0 PC Game: ~$50US MMORPG: ~$50US
With most MUDs, and most modern PC games, online multiplayer is free. You need to pay a monthly fee for MMORPGs. Valve also wants you to pay a monthly fee to play CounterStrike (they call it Steam, but if it looks like a porkbarrel and it quacks like a porkbarrel...)
MUD: $0 PC Game: ~$50 MMORPG: ~$50 + ~$10/month
Now we come to expansions, which is what this is all really about. Expansions for MUDs just happen overnight, and they're more or less free. PC Game expansions are rarely free but usually inexpensive. MMORPGs use the same price structure. There will probably be more than one expansion on a successful game.
Okay so basically MMORPG's cost a lot of money. Do they provide a better interface than a standard PC game? Debatable but lets' say it's about the same. So we can more or less suggest that in terms of measurable quality metrics (graphics, sound, polygons, etc) a MMORPG is identical to a PC game.
In terms of gameplay, you essentially need to be a mudder to appreciate a MMORPG (bear with me) because the nature of MMORPG gameplay is identical to that of a MUD. You farm items, you kill rats and level up and gain XP and gain gold and gain items. The gameplay is identical. MMORPG's are more successful than MUDs have been because the interface has broader appeal. This is nothing new! Gaming in general is in a golden age because the level of quality in the graphical interfaces has progressed to the point where games appeal to a vast and wide audience, previously locked into TV only.
So in essence, a MMORPG is a graphical interface on a MUD, and it's an interface that people are willing to pay more than the cost of a similarly interfaced PC game for the privelege of play. Combining in essence MUD and PC game.
Will EverQuest die? MUDs have been known to live for over a decade. Theoretically then, EverQuest has the potential to live for over a decade. However, the eyecandy factor that attracts more players to EverQuest than muds have attracted also works against EverQuest. More and more MMORPGs are entering the market. They have nicer, cleaner graphics, because like a PC game, a new MMORPG will have better graphics than an older MMORPG. Let's assume that all MMORPG's cost around the same - so there is no price factor in demand. Let's assume that there is a fixed number of people playing MMORPG's, this figure will not grow dramatically over the coming years any more than the overall gaming market will. The determination then is whether the value of the time invested in EverQuest outweighs the personal pleasure obtained in playing a newer, better interfaced MMORPG.
What part of "embrace and extend" are we not clear on?
Phase 1: Embrace - Get your foot into the market, as deep as you can. Doesn't have to "outdo" the competitors. You can even sell at a loss if you like, the OS market will pay for it. Make your web browser "free". Sell your XBox/MS-IPod at a lower price than it costs you to make. Phase 2: Extend - Use market penetration, leverage, hostile takeovers, anticompetetive practice and "innovation" to make that market yours. Phase 3: Profit Phase 4: Find new market. Repeat step 1.
Heh In reality It'll be clunky but it will work It will be less user friendly but it will do It will be cheaper It will be leveraged like crazy.
The only uncertain part is whether it will be DRM'd to the gills, or if it will play most formats, or if it will be a nerds dream and will have room for new codecs.
The result of that question will determine the true success, assuming all the other postulations are correct
The amusing part is not what you're saying, it's not that it could be construed as flamebait, it's that what you're saying is very likely to be true.
And the really interesting part is that, like every other Microsoft market takeover, it will fail. Then they'll do it again, and it will be moderately successful. Then they'll do it again and succeed.
They'll lose bucketloads of money doing it, too.
But in the end, they'll control more of the market.
It was the gameplay in general that made DooM so revolutionary, from the 2D map/3D game environment, primitive but effective lighting, and the other evolutions and revolutions in the engine.
Then we have the way that the game was designed artistically - the quality of audio, textures, monster designs was superior to anything on the market.
Then we have the gameplay - not just multiplayer, but with a wide array of weapons including the almighty BFG that all other megaweapons follow meekly after, and the chainsaw for hacking up evil monsters. What's not to like?
But these things have all been done before. DooM3 will carry none of these revolutions - Far Cry has already hit the market before DooM3 and HL2 are even "ready". DooM will have a hard time improving on the state-of-the-art graphics of Far Cry. Physics engine, audio... Will DooM3 even let you drive vehicles as you can in Far Cry? I can't imagine boats or buggies or even the awesome hanglider having a place in DooM3.
DooM3 will sell well, of course, because of the hype, and because of the brand name. But I think it has become too little, too late. Fary Cry does all of the "revolutionary" things that DooM3 has been claiming it will do for years. And DooM3 has one handicap that Far Cry doesn't... DooM3 has been engineered to run on XBox, with all the weaknesses of the underpowered console pedigree to carry like a chain around its neck.
I would say that a vast majority of the TV/Movie franchise games out there are terrible, so what you're saying makes a lot of sense and the points you make are valid.
Having said that, there are some significant exceptions. One of the greatest space combat sims I've ever played was X-Wing. X-Wing built a lot on the existing Star Wars franchise, but the gameplay was incredible. The game initially appealed to people because the franchise is very compelling, people know about the universe and the X-Wings and the Tie Fighters and so on, but the gameplay was what kept people coming back.
Unfortunately, the X-Wing series took a nosedive when they didn't revamp the engine enough, X-Wing vs. Tie fighter was a little clunky and rushed out the door, and the publishing houses opted to use a new, arcade style engine (starfighter), which was a dismal disgrace to computer games. Also, space combat sims don't really have a place on consoles with those gamepads.
Ahh, but this isn't about survival, this is about "standard baseline for the industry" stuff. I'm suggesting that the great-grandparent is wrong to think that Sony can become a standard baseline, because of their business model.
Sony tries, quite innocently I imagine, to research and proprietise a system which will be so good that the rest of the market will love them and ignore the alternatives, irrespective of competitive pricing or open standards.
Microsoft, and I use MS here becuase I really think they're going to win out here for a lot of reasons, are evil. They see an open standard, and they embrace it. Then they extend it to include components that they've designed. They lever other products and markets they already control. They break laws and extort compliance out of the "competition". Microsoft, by means of sheer aggression, develops defacto-standards constantly. If you doubt this, take a look at which web browser the unwashed masses are using.
Hey, I'm not saying that people should have to wear a tie. It's completely optional where I work, too, unless we're expected at a customer meeting (when discussing million dollar contracts one must dress appropriately). Lots of guys don't.
But what I am saying is that there are these distinct advantages to wearing a tie over not wearing one. It's not just about wearing a tie, it's about grooming and dress sense in general. When you look neat and professional, you tend to garner more respect.
Let's pretend you're a typical PHB. It's salary rise time, there's only enough budget for one guy. You look at four engineers, and you're a PHB so you don't know what they do and you don't know how competent each one is. One of them is wearing a tie and looks neat, the others are wearing shirts with no ties, have scrabbly facial hair, long ungroomed hair, whatever. Who gets the raise, do you think?
It's an extreme example, but hopefully you can see what I mean.
Another way to look at it, quite a few of my friends have decent IT skills, but are unemployed. These friends also refuse to get haircuts, shave, wear a white shirt and a tie and black shoes to an interview. Can you see why they might not be getting anywhere in interviews?
I was just about to say something along the same lines.
Of course this will work and it will make anybody fit.
The problem is one of motivation, and this is why both running and DDR will fail. You don't need to play DDR to lose weight, you can run or do any kind of reasonable exercise.
The reason gyms work at all for weight loss is that once someone has paid for something, they feel compelled to use it, which forms a simple but effective motivation.
A treadmill is a good idea because it would take away the percieved "time sacrifice" that running has for many people. And you can do it watching TV.
Slashdot Mirror
Not entirely true.
Economically, a horizontal Monopoly is a situation where the market is controlled by a single entity, new market entrants are outpriced or outlitigated or what have you. Linux, whilst being an alternative, does not compete on price with Microsoft, and many believe that Linux does not offer the same features that Microsoft's product does, determining suitability for the desktop. Linux is also not interchangeable with Windows. I can't go into EB, buy a PC game or Adobe photoshop and install it directly onto a Linux desktop.
Microsoft was legally determined by the US DoJ to hold and illegally use a monopoly on desktop operating systems. This is a legal definition. I would suggest that any other definitions you have for Monopoly are irrelevant, because we're only concerned with the legal and economic definitions of monopoly here.
Where did you get that figure from? Your rear end? I tell you what though. Every one of those Windows PC's with Real/Winamp/Quicktime is also running WMP. And every Windows PC that isn't running Real/Winamp/Quicktime? That's also running WMP. Makes you think what a monopoly really does mean, doesn't it?
How many other media players are you aware of that come bundled with Windows?
(windows being the OS that got MS busted for having a monopoly in the first place).
I'm assuming that since every Windows PC has WMP, and MS has a OS and browser monopoly because a large enough proportion of PC's run Windows, the same extension applies to media players.
Ahh... but you see, all new Windows PC's will come with this software installed, just like they came with MSIE. So at first it didn't seem like anything really because there were so many PC's around without MSIE on it. And nobody would go out of their way to upgrade or download MSIE, you're right about that.
To paraphrase a little if I may... "and after that, many people will still use Netscape, Mosaic..."
Kazaa and Gnutella will never come integrated into Windows. Although it would be, potentially, one of the most comical and entertaining battles of our lifetimes to see MS head to head with the RIAA, the world doesn't work that way.
Winamp can integrate Napster, iTunes, everything in the world if it wants to, but that will never change the very same fact that destroyed Netscape.
Winamp is not bundled with Windows.
Has nobody noticed the great implications of this?
Finally MS is leveraging the Windows Media Player monopoly! This fits in nicely with their ongoing world domination plans.
iTunes is getting loads of publicity lately. And iTunes is being used on many Windows PC's! This is not what Bill Gates likes.
But Bill knows that every Windows has his media player on it. Why not make it so that you can buy Bills media files online which will only play with Bills player than will only run on Bills O/S? And let's make it so that when you launch Bills OS it pops up Bills media player that connects instantly to Bills online music download service? Why not have the payments bundled with MSN which is bundled on the OS?
This would be nice for Bill. Especially when he has about 90% of desktops in the wild.
There's some promise. Black Isle made many excellent games.
Has Obsidian produced any games yet? Are there any on the way?
Generally when a gaming house goes into recievership, the game franchises they own go up for sale, the proceeds going to the creditors to pay all that backrent.
So for all you Descent/Freespace fans, there's a chance that somebody decent (are there still decent game houses now?) will pick it up and make it gold again in a year or so.
It's pretty straightforward. The Australian government is driven primarily and irrevocably by budget. Budget is king and lord of all machinations of the Australian government at the functional level. (At the upper levels of course it's driven by backscratching, porkbarreling, ignorance, and the usual corruption, and at the lower levels it's driven by apathy and the job security of the public service).
If a government department, federal, state or local, uses all of it's budget, it gets the same budget next year. If it doesn't, it loses budget. This is of course why government IT buying is always frenzied just before budget time.
Also, in government, there is a perception, a strong perception, that money spent = value, as money spent increases, value increases. A product that is given freely therefore has no value. It does not therefore work properly because it is valueless. If, in the case of vendorless open source software, it can not be made to work because you cannot pay the vendor to make it work. All tasks in government resolve around expenditure rather than functionality. For example, they don't put up a website for australian heritage, they spend money on doing... something... for australian heritage. Senator Alston doesn't have a website, instead he spends $4M on an IT project of great importance.
So you see why they can't just use web based forms. No vendor to spend money on.
Ahh yes, but as Ani Defranco put into some lyrics, a record used to be a recording of an event of people playing music, and now it's about what shoes and drugs you buy. I'd say that's almost 100% the responsibility of the RIAA and cohorts, too.
It's a little different though.
The reality is, piracy doesn't actually take that much money away from the publisher, because people who pirate would generally go without instead of shelling out $99AUD for the latest cludged console converted catastrophy for PC. Much like the MP3 market where it's shown time and time again that if people don't pirate MP3's, it doesn't mean they'll buy more CD's.
But the person who walks into a game shop and shells out $99 for two used games would otherwise have spent that money on a brand new game and given that money to the publisher instead of the shop owner. Again the RIAA/ARIA are pretty livid about the second hand CD market. This market represents an even bigger threat to the RIAA than 2nd hand selling computer games... because SimCity 2000 looks awful by todays standards, but The Beatles still sound as good as they did all those years ago.
Currently, yeah, but Valve's overall strategy is to lever Steam as much as they can so that they can turn it into a giant subscription gameplay engine.
If you look closely at their roadmaps, you can see more and more services and games being bundled and wheedled into Steam-only franchises.
It's almost like they're copying the microsoft business model sometimes.
A lot of people agree with this.
Even if you set up a contract so you had to play for 3-6 months, zero dollars up front would increase subscriptions dramatically.
After all, it's usually the first 10-20 levels on any MUD/MMORPG that are the ones that get you hooked.
Hmm, stop taking LSD? Or have you never seen a MUD before?
Seriously, graphical muds are referred to as "MMORPG's".
The majority of MUDs (Diku, Circle, LP) are all combat driven with a specific hp, xp, level, attack, damage system, generally ripped off D&D on a larger scale. TinyMUD is the only engine I could think of that allows a bit more player flexibility.
There is no self moderation - you either can do something or you can't based on the rules of the mud, just like an MMORPG. If you do something you can't, then it's a bug. Some social rules also exist on MUDs, but they also exist on MMORPG's, ie, not spamming, etc etc.
Also, the point of a MUD, much like an MMORPG, is to advance yourself to the highest level you can, collect the most stuff and the coolest items and so on. Which is essentially to make yourself a god... which is what the parent is suggesting is something that never happens on a MUD?
They usually fail a couple of times before they get the product just good enough that people will fall for it.
MSIE is an excellent example because while it was initially bundled with the OS and everything, it was so completely useless anyone with half a mind would download Netscape and use that. After IE5 came out however, it was adequate enough that people didn't feel the need to look for better alternatives. It was everywhere, it did the job, and the price was right. So it succeeded.
Good question! There are two key differences between a Text adventure and a MUD.
1) Multiplayer dynamic (this includes chatting to people, interacting, etc, if you don't know what multiplayer is by now, get off my planet).
2) Combat. Most text adventures didn't deal with levelling, combat, and so on, apart from nethack/rogue/angband/whatever. And those really can be set apart from text adventure because they differ in many aspects from MUDs, whereas the text adventure uses the same interface as a mud, more or less.
These are not differences experienced by MUDs and MMORPGs however. The only difference between a MUD and a MMORPG is that the MMORPG has a 3D graphical interface compared to a text one. The combat systems are a bit different because of the interface mechanism, but in the end they both play out differently.
Text adventures have really died out a lot, being replaced by 3D puzzle adventure games like Uru, RPG's, MUDs, MMORPGs, and so on. MUDs are still in swing but they are bleeding a lot of players directly into MMORPG's because the transition is not so hard to make.
So yes the evolution in technology causes the old to fade and the new to rise, however in terms of overall genre I am not sure I can imagine anything rushing up any time soon that will be as evolutionary.
So...
Text --> MUD --> MMORPG --> ???
The bizarre thing is that the mechanics of just about every MMORPG are identical to the mechanics of MUDs, only the interface is significantly altered.
Now, with most MUDs, especially free muds, the client is free but you can use a commercial one (telnet, tf, zmud). With MMORPGs, you have to pay for the client, and it's the same price as most modern PC retail box games.
MUD: $0
PC Game: ~$50US
MMORPG: ~$50US
With most MUDs, and most modern PC games, online multiplayer is free. You need to pay a monthly fee for MMORPGs. Valve also wants you to pay a monthly fee to play CounterStrike (they call it Steam, but if it looks like a porkbarrel and it quacks like a porkbarrel...)
MUD: $0
PC Game: ~$50
MMORPG: ~$50 + ~$10/month
Now we come to expansions, which is what this is all really about. Expansions for MUDs just happen overnight, and they're more or less free. PC Game expansions are rarely free but usually inexpensive. MMORPGs use the same price structure. There will probably be more than one expansion on a successful game.
MUD: $0
PC Game: $50 + $30 + $30 = $110
MMORPG: $50 + $30 + $30 + $10/month = $110 + $10/month
Okay so basically MMORPG's cost a lot of money. Do they provide a better interface than a standard PC game? Debatable but lets' say it's about the same. So we can more or less suggest that in terms of measurable quality metrics (graphics, sound, polygons, etc) a MMORPG is identical to a PC game.
In terms of gameplay, you essentially need to be a mudder to appreciate a MMORPG (bear with me) because the nature of MMORPG gameplay is identical to that of a MUD. You farm items, you kill rats and level up and gain XP and gain gold and gain items. The gameplay is identical. MMORPG's are more successful than MUDs have been because the interface has broader appeal. This is nothing new! Gaming in general is in a golden age because the level of quality in the graphical interfaces has progressed to the point where games appeal to a vast and wide audience, previously locked into TV only.
So in essence, a MMORPG is a graphical interface on a MUD, and it's an interface that people are willing to pay more than the cost of a similarly interfaced PC game for the privelege of play. Combining in essence MUD and PC game.
Will EverQuest die?
MUDs have been known to live for over a decade. Theoretically then, EverQuest has the potential to live for over a decade. However, the eyecandy factor that attracts more players to EverQuest than muds have attracted also works against EverQuest. More and more MMORPGs are entering the market. They have nicer, cleaner graphics, because like a PC game, a new MMORPG will have better graphics than an older MMORPG. Let's assume that all MMORPG's cost around the same - so there is no price factor in demand. Let's assume that there is a fixed number of people playing MMORPG's, this figure will not grow dramatically over the coming years any more than the overall gaming market will. The determination then is whether the value of the time invested in EverQuest outweighs the personal pleasure obtained in playing a newer, better interfaced MMORPG.
What part of "embrace and extend" are we not clear on?
Phase 1: Embrace - Get your foot into the market, as deep as you can. Doesn't have to "outdo" the competitors. You can even sell at a loss if you like, the OS market will pay for it. Make your web browser "free". Sell your XBox/MS-IPod at a lower price than it costs you to make.
Phase 2: Extend - Use market penetration, leverage, hostile takeovers, anticompetetive practice and "innovation" to make that market yours.
Phase 3: Profit
Phase 4: Find new market. Repeat step 1.
Heh
In reality
It'll be clunky but it will work
It will be less user friendly but it will do
It will be cheaper
It will be leveraged like crazy.
The only uncertain part is whether it will be DRM'd to the gills, or if it will play most formats, or if it will be a nerds dream and will have room for new codecs.
The result of that question will determine the true success, assuming all the other postulations are correct
The amusing part is not what you're saying, it's not that it could be construed as flamebait, it's that what you're saying is very likely to be true.
And the really interesting part is that, like every other Microsoft market takeover, it will fail. Then they'll do it again, and it will be moderately successful. Then they'll do it again and succeed.
They'll lose bucketloads of money doing it, too.
But in the end, they'll control more of the market.
It was the gameplay in general that made DooM so revolutionary, from the 2D map/3D game environment, primitive but effective lighting, and the other evolutions and revolutions in the engine.
Then we have the way that the game was designed artistically - the quality of audio, textures, monster designs was superior to anything on the market.
Then we have the gameplay - not just multiplayer, but with a wide array of weapons including the almighty BFG that all other megaweapons follow meekly after, and the chainsaw for hacking up evil monsters. What's not to like?
But these things have all been done before. DooM3 will carry none of these revolutions - Far Cry has already hit the market before DooM3 and HL2 are even "ready". DooM will have a hard time improving on the state-of-the-art graphics of Far Cry. Physics engine, audio... Will DooM3 even let you drive vehicles as you can in Far Cry? I can't imagine boats or buggies or even the awesome hanglider having a place in DooM3.
DooM3 will sell well, of course, because of the hype, and because of the brand name. But I think it has become too little, too late. Fary Cry does all of the "revolutionary" things that DooM3 has been claiming it will do for years. And DooM3 has one handicap that Far Cry doesn't... DooM3 has been engineered to run on XBox, with all the weaknesses of the underpowered console pedigree to carry like a chain around its neck.
I'd beg to differ there, to an extent.
I would say that a vast majority of the TV/Movie franchise games out there are terrible, so what you're saying makes a lot of sense and the points you make are valid.
Having said that, there are some significant exceptions. One of the greatest space combat sims I've ever played was X-Wing. X-Wing built a lot on the existing Star Wars franchise, but the gameplay was incredible. The game initially appealed to people because the franchise is very compelling, people know about the universe and the X-Wings and the Tie Fighters and so on, but the gameplay was what kept people coming back.
Unfortunately, the X-Wing series took a nosedive when they didn't revamp the engine enough, X-Wing vs. Tie fighter was a little clunky and rushed out the door, and the publishing houses opted to use a new, arcade style engine (starfighter), which was a dismal disgrace to computer games. Also, space combat sims don't really have a place on consoles with those gamepads.
Ahh, but this isn't about survival, this is about "standard baseline for the industry" stuff. I'm suggesting that the great-grandparent is wrong to think that Sony can become a standard baseline, because of their business model.
Sony tries, quite innocently I imagine, to research and proprietise a system which will be so good that the rest of the market will love them and ignore the alternatives, irrespective of competitive pricing or open standards.
Microsoft, and I use MS here becuase I really think they're going to win out here for a lot of reasons, are evil. They see an open standard, and they embrace it. Then they extend it to include components that they've designed. They lever other products and markets they already control. They break laws and extort compliance out of the "competition". Microsoft, by means of sheer aggression, develops defacto-standards constantly. If you doubt this, take a look at which web browser the unwashed masses are using.
Hey, I'm not saying that people should have to wear a tie. It's completely optional where I work, too, unless we're expected at a customer meeting (when discussing million dollar contracts one must dress appropriately). Lots of guys don't.
But what I am saying is that there are these distinct advantages to wearing a tie over not wearing one. It's not just about wearing a tie, it's about grooming and dress sense in general. When you look neat and professional, you tend to garner more respect.
Let's pretend you're a typical PHB. It's salary rise time, there's only enough budget for one guy. You look at four engineers, and you're a PHB so you don't know what they do and you don't know how competent each one is. One of them is wearing a tie and looks neat, the others are wearing shirts with no ties, have scrabbly facial hair, long ungroomed hair, whatever. Who gets the raise, do you think?
It's an extreme example, but hopefully you can see what I mean.
Another way to look at it, quite a few of my friends have decent IT skills, but are unemployed. These friends also refuse to get haircuts, shave, wear a white shirt and a tie and black shoes to an interview. Can you see why they might not be getting anywhere in interviews?
Neither I use english grammar you, insensitive clod!
I was just about to say something along the same lines.
Of course this will work and it will make anybody fit.
The problem is one of motivation, and this is why both running and DDR will fail. You don't need to play DDR to lose weight, you can run or do any kind of reasonable exercise.
The reason gyms work at all for weight loss is that once someone has paid for something, they feel compelled to use it, which forms a simple but effective motivation.
A treadmill is a good idea because it would take away the percieved "time sacrifice" that running has for many people. And you can do it watching TV.
Make it stop!!!
Make it stop!!!