I'm not sure what your point is with any of that. My point was that the developer is intentionally encouraging the player to get addicted. That was the end of my point. You admit that they are trying to do that, so we don't need to discuss it any further.
However: *was* an addict. I have no problem admitting that, and I had no problem admitting it while I was an addict. And nowadays I have to play the addict's game, avoiding the general class of addictive influence (ie most online games) so that I don't fall back into it. So when I see a developer lauding themselves for encouraging addictive (literally addictive, not simply hype-buzzword addictive) gameplay, I have plenty of reason to shout about it. Congrats on not getting addicted. Let's not pretend that there's no difference between a design that's intended to encourage moderate use and one that's intended to addict you so you keep putting cash into pockets.
Even if you in particular don't have problems playing games, most of the folks I personally have met who played these games for any length of time do. Some of them know it, some of them really don't. A lot of them aren't very educated about the precise doses of rewards they're being fed to give them the just-one-more shakes. Someday, somewhere, the industry is going to pay for designing its most successful models along addictive lines. It would be nice to see some sign that they want to avoid that day.
Agreed. But then people just stop playing because it takes too long to do anything so they never get anywhere at all. So the devs take the hit and make the game play-heavy and try to find ways to hook players into addiction-level gameplay.
Don't be intentionally stupid. The game is built by a set of humans collectively organized into a business. They not only do try to do something besides sit there and ask you to play, but in the case of the majors, they have a legal requirement (to their public shareholders) to encourage you to become completely addicted to the game so that you keep playing and keep paying.
MMO games are addiction machines. This article points out just one of the slippery slopes they try to grease to get you to invest so much that it is psychologically damaging to play.
As for moderation, I played WoW for years, and the one thing I noticed in that time was there were very few people playing "in moderation". The prices at the auction houses, the time it took to accomplish any goals, and the lack of any punctuated content meant that you had two paths - play til you got bored, or play constantly (definition in this particular case: 20+ hours a week).
I don't know who your "everyone" includes, but the stories I heard from the players I met - in real life I'm talking, not in game - were all at least that deep in the game. It's how the thing is made - there's a stack of shit ten miles deep that the developers are trying to bog you down with in the name of "pacing mechanisms" and "meaningful progression". In the end, it's timesink so that you keep playing and keep filling their pockets.
Punctuated content, on the other hand, should take the line that a person can accomplish a complete task in a set time period, and there are limits to how much an individual can crank through in a given time period. Think movies versus TV. You go to a movie and you pay your fee, then two hours later you're done. You sit down in front of a TV and nine hours later you stand up and crack your back and realize it's dark outside and your life is passing you by.
Not what everyone wants. But holy christ, come on. These guys are suggesting that you could do part of the artificial shitty task list they've made up for you in your free time. If that doesn't sound ridiculous to you, you're a little crazy.
Punctuated entertainment that doesn't try to consume every second of every day of your life. Magine that - there's other things to do besides play a fucking videogame. Be nice if some MMO developers stopped thinking up game ideas before they take their OCD meds.
Maybe there's a site already doing this, but I think it would absolutely fascinating, based on the shared points of their philosophy, to see the complete list of "things Americans already know about their next president". Both candidates seem to have the same view on a lot of issues. It would be interesting to see, at a high level, the exact intersection.
It is easy in the extreme to get sucked into an offer for work in an IT department that is, as it turns out, totally dysfunctional. Discovering the extent of dysfunction and extricating oneself from the situation can easily take a year. Do the browsers here seriously want to put themselves at risk of becoming criminally negligent every time they accept a job offer?
For example, at my current employer, we theoretically have 6 full-time programmers, 2 full time and 1 part time hardware guys, and a couple of co-ops in a company with 800 local people. However at the corporate level there's a whole other set of programmers, admins, and so on, and then there are application analysts in a couple of other departments.
Basically what I'm saying is, in a big enough organization (and big enough isn't really that big), the number of in IT isn't really an indicator of the number of working IT staff.
If your organization is anything like mine, the most useful part of the wiki is how much simpler it makes life for the support team. Anytime a particular issue reaches a critical mass, a wiki article can go up and enter the revision cycle, and from that point forward all calls related to that issue can be answered with a single hyperlink.
Not that I know much about the core argument, but just on your own points, none of your proposed bad guys have maintained a forceful presence on the invaded turf. That basically removes them from the discussion as far as I can tell.
No. The entire point of the article is that it is not simply a larger scale, but a massively more difficult problem. It's more like solving the problem of classifying instances of the TSP, and providing polynomial time algorithms for some general classes. Saying "phooie" every time an advance is made in AI is a poor way of dealing with the real progress being made.
Also, you're underselling the human brain, by the by. The hardware is umpteen billion individual computing elements running at 1khz, interconnected in networks that are quite literally unimaginably complex. Some half-assed computer that runs a few orders of magnitude faster but is hardwired in a configuration that is a dozen or more orders less complex doesn't really stand a chance.
I think you're missing the most frequent source of IT demand: Companies shift their business model, and they do it very frequently, for lots of different reasons. A healthy IT department's primary goal is to enable and accelerate those process shifts. There are going to be an infinite number of them as far as we can tell. Beyond a certain point, IT will always require more and smarter people.
They will attempt to bend the light around the planet. Angelina Jolie has been suggested as a possible mission controller for this part of the mission.
And you should still be doing due diligence regarding costing where possible. The fact that they have an accountant doesn't mean you never worry about the books. It just means it isn't your full-time job.
Of course, doing a course in accounting should have prepared you much better for the actual world of engineering, where the cost of a bill of materials is a critical indicator of whether a given project will succeed or fail.
Does it authentically recreate the experience of searching for hours to completely fail to grab anything that I care about? Because, let me tell you, that is the only thing I'm looking for in media casts - only being able to download Britney's bare crotch shots at anything like a reasonable speed.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not sure what your point is with any of that. My point was that the developer is intentionally encouraging the player to get addicted. That was the end of my point. You admit that they are trying to do that, so we don't need to discuss it any further.
However: *was* an addict. I have no problem admitting that, and I had no problem admitting it while I was an addict. And nowadays I have to play the addict's game, avoiding the general class of addictive influence (ie most online games) so that I don't fall back into it. So when I see a developer lauding themselves for encouraging addictive (literally addictive, not simply hype-buzzword addictive) gameplay, I have plenty of reason to shout about it. Congrats on not getting addicted. Let's not pretend that there's no difference between a design that's intended to encourage moderate use and one that's intended to addict you so you keep putting cash into pockets.
Even if you in particular don't have problems playing games, most of the folks I personally have met who played these games for any length of time do. Some of them know it, some of them really don't. A lot of them aren't very educated about the precise doses of rewards they're being fed to give them the just-one-more shakes. Someday, somewhere, the industry is going to pay for designing its most successful models along addictive lines. It would be nice to see some sign that they want to avoid that day.
Agreed. But then people just stop playing because it takes too long to do anything so they never get anywhere at all. So the devs take the hit and make the game play-heavy and try to find ways to hook players into addiction-level gameplay.
Not sure why it logged me out, but that was me.
Don't be intentionally stupid. The game is built by a set of humans collectively organized into a business. They not only do try to do something besides sit there and ask you to play, but in the case of the majors, they have a legal requirement (to their public shareholders) to encourage you to become completely addicted to the game so that you keep playing and keep paying.
MMO games are addiction machines. This article points out just one of the slippery slopes they try to grease to get you to invest so much that it is psychologically damaging to play.
As for moderation, I played WoW for years, and the one thing I noticed in that time was there were very few people playing "in moderation". The prices at the auction houses, the time it took to accomplish any goals, and the lack of any punctuated content meant that you had two paths - play til you got bored, or play constantly (definition in this particular case: 20+ hours a week).
I don't know who your "everyone" includes, but the stories I heard from the players I met - in real life I'm talking, not in game - were all at least that deep in the game. It's how the thing is made - there's a stack of shit ten miles deep that the developers are trying to bog you down with in the name of "pacing mechanisms" and "meaningful progression". In the end, it's timesink so that you keep playing and keep filling their pockets.
Punctuated content, on the other hand, should take the line that a person can accomplish a complete task in a set time period, and there are limits to how much an individual can crank through in a given time period. Think movies versus TV. You go to a movie and you pay your fee, then two hours later you're done. You sit down in front of a TV and nine hours later you stand up and crack your back and realize it's dark outside and your life is passing you by.
Not what everyone wants. But holy christ, come on. These guys are suggesting that you could do part of the artificial shitty task list they've made up for you in your free time. If that doesn't sound ridiculous to you, you're a little crazy.
Punctuated entertainment that doesn't try to consume every second of every day of your life. Magine that - there's other things to do besides play a fucking videogame. Be nice if some MMO developers stopped thinking up game ideas before they take their OCD meds.
Maybe there's a site already doing this, but I think it would absolutely fascinating, based on the shared points of their philosophy, to see the complete list of "things Americans already know about their next president". Both candidates seem to have the same view on a lot of issues. It would be interesting to see, at a high level, the exact intersection.
Also, one could create a monkey with six asses.
Did you have the heart to tell her about your decision?
It is easy in the extreme to get sucked into an offer for work in an IT department that is, as it turns out, totally dysfunctional. Discovering the extent of dysfunction and extricating oneself from the situation can easily take a year. Do the browsers here seriously want to put themselves at risk of becoming criminally negligent every time they accept a job offer?
For example, at my current employer, we theoretically have 6 full-time programmers, 2 full time and 1 part time hardware guys, and a couple of co-ops in a company with 800 local people. However at the corporate level there's a whole other set of programmers, admins, and so on, and then there are application analysts in a couple of other departments.
Basically what I'm saying is, in a big enough organization (and big enough isn't really that big), the number of in IT isn't really an indicator of the number of working IT staff.
News at Never o'clock.
Or, perhaps, the director trying to reproduce the unnecessarily physically verbose performances common to a lot of CGI scenes.
If your organization is anything like mine, the most useful part of the wiki is how much simpler it makes life for the support team. Anytime a particular issue reaches a critical mass, a wiki article can go up and enter the revision cycle, and from that point forward all calls related to that issue can be answered with a single hyperlink.
Not that I know much about the core argument, but just on your own points, none of your proposed bad guys have maintained a forceful presence on the invaded turf. That basically removes them from the discussion as far as I can tell.
No. The entire point of the article is that it is not simply a larger scale, but a massively more difficult problem. It's more like solving the problem of classifying instances of the TSP, and providing polynomial time algorithms for some general classes. Saying "phooie" every time an advance is made in AI is a poor way of dealing with the real progress being made.
Also, you're underselling the human brain, by the by. The hardware is umpteen billion individual computing elements running at 1khz, interconnected in networks that are quite literally unimaginably complex. Some half-assed computer that runs a few orders of magnitude faster but is hardwired in a configuration that is a dozen or more orders less complex doesn't really stand a chance.
I think you're missing the most frequent source of IT demand: Companies shift their business model, and they do it very frequently, for lots of different reasons. A healthy IT department's primary goal is to enable and accelerate those process shifts. There are going to be an infinite number of them as far as we can tell. Beyond a certain point, IT will always require more and smarter people.
They will attempt to bend the light around the planet. Angelina Jolie has been suggested as a possible mission controller for this part of the mission.
Computer beating human is new. Human beating computer is not new.
(one programmer's paycheque x 10 years + cost of maintenance) > (amount of money available for the project)
I would suggest that if we're dumb enough to use an OS that is "a complete toy", the probability that we don't know who we are is actually quite high.
And you should still be doing due diligence regarding costing where possible. The fact that they have an accountant doesn't mean you never worry about the books. It just means it isn't your full-time job.
Cingular's bars go to 11.
Of course, doing a course in accounting should have prepared you much better for the actual world of engineering, where the cost of a bill of materials is a critical indicator of whether a given project will succeed or fail.
um...22 million. Three orders of magnitude lower. Lot of money, but still...3 full (decimal) orders lower.
Does it authentically recreate the experience of searching for hours to completely fail to grab anything that I care about? Because, let me tell you, that is the only thing I'm looking for in media casts - only being able to download Britney's bare crotch shots at anything like a reasonable speed.