Yes he is hiring. He is always hiring. But got luck getting his attention. Joel's company hires what is truly the cream of the crop. No I have not been rejected by his company, but I know enough to know that I would have to put in more than a few months as an unpaid intern if I wanted to get my foot in that door.
From TFA:
This Is Why Programmers Get The Big Bucks. The whole reason you gave them Aeron chairs, unlimited M&Ms, free catered lunches, and the kickass computers with the 30" LCDs...
Leakage from an alternate universe far from our own?
If you knew Joel's history you would see that this is how things work in the universe, at least around him and his company. This is also why he has a successful company which produces high quality software (I'm not saying I like their products just that it is of a very high quality).
I personally support his anti-agile stance since my experience has show that agile process is normally just and excuse to keep working when no one knows what they are doing. Agile is great when you want to milk clients and VC for millions of dollars by making it look like you may someday have a viable product. Too bad agile process rarely ends up with a usable solution.
I'm not going to fuel any fires, but I would like to hear specific reasons that you would say that "Safari truly sucks." As far as I have been able to tell, beyond the flash integration, safari is more stable and faster than any other browser I have seen (on comparable hardware). I know for sure that the JavaScript processor is the fastest currently available in a major browsers (I don't know about any garage projects so I couldn't really comment). Safari also has great CSS support as well as a few features not available in any other browser yet (but I would really use that as a bias one way or another). But please, I really would like to know what makes the other browsers better browsers (extensions do not make for a better browser in my mind but they do make for good other things, like development tools).
why does the Green Party get so much support as opposed to the Libertarians.
Because Libertarians are modern day Objectivists and overly self absorbed. How could you get a bunch of people who's entire purpose is for self gain to come together on for a single decisions or to support a single candidate? More so because most of the people are afraid of the Libertarians winning, but would only be slightly annoyed if the Green Party did.
I never noticed the scaling problems you mention, which does not mean I think they were not there, but that the game was so well design, graphically, that those issues were only noticeable on specific inspection. What I did notice was that the landscapes were truly breath taking, so much so I would rather stare at SoC for hours then have to spend another moment looking over the edge of the Grand Canyon (which really is just a hole in the ground in comparison). I have found the hardware improvements to be merely fractional and not the order or magnitude improvements of 5 or so years ago. Though I am looking forward to gaming in HD, I am hoping that art direction is going to take precedence over pixel pushing.
But, to circle around to where I started, the PS2 showed that is was capable of having games that where as or more appealing than those on the other systems of the generate. The Wii will also have this capability, but will require creativity on the part of the developers and not just hoping that higher resolutions will be replacement for good aesthetics (As I'm sure will be the case with the 360 and possibly with the PS3).
But at least I can still look forward to games that are out play and not just looking pretty like GH2.
I always thought the point of graphical prowess was to create a visual appealing game, and very few people argue against SoC being one of the most visually appealing games to date. This is just the first time I have every seen the words "ugly" and "Shadow of the Colossus" used together. But it does add credence to the original statement that Graphics are subjective.
It just means that the PS2 was generally weak in the graphics department, even compared to the Dreamcast, let alone the Xbox and Gamecube.
Incorrect, and if you would have read my post you would have seen that the point was not that PS2 games looked better on average, but that it was not a hardware limitation as much as a developer limitation. Quality design companies such as Insomniac, Naughty Dog, Polyphony, and to a lesser extent Clover and Level 5, not to mention SCEI themselves. where able to produce games that rivaled or exceeded those produced on other systems. Insomniac, ND and Polyphony took to route of understanding the hardware and pushing it farther (a Lead developer from ND noted that they could push the machine even further give enough time for optimization) while SCEI and Clover took more creative approaches to creating attractive games without the need to pre rendered movies.
The point still remains that quality graphics are highly subjective, as of yet no games produced on any console has had the smoothness and quality of the original Dragon's Lair (not a single jaggy or unintentional slowdown in the game), many years old now, yet we would not use that as a shining example of top graphic capability.
But if you go ahead and change that line as "...PS2 games there were produced were generally weaker..." and take out the Dreamcast (because it never had a long enough life to really know) I'll agree with you, but the PS2 itself, with a developer that understood the architecture, was more than capable of competing or beating the other systems.
1st place went to the console with the worst graphics...
Sorry to rehash old arguments but your statements are not entirely true. The issue here is how one rates graphics, since we are talking about a very subjective topic. Too say that the PS2 had the worst graphics is deceptive at best (and flat out wrong at worst). The PS2s top games had the highest resolution (only the PS2 had any 1080i games, such as GT4), the highest polygon counts for characters (I believe, and could be wrong, Jak 3 had the highest poly counts for a character in the previous generation), and the most artistic vision (ICO, SOC, and Okami come to mind). I could probably also find examples of the longest field of vision and best use of lighting as well as a few other things, but that is all beside the point.
Interestingly enough, I am saying this to actually support your overall point. So far no game written has every been fully optimized and fully taxed the system it was written for. In the end each generation comes down to the development and not the hardware (or at least the combination of the two and certainly not the hardware alone). I think we will see better developers producing games for the Wii because they will be forced to do the best they can with the statistically weaker hardware, which in the end will make for better games. Developers allowed to be lazy will be...
Could a Japanese developer releasing a launch title in Japan exclusively even break even on development costs with that limited amount of consoles?
Good question but I think you are overly simplifying the situation. First of all the 80,000 units shipped (which could be nearly 5 million USD in sales of a single game at $60 a pop. I have no idea what the comparison is in yen) is only the initial launch allotment, and like all entertainment no one expects to profit solely on initial release. Within 6 months those numbers should be much higher, well into the millions, and the launch titles, if they are any good, will still be relevant in six months.
I'm curious about Pierre-Luc's view of the ethical integrity of purchasing a used car or a used book.
You are comparing two different things. Cars are not the same as books and video games or other media. Automobiles, and all machinery for that mater, have a limit life span and they cannot be copied for less than the original manufacturing cost. Purchasing a used car is purchasing something that has already had a portion of it's possible usage already expended, this is not true of used media. The contents of media will never degrade, and even if the physical storage of the media where to degrade it would be very inexpensive (possibly free) to maintain back up copies. Plus only one owner will ever get the full maximum use out of machinery ( or a group of people each getting a fraction of the maximum use), where as with media every person on the planet could, in theory, get the maximum usage out of a single copy (I could pass a CD or a Game around to millions and we could each play it all the way through).
How do they force me to buy and sell used games?
I wouldn't say that video game stores force anyone to buy used games but they certainly try to. Often times video games stores will not order a new copy of a game if they have used copies in stock. This happens for two reasons, the fact that they do not want to waste shelf space when they do technically have a copy already, and used merchandise has a MUCH higher mark up and there for higher profits.
Resale of copyright protected works existed for hundreds of years before your industry even existed.
It is important to remember that most of those hundred years were before extremely low cost replication service. Prior to the past 50-100 years all media had a maximum life and were at best expensive and time consuming to reproduce. You would be hard pressed to find numerous examples of someone buying a book in the 1800s, making a copy and the selling the original used, but this happens regularly with todays media.
I'm not trying to prove one way or another in this argument. I'm just trying to point out a few things that may need some deeper though. Personally I only by used when there is no other chose and even then I have sent payment to the original artist when I have been able to.
Children in their natural state are uncivilized, self-centered animals. It takes diligent application of rules, boundaries, and discipline to make them behave properly.
Natural healthy narcissism (self love), as is found in infants, is important to healthy mental growth. It is only after natural healthy narcissism is broken down by parental, or other, actions, which in turn causes the child to have to create artificial constructs to cope with new or unknown situations. At least this is the view of the object relations school of psychology, and there is certainly more than a grain of truth to it. It is also been show that children need not "learn" to behave "properly" but would need to be taught to behave in a fashion contradictory to there own survival. Sadly many of the "appropriate" actions we take as adults are contrary to our actual needs. Explaining this in detail would take far more than a simple slashdot post.
This sort of slack, evasive child rearing behavior has fuck-all to do with whether their spousal relationship is happy and loving.
Again, I have to disagree. Allowing your child to cause discomfort or embarrassment to your spouse is not a very loving thing, and that a loving spouse would not allow these things to happen. Love involves caring for ones best interested in all ways.
They try to reason with their 6 year old in the grocery store.
Lastly I hope you do not yet have children, because acting without reason causes far more harm to the human psyche than acting with. All children, no mater what the age, are capable of reason and always act more appropriately when give alternatives and reasoning rather than the simple game saying of "no." Children are neither two nor pet, they are human beings and deserve the same respect we would want for ourselves. And no I am not a psychologist, I just happen to have grown up with "diligent application of rules, boundaries, and discipline" and know from personal experience that this can leave as major of scares as neglect (since it is a form of neglect).
Anyway, gotta run, gotta keep my son from sticking his finger in a wall socket...
As much as I agree that marriage takes continual work I have to disagree on the idea that people wake up one day and no longer love each other. I guess my idea of love is not a conditional situation that can come and go.
Your software analogy is not only twisted, but also shows a big reason there is such a high divorce right. There has been written software that has never need a single bug fix and has worked as designed from day one. Marriages can be the same if the right amount of planing is done up front and an good understanding of the scope of the marriage is understood by all involved. All too often people enter marriages for conflicting reasons which causes a marriage to have it's own form of scope creep. And all this coming from someone that has been married to the same person for 10 years, and will tell you it hasn't been easy, but then again I didn't follow my own advice, since I didn't understand it then.
I know plenty of really happy parents that have horrible children.
First off all you must know a lot of damn good liars. Happy loving relationships (not pathological ones) bread and raise happy well adjusted children, do a little bit of reading this is well document. If the children in a family are misbehaving it is because either than were taught to act that way (directly or indirectly) or they are having trouble coping with certain situations (such as abuse or neglect).
And second, you obviously haven't a clue since you are using phrases like "Horrible Children," unless of course "Damion" lives in your neighborhood.
First of all what ever happened to the old rule of "sticks and stones?" Words are just words, and edited pictures are just art, so I can't see how a work of fiction posted on the internet hurts anyone.
In GH2 you will be able to play base on certain songs (others will have rhythm guitar instead). So songs like YYZ and the Primus one will include the base tracks. I don't know if you will be able to play them solo but they will be there for 2 player co-op mode. Atleast that is what the press releases and previews have all said.
Re:Please Mod Parent Down
on
Why Software Sucks
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Yeah it is too bad there are a lot of bad software shops with a lot of bad managers running a lot of bad projects.
But seriously it does not require perfect requirements or a perfect master. The key is to have requirements, including test cases and success criteria. Things certainly change but it shouldn't be the usual "change the code before even determining if there really is a problem since you have no requirement to compare to , hope it does what it's supposed to do, write a test based on the code that, unless the developer is an idiot, has to pass, because it is based on the code he wrote after all, and then maybe, and this is a big maybe, go back and update the requirements" but instead should be "determine the problem, review the problem, update the requirement, write the tests, determine completion criteria, distill the subject mater into terms the developers can understand, which isn't that hard, all things can be distilled to binary comparisons after all, write the code and the test the code based on the aforementioned tests."
You will find out that if you do what people say and not what you think they mean they will start to tell you what they actually mean and therefor reduce the amount of guess work to zero. So if whoever is in your analyst role can't convert business requirements into technical requirements best get yourself a new analyst. This really isn't that much work, but it is certainly more effective (cost, time and quality) than not having decent specs and people specialized in what they do. And if you don't believe me you can do one of two things, read someone like Brooks, or honestly give it a try (took about a year to turn one very disorganized shop around and it is no the single most efficient place I have ever worked).
Having developed Genetic Research software I can tell your from experience, a little knowledge is dangerous and having enough to be worth while would have most developers going back to school for another 6+ years, which is just about enough to forget how develop and at the very least be a generation behind the latest technology and advancements in development.
Developers do not need to know a thing about the subject mater they are developing. Software development is labor, and labor does not need to know why they are doing what they are doing, they only need to know how. The best software comes from small teams made up of good developers, good analysts, good architects and people knowledgeable about the subject. The software we have to day is built mostly by developer/architect/analyst (one person expected to fill all three roles) and sales reps (regurgitating unreasonable promises to they made to some client, internal or external).
Having worked as a developer, architect and project manager on Software projects in many diverse fields I can tell you from experience that the less your developers need to know about the subject the better the software will be. Because to have a team of developers that know nothing about the subject you actually have to write requirements and have reasonable test cases.
The problem here is that you have nothing to show for long periods of time and so most "clients" don't like the idea, but in the end you will have a much better product.
Oh and if you are curious I do support agile development and design just not agile planning and testing.
I guess we can all say good bye to the Culdcept franchise, as small as it may be. I just can't help but be reminded of another unique franchise that had an established fan base on a sony console that decided to make their next game on a microsoft console. Last time it lead to the company getting out of the game buisness entirely, lets hope that doesn't happen again. Ah how Oddworld Inhabitants F**ked over their fans. At least this time they moved to a console maker that has a little more than 0% of the market share.
My point was I was retracting my original statement because the original poster has already voluntarily taken part in the United States political system so he should be protected like anyone else. More importantly was that this was not through any form of coercion or at gun point. The original arguments where after all...
Funny, I didn't enter into any social compact. I've sworn no oath, signed no statement, affirmed no lord, master, or committee.
A bunch of people I would never, ever have chosen to represent me, claim they do without any kind of authorization, direct or implicit, on my part.
...which I have shown is complete bullshit if he is gainfully and legally employed in the United States. All of that without even taking into account the unsubstantiated claim...
They make up laws based upon some metric I also have no truck with, and should these laws subsequently interfere with my pursuit of happiness, undertaken without harm to any other citizen, I will be "justly" punished?
...which just made me realize how full of shit the original poster really was.
From a personal perspective I'm just sick of people interested in reaping the benefits of a government, such as the protection of certain rights, but think they should not have to also help support the government.
The Gamecube fell WAY behind in 3rd party support. They did great with first party- but a lot of big games ignored the 'Cube.
This may be how it appeared from the outside, but I can ensure you that this is not how it worked inside of the industry; there were lots of developers who wanted to bring games to the Gamecube but (as I will explain in a moment) were pressured by their publisher to put the games on other platforms.
Ok, I'm confused. The parent said that Nintendo had poor 3rd party support on the cube, the you say, Na'uh and then back up the parent by say that the publisher wanted the games to be on the other systems. You do realize it doesn't mater what the developers what to do, it is the publishers that make the decisions on what games to produce.
In point of fact, he would be perfectly justified in expecting help from the governmentally appointed law enforcement since he has already paid for it.
I'm going to call shenanigans on this whole topic. The person that started it is most likely gainfully employed. In the United States to be employed and receive payment for that employment you would need to sign a serious of agreements with the employer and the US government (in the form of W4 or other tax forms). No one has put a gun to anyones head and forced them to sign and employment agreement or initial tax form(this may have happen in very rare circumstances but it's certainly not common practice). So in the end I hope this person is bound by the agreements they have signed, and it's there own damn fault for not knowing the full ramifications of that agreement. There are a lot of people in the world that have never signed a US tax form, and most* of them do not receive any US protections or are bound by US law.
The one thing you can always count on in the US is the right to chose. If you have not violated the laws of the country you can leave any time you like.
*And yes I would be all for taking away the protection of rights of anyone not willing to be bound by laws of the country they live in.
The difference between a free world and a non-free one is not democracy, but the principle to protect everyone's basic freedom,
And through what process do you propose that we determine what these so called basic freedoms are? You will not find a single act that all people agree is a freedom people should have. Currency and Property are certainly not part of any natural give right. You might be able to argue that life is a basic right, but even then you will people that argue for restrictions on even this right (such as; does one that takes that right from another retain the right to it themselves). Neo-Libertarian Natural Rights are a joke, they are a made up set up beliefs accept on on faith with no scientific or social consensus to back it. So you have to decided who choses what the rights of the people are or else they will all disagree which leads to mayhem and chaos. It's the same flaw that Anarchy (no mater how good the concept maybe) has. So a system of determining rights agreed upon by the people is the only way that a society can exist with any semblance of stability.
In a nation without any sort of nature right, the people could vote to kill all those rich bastards like bill gates and take their money away - and that's exactly what the communists did.
Just to clear up a common misconception, neither the Soviet Union or China were ever communist regardless of the belief of the ruling party. Calling those countries Communist is like calling the United States Democratic. All there of these countries, Soviet Union, China and the US, are Republics (as is most of the world), with the only major difference being where and how the wealth of the countries was distributed (which by the way should not be confused with communism which has no system of wealth distribution).
I like this idea. I think upon reaching the age of consent all people must sign a agreement with the rest of the citizens of the country (since governmental officials all act with the power granted them by the countries citizens) or else renounce all protections give to other citizens (in other-words, sign the contract or run like hell because it will be open season on your ass if you don't). By signing the contract you agree to working within the societally acceptable methods for handling interactions, transactions, disputes or whatever else. If you at any point violate the contract (say by committing a act outlined in the contract as criminal) you renounce all protections give to those who have maintained their contractual agreements (again, run like hell).
Seriously, if you are old enough (or ballsy enough) to have control over your own life then leave the country if you don't like it. If you really want to stay but don't like the rules then work towards fixing them. Don't just sound like an asshole spouting out neo-libertarian bullshit like it's some sort of "natural right." I only hope that when someone either rapes you, maims you or steals from you that you don't ask for any help from governmentally appointed law enforcement since they have to contract with you either. In all honesty if you don't agree to the contract of the country you are in then you no better (and hardly even different) than a foreign invader.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes he is hiring. He is always hiring. But got luck getting his attention. Joel's company hires what is truly the cream of the crop. No I have not been rejected by his company, but I know enough to know that I would have to put in more than a few months as an unpaid intern if I wanted to get my foot in that door.
I personally support his anti-agile stance since my experience has show that agile process is normally just and excuse to keep working when no one knows what they are doing. Agile is great when you want to milk clients and VC for millions of dollars by making it look like you may someday have a viable product. Too bad agile process rarely ends up with a usable solution.
I'm not going to fuel any fires, but I would like to hear specific reasons that you would say that "Safari truly sucks." As far as I have been able to tell, beyond the flash integration, safari is more stable and faster than any other browser I have seen (on comparable hardware). I know for sure that the JavaScript processor is the fastest currently available in a major browsers (I don't know about any garage projects so I couldn't really comment). Safari also has great CSS support as well as a few features not available in any other browser yet (but I would really use that as a bias one way or another). But please, I really would like to know what makes the other browsers better browsers (extensions do not make for a better browser in my mind but they do make for good other things, like development tools).
How about 3) Cheating at elections is just one more thing the Republicans fucked up.
I never noticed the scaling problems you mention, which does not mean I think they were not there, but that the game was so well design, graphically, that those issues were only noticeable on specific inspection. What I did notice was that the landscapes were truly breath taking, so much so I would rather stare at SoC for hours then have to spend another moment looking over the edge of the Grand Canyon (which really is just a hole in the ground in comparison). I have found the hardware improvements to be merely fractional and not the order or magnitude improvements of 5 or so years ago. Though I am looking forward to gaming in HD, I am hoping that art direction is going to take precedence over pixel pushing.
But, to circle around to where I started, the PS2 showed that is was capable of having games that where as or more appealing than those on the other systems of the generate. The Wii will also have this capability, but will require creativity on the part of the developers and not just hoping that higher resolutions will be replacement for good aesthetics (As I'm sure will be the case with the 360 and possibly with the PS3).
But at least I can still look forward to games that are out play and not just looking pretty like GH2.
I always thought the point of graphical prowess was to create a visual appealing game, and very few people argue against SoC being one of the most visually appealing games to date. This is just the first time I have every seen the words "ugly" and "Shadow of the Colossus" used together. But it does add credence to the original statement that Graphics are subjective.
The point still remains that quality graphics are highly subjective, as of yet no games produced on any console has had the smoothness and quality of the original Dragon's Lair (not a single jaggy or unintentional slowdown in the game), many years old now, yet we would not use that as a shining example of top graphic capability.
But if you go ahead and change that line as "...PS2 games there were produced were generally weaker..." and take out the Dreamcast (because it never had a long enough life to really know) I'll agree with you, but the PS2 itself, with a developer that understood the architecture, was more than capable of competing or beating the other systems.
Interestingly enough, I am saying this to actually support your overall point. So far no game written has every been fully optimized and fully taxed the system it was written for. In the end each generation comes down to the development and not the hardware (or at least the combination of the two and certainly not the hardware alone). I think we will see better developers producing games for the Wii because they will be forced to do the best they can with the statistically weaker hardware, which in the end will make for better games. Developers allowed to be lazy will be...
I'm not trying to prove one way or another in this argument. I'm just trying to point out a few things that may need some deeper though. Personally I only by used when there is no other chose and even then I have sent payment to the original artist when I have been able to.
Anyway, gotta run, gotta keep my son from sticking his finger in a wall socket...
As much as I agree that marriage takes continual work I have to disagree on the idea that people wake up one day and no longer love each other. I guess my idea of love is not a conditional situation that can come and go. Your software analogy is not only twisted, but also shows a big reason there is such a high divorce right. There has been written software that has never need a single bug fix and has worked as designed from day one. Marriages can be the same if the right amount of planing is done up front and an good understanding of the scope of the marriage is understood by all involved. All too often people enter marriages for conflicting reasons which causes a marriage to have it's own form of scope creep. And all this coming from someone that has been married to the same person for 10 years, and will tell you it hasn't been easy, but then again I didn't follow my own advice, since I didn't understand it then.
And second, you obviously haven't a clue since you are using phrases like "Horrible Children," unless of course "Damion" lives in your neighborhood.
First of all what ever happened to the old rule of "sticks and stones?" Words are just words, and edited pictures are just art, so I can't see how a work of fiction posted on the internet hurts anyone.
In GH2 you will be able to play base on certain songs (others will have rhythm guitar instead). So songs like YYZ and the Primus one will include the base tracks. I don't know if you will be able to play them solo but they will be there for 2 player co-op mode. Atleast that is what the press releases and previews have all said.
Yeah it is too bad there are a lot of bad software shops with a lot of bad managers running a lot of bad projects.
But seriously it does not require perfect requirements or a perfect master. The key is to have requirements, including test cases and success criteria. Things certainly change but it shouldn't be the usual "change the code before even determining if there really is a problem since you have no requirement to compare to , hope it does what it's supposed to do, write a test based on the code that, unless the developer is an idiot, has to pass, because it is based on the code he wrote after all, and then maybe, and this is a big maybe, go back and update the requirements" but instead should be "determine the problem, review the problem, update the requirement, write the tests, determine completion criteria, distill the subject mater into terms the developers can understand, which isn't that hard, all things can be distilled to binary comparisons after all, write the code and the test the code based on the aforementioned tests."
You will find out that if you do what people say and not what you think they mean they will start to tell you what they actually mean and therefor reduce the amount of guess work to zero. So if whoever is in your analyst role can't convert business requirements into technical requirements best get yourself a new analyst. This really isn't that much work, but it is certainly more effective (cost, time and quality) than not having decent specs and people specialized in what they do. And if you don't believe me you can do one of two things, read someone like Brooks, or honestly give it a try (took about a year to turn one very disorganized shop around and it is no the single most efficient place I have ever worked).
Having developed Genetic Research software I can tell your from experience, a little knowledge is dangerous and having enough to be worth while would have most developers going back to school for another 6+ years, which is just about enough to forget how develop and at the very least be a generation behind the latest technology and advancements in development.
Developers do not need to know a thing about the subject mater they are developing. Software development is labor, and labor does not need to know why they are doing what they are doing, they only need to know how. The best software comes from small teams made up of good developers, good analysts, good architects and people knowledgeable about the subject. The software we have to day is built mostly by developer/architect/analyst (one person expected to fill all three roles) and sales reps (regurgitating unreasonable promises to they made to some client, internal or external).
Having worked as a developer, architect and project manager on Software projects in many diverse fields I can tell you from experience that the less your developers need to know about the subject the better the software will be. Because to have a team of developers that know nothing about the subject you actually have to write requirements and have reasonable test cases.
The problem here is that you have nothing to show for long periods of time and so most "clients" don't like the idea, but in the end you will have a much better product.
Oh and if you are curious I do support agile development and design just not agile planning and testing.
I guess we can all say good bye to the Culdcept franchise, as small as it may be. I just can't help but be reminded of another unique franchise that had an established fan base on a sony console that decided to make their next game on a microsoft console. Last time it lead to the company getting out of the game buisness entirely, lets hope that doesn't happen again. Ah how Oddworld Inhabitants F**ked over their fans. At least this time they moved to a console maker that has a little more than 0% of the market share.
From a personal perspective I'm just sick of people interested in reaping the benefits of a government, such as the protection of certain rights, but think they should not have to also help support the government.
Ok, I'm confused. The parent said that Nintendo had poor 3rd party support on the cube, the you say, Na'uh and then back up the parent by say that the publisher wanted the games to be on the other systems. You do realize it doesn't mater what the developers what to do, it is the publishers that make the decisions on what games to produce.
I'm going to call shenanigans on this whole topic. The person that started it is most likely gainfully employed. In the United States to be employed and receive payment for that employment you would need to sign a serious of agreements with the employer and the US government (in the form of W4 or other tax forms). No one has put a gun to anyones head and forced them to sign and employment agreement or initial tax form(this may have happen in very rare circumstances but it's certainly not common practice). So in the end I hope this person is bound by the agreements they have signed, and it's there own damn fault for not knowing the full ramifications of that agreement. There are a lot of people in the world that have never signed a US tax form, and most* of them do not receive any US protections or are bound by US law.
The one thing you can always count on in the US is the right to chose. If you have not violated the laws of the country you can leave any time you like.
*And yes I would be all for taking away the protection of rights of anyone not willing to be bound by laws of the country they live in.
And through what process do you propose that we determine what these so called basic freedoms are? You will not find a single act that all people agree is a freedom people should have. Currency and Property are certainly not part of any natural give right. You might be able to argue that life is a basic right, but even then you will people that argue for restrictions on even this right (such as; does one that takes that right from another retain the right to it themselves). Neo-Libertarian Natural Rights are a joke, they are a made up set up beliefs accept on on faith with no scientific or social consensus to back it. So you have to decided who choses what the rights of the people are or else they will all disagree which leads to mayhem and chaos. It's the same flaw that Anarchy (no mater how good the concept maybe) has. So a system of determining rights agreed upon by the people is the only way that a society can exist with any semblance of stability.
Just to clear up a common misconception, neither the Soviet Union or China were ever communist regardless of the belief of the ruling party. Calling those countries Communist is like calling the United States Democratic. All there of these countries, Soviet Union, China and the US, are Republics (as is most of the world), with the only major difference being where and how the wealth of the countries was distributed (which by the way should not be confused with communism which has no system of wealth distribution).I like this idea. I think upon reaching the age of consent all people must sign a agreement with the rest of the citizens of the country (since governmental officials all act with the power granted them by the countries citizens) or else renounce all protections give to other citizens (in other-words, sign the contract or run like hell because it will be open season on your ass if you don't). By signing the contract you agree to working within the societally acceptable methods for handling interactions, transactions, disputes or whatever else. If you at any point violate the contract (say by committing a act outlined in the contract as criminal) you renounce all protections give to those who have maintained their contractual agreements (again, run like hell).
Seriously, if you are old enough (or ballsy enough) to have control over your own life then leave the country if you don't like it. If you really want to stay but don't like the rules then work towards fixing them. Don't just sound like an asshole spouting out neo-libertarian bullshit like it's some sort of "natural right." I only hope that when someone either rapes you, maims you or steals from you that you don't ask for any help from governmentally appointed law enforcement since they have to contract with you either. In all honesty if you don't agree to the contract of the country you are in then you no better (and hardly even different) than a foreign invader.