If you don't know how the game industry works, shut your goran mouth.
A developer develops the game. A publisher funds the development of that game. The publisher contracts a manufacturer to make the disks, box and materials for a game (the box costs for a PC title are generally $1-2 per box, for a console game they are generally $10-15 per box). The publisher then sells boxes of a game to a distributor, at ~$38 per box. The distributor marks the title up 15%, and resells it to BB, CompUSA or some other store. They mark it up another 15%, and sell it to you.
On titles that are risky, the publisher will have to promise "sell-through" or "buy-back" for a title to ensure that the retailer won't be left twisting in the wind. For example, EA might promise that 80% of boxes purchased will be sold through to consumers, or else it will buy back the boxes up the promised sell through.
In general, any money that a developer gets per box is royalties, and amounts to a few dollars or cents per box. The publisher takes the lion's share of the money, but then (theoretically) they take the lion's share of the risk as well.
The reason that developers are against reselling used titles is not because they lose a few dollars per box. The issue is that the publisher loses money per box, which can cause future titles from that developer to look less attractive when they are vying for the scarce development dollars available from the publishers.
Generally, what a hit game gets developers is street cred with publishers, and a much longer leash for future development.
I think you misunderstand me. From my post (emphasis added):
Don't misunderstand me, I'm not saying that there isn't global warming. I have skin. I can tell it's there, even over my relatively short lifespan.
We should get in on the Kyoto accord (or at least emulate like we're a part of it), cut back our emissions and do our best not to perturb the natural rest-state of the environment. But in the short term, we need to figure out better ways to evacuate people from affected areas and find better methods to deal with disaster recovery.
I agree that we need to take steps to help in both the long and short term. But for the very short term, arguing about whether or not global warming affected Katrina's strength or the frequency of hurricanes this season is wasted energy.
Right now, it is irrelevant whether global warming contributed to Katrina or not. First and foremost, we need to fix problems for the short term. We need to improve our emergency response as well as our plans for evacuating "hard to evacuate persons"--the elderly, the immobilized and the people of limited means. Once we're convinced that our pre- and post-disaster response is "good enough," we can move on to spending energy and man hours thinking about and implementing solutions for long term problems.
But (and this is a point I edited out of my original post), whether or not global warming is responsible for increased natural disasters we should take steps to curb our impact on the environment in all measurable forms, or we should determine what impacts are "acceptable." Doing so makes us good neighbors in the global sense (since we're all sharing the same air, water and environment), and it makes us good caretakers for future generations.
It's completely irrelevant whether global warming is a cause for the increase in hurricanes or not. If it is, then there's nothing we can do to help the problem in the short term--even if we reduced human contributions to global warming to 0, it would still take many years for the damage done already to dissipate. So blaming the especially strong hurricane season on global warming is a bit like blaming your father for the kind of person you've turned out to be. It might make you feel better, but it won't help with the actual problem--that you're a deadbeat drunk and you beat your kids.
There will always be hurricanes. Just like there will always be tornados, droughts, earthquakes, sinkholes and other natural disasters. That's why they're called natural disasters. They're natural. They're a part of nature. The fact that there are 200 hurricanes this year and only 10 next year doesn't help the people affected by them any more or less.
Don't misunderstand me, I'm not saying that there isn't global warming. I have skin. I can tell it's there, even over my relatively short lifespan. We should get in on the Kyoto accord (or at least emulate like we're a part of it), cut back our emissions and do our best not to perturb the natural rest-state of the environment. But in the short term, we need to figure out better ways to evacuate people from affected areas and find better methods to deal with disaster recovery.
You've almost got the correct solution. I'm convinced that the "real" correct solution is to maximize the amount of time a telemarketer has to spend on the phone with you without a successful sale.
The trivial method of doing this is straightforward, you get them into their selling mode, and then very quietly set the phone down. They'll talk for maybe 5-10 minutes before realizing that there's no one on the other end of the phone. After 15 minutes (or when you hear the annoying "phone off the hook" tone), come back and hang up.
The slightly more effective method would be to record a sample of yourself saying (at 10-15 second intervals) "OOOoooh... Aaaaaahhh.. That sounds really cool.... Yes, please, tell me more..." You want the recorded loop to be ~5 minutes long to try to make the tape last longer during the phone call... People are pretty good at picking up patterns, so the longer the loop, the longer you can keep the solicitor on the phone. There is a slight improvement possible on this method whereby you record the samples individually and then use winamp to randomize the playback. That oughta be good for at least 20-30 minutes of telemarketer time.
But the optimal solution is clearly to write an AI application that leads the telemarketer down the longest possible path through their script, and possibly loops them through it from time to time. Ideally, the application would even recognize call waiting and would ask the marketer to "hold on" while it clicked over and allowed you to speak with the person on the other line. It would need to analyze what they're saying and then say "no" at appropriate times to keep the marketer on the phone for as long as possible. I imagine with such an application, you could probably keep a marketer on the phone for 2-3 hours, if not more!
As soon as I'm done writing this app, I'll be happy to sell it to you for a mere $19.95. Just send me your telephone number so I can call you and....
Now that we've established that Dan doesn't know where to look for jobs in the game industry, let's talk about some of the other things he doesn't seem to get.
For one thing, the "programs" Dan is talking about are primarily things that I've discovered through years of experience (for example, real world Database Design), or things that I've picked up in a weekend over the course of my employment (for example, a second 'Big' language, a scripting/'agile' language or two, XML (and why it's actually a pretty terrible file format), and common protocols).
But they all share one thing in common: the courses that Dan are suggesting would be great at somewhere like ITT Technical Institute, or at Devry "University," but they do not belong at an academic institution--by and large. The things he is proposing are largely vocational. They'll make for an okay programmer, and probably only a okay programmer in one field. They do not make a well-rounded computer scientist, nor do they help you out when you decide that you don't want to do database design anymore, you want to write commerical shrinkwrap software instead.
My well-rounded CS education has allowed me to run the gamut of employment in computer science related areas. I started out in Telcom, moved to commercial shrinkwrap, wrote several video games for very large video game publishers, and now I design graphics hardware for the market leading graphics chip company.
Which of the courses there in Dan's suggested curriculum are going to allow me to do all of that? I'll give you a hint; they aren't there.
Without advanced mathematics (Calc II, Linear Algebra), I would've never been able to do graphics programming, which would've kept me out of the commercial shrinkwrap business (where I did image editing software). It would've further kept me from doing 3D grapihcs applications, which would've kept me out of the game industry as well as my current position. Without Advanced Data Structures, and Automata theory, I would've been unable to write code that was efficient enough for the high performance needs of the games I worked on.
In short (too late), Dan's proposed course load (of bullshit) would lead you to be a moderately acceptable programmer. You would be able to make a living, but you would always be one of the first to be laid off. Get a real education from a real institution of higher learning, and bring me good fundamentals. Because for pretty much all junior level positions, it's on-the-job-training. Without good fundamentals you will be unable to learn quickly enough to be of any use to an employer.
No, no, no, no, wrong, wrong, bad dog, no biscuit.
The security model of a system is largely irrelevant when it comes to viruses, trojans and the like.
What is relevant is whether the machine has the concept of "privileged users" built into the processor. If it does not, then there is no protection, regardless of what limitations your software imposes. Software is only as secure as the processor it is run on.
What is also relevant (and significantly easier to exploit in fewer bytes) is what kinds of bugs exist in the processes run by privileged users. Don't assume there aren't any, they are always there. The reason Mac (and as a corollary Linux) have been relatively safe and secure from viruses and trojans so far has been that compared to the fatted cow that is Windows, they have offered very small targets. If the distribution of installs ever shifts significantly, the security through obscurity that is linux and the Mac will evaporate.
There is a subtle, but important difference between professional athletes and people in the video game industry.
Professional athletes are (by and large) paid enough money that they could conceivably retire after 2-3 years (some of them after only 1 year) and they could live comfortably for the rest of their lives.
People in the game industry are generally paid at or slightly above the IT industry average for their particular position, title, and experience.
In other words, churn and burn in the NBA, NFL or MLB is acceptable because those people are compensated accordingly. If someone gets burned out on playing football after 3 years, that's okay because he's made enough money to live on for the rest of his life. If someone gets burned out on making games after 3 years, he has nothing more to show for it than a resume that most regular IT companies won't touch.
We just wonder when private industry will put Nasa out of the game.
The idiocy of that statement is so profound, I can only attribute it to higher education. You must have gone to college to write something so moronic (1).
You realize that about 90% of the work done by NASA is actually done by NGOs, right? Boeing, Lockheed Martin, USA and a whole lot of other contractors do all of the actual grunt work. The overwhelming majority of work done for NASA is done by the private sector. It has been forever. NASA basically just manages what is done. The reason that NASA is having a hard time with space flight is that we're still in space flight's infancy, and space flight is fundamentally challenging. It's difficult to get people and materials off this rock we call home, and more difficult to get them back.
(1) Penn & Teller: Bullshit! Season 2 Episode 1: Peta.
When I worked at EA as a programmer, I had a chance to meet the e-staff. They were all sort of exactly what I'd expected (having worked for the slave drivers for about 5 months at this point) except for Don.
He was the one guy on the e-staff who didn't seem to like the way the employees were treated, and didn't really like the way the company was headed. I expect that he's probably going to leave the game industry as well, but that's unfortunate.
What's truly disheartening about this is that it seems to indicate, from a high-level perspective, acceptance of what has become the standard in the game industry. Churn and burn your employees, there will always be two ready to replace any one that falls. The fact that Don disagreed with this worldview, was likely to take over the largest video game publisher, and decided that he didn't want the job would seem to indicate that he couldn't rectify profitability with employee rights / treatment.
As they would say at EA, Don Mattrick has left EA to pursue other opportunities. We wish him the best on all his future endeavors.
It's always a "would you rather" issue, unless you assume development of a second platform to be infinitely fast with 0 support.
Given that they already have two platforms, and one of them has OGL support, the development for a third shouldn't eat that many resources.
However, linux is a really tricky platform to develop for, especially for games. The support costs are *very* high by comparison to other platforms, because the term "linux" refers to so many different distributions.
Your reason for why they do not open the source earlier is not John's stated reason. He's mentioned this in blogs before, but the reason he does not open his source sooner is because of the perception of licensees. It would seem "rude" to charge someone for a license (to the tune of $250K) only to turn around and open the source up for all to see a month later.
id was planning on opening the source up about 4 months ago, but had just signed a new licensee who requested more time before the release happened.
No, it isn't. Microsoft had to kill Netscape because they hate to NOT have the majority of users in a particular field, particularly if they feel that area is a growth area or a high margins area.
It had nothing to do with their belief that web browsers would make the OS irrelevant. If it had, they would've brought that up in the anti-trust case levelled against them in the US. (Well, your honor, we feel that these two industries are absolutely intertwined, and we therefore were not using our monopoly in one business to gain an advantage in another business.)
This way, when the researchers get a chance to get more data and then decide that it's actually a comet, asteroid, or an object in the Kuiper belt and make an announcement to such an effect, the public will condemn them for releasing their initial findings too soon!
Shut your whiney pie-hole. Developers, who are *undoubtedly* more responsible for the success or failure of a title than someone who comes in and says "Zug zug" are ahead of you in line.
Had game publishers agreed to residuals for voice actors, I'm pretty sure all holy hell would break lose. (Or at the least, you would've seen a mass exodus of developers).
I sure as hell wouldn't stick around in the industry while some prima-donna comes in, gets paid $150+ an hour, and then walks away with residuals for what amounts to 5-10 hours of work.
Trolling? Read my previous comments. If I were trolling, I'd be hiding under an AC... Like yourself.
I practice what I preach. I haven't played HL2. Why? Because I find it unacceptable that when I play a game--even in single-player--it's going to phone home.
You have some misconceptions about the industry. Please allow me to dispel them.
First off, DRM comes from the music industry, and from commercial shrinkwrap in general. The only reason that game publishers agree to add DRM to their media is that large retailers (ala Walmart) will not carry a game on their shelves without it. Seems they still allow returns, and are concerned about people copying the game and returning it.
Closed platforms? Well, duh. When you build a custom machine to do a particular job, it will be better at it than a general purpose machine. Consoles aren't closed platforms to prevent piracy. They're closed platforms to be more capable for less cost at their intended goals: playing games.
Dongles? In the game industry? What games are you playing? 3DStudio MAX does not count as a game.
Special CD/DVD drivers? Again, what are you talking about?
Phoning home is--I agree--disgusting. But I made my choice to vote with my dollars. I didn't buy or play HL2, which I would've otherwise purchased.
You think game developers have expensive digs? Try again. With the exception of Ion Storm Dallas, which was simply ludicrous, we generally work in normal office buildings. The last studio I was in was on the second floor of a totally ordinary suburban office building. Rent is not the primary cost of developing video games. Personnel is the primary cost. And personnel is required because of the requirements that consumers place on video games.
Again, producing original games requires that people will *buy* said original games. If you see a truly original game and you want to see more like it, buy a new copy of the game. That tells publishers--and the industry at large--that the game is something you'd like to see more of.
And games *are* priced more than competitively. It costs ~$50 USD to buy a video game. If your video game provides you with 10 hours of enjoyment, then it was $5 / hour. That's less than the price of a new release in the theater (depending on where you live). I played Quake3 for probably 10,000 hours (if not more). The cost of Q3 for me in terms of hours of enjoyment was so low that I feel like I practically stole money from id.
Plus, the cost of games on the shelf hasn't gone up in almost 30 years (I remember buying the original Test Drive for the PC in the late 80s. How much did it cost? You got it, $50.) The cost of making the games, OTOH, has gone up exponentially.
I'm not saying that there is a 1:1 correlation between pirated copies and lost revenue. But what I am saying is that there is some correlation, and that it isn't right for you to reap the benefits of someone else's labor, without their permission, without compensating them for it. And when you download and play a game, that is exactly what you are doing.
...If you don't like the way products are released in your market, you have several options. Piracy isn't (a legitimate) one of them. And before I hear that it's not piracy, it's copyright infringement, realize that I'm not referring to the product that you're downloading but the money you are depriving the developer of having.
If you don't like your options when a game comes out, you have several legitimate choices:
1) Purchase a substitution game that is released with terms you like. (IE, released in the US and UK on the same day with reasonable pricing that you agree on) 2) Wait for a price drop to bring the price in line with what you are willing to pay. 3) Wait for a copy to go on sale on the aftermarket for a price you are willing to pay.
And yes, some publishers are doing really well, and won't *really* mind the lost revenue. But the majority of them aren't. And developers aren't doing well, by and large.
Slashdot Mirror
If you don't know how the game industry works, shut your goran mouth.
A developer develops the game. A publisher funds the development of that game. The publisher contracts a manufacturer to make the disks, box and materials for a game (the box costs for a PC title are generally $1-2 per box, for a console game they are generally $10-15 per box). The publisher then sells boxes of a game to a distributor, at ~$38 per box. The distributor marks the title up 15%, and resells it to BB, CompUSA or some other store. They mark it up another 15%, and sell it to you.
On titles that are risky, the publisher will have to promise "sell-through" or "buy-back" for a title to ensure that the retailer won't be left twisting in the wind. For example, EA might promise that 80% of boxes purchased will be sold through to consumers, or else it will buy back the boxes up the promised sell through.
In general, any money that a developer gets per box is royalties, and amounts to a few dollars or cents per box. The publisher takes the lion's share of the money, but then (theoretically) they take the lion's share of the risk as well.
The reason that developers are against reselling used titles is not because they lose a few dollars per box. The issue is that the publisher loses money per box, which can cause future titles from that developer to look less attractive when they are vying for the scarce development dollars available from the publishers.
Generally, what a hit game gets developers is street cred with publishers, and a much longer leash for future development.
Will my tanks still get beaten by one spearman in a city? Cause if so, I'll uninstall as quickly as I did with Civ III.
How about my marines? Will they still get trumped by guys with bows and arrows?
I agree that we need to take steps to help in both the long and short term. But for the very short term, arguing about whether or not global warming affected Katrina's strength or the frequency of hurricanes this season is wasted energy.
Right now, it is irrelevant whether global warming contributed to Katrina or not. First and foremost, we need to fix problems for the short term. We need to improve our emergency response as well as our plans for evacuating "hard to evacuate persons"--the elderly, the immobilized and the people of limited means. Once we're convinced that our pre- and post-disaster response is "good enough," we can move on to spending energy and man hours thinking about and implementing solutions for long term problems.
But (and this is a point I edited out of my original post), whether or not global warming is responsible for increased natural disasters we should take steps to curb our impact on the environment in all measurable forms, or we should determine what impacts are "acceptable." Doing so makes us good neighbors in the global sense (since we're all sharing the same air, water and environment), and it makes us good caretakers for future generations.
It's completely irrelevant whether global warming is a cause for the increase in hurricanes or not. If it is, then there's nothing we can do to help the problem in the short term--even if we reduced human contributions to global warming to 0, it would still take many years for the damage done already to dissipate. So blaming the especially strong hurricane season on global warming is a bit like blaming your father for the kind of person you've turned out to be. It might make you feel better, but it won't help with the actual problem--that you're a deadbeat drunk and you beat your kids.
There will always be hurricanes. Just like there will always be tornados, droughts, earthquakes, sinkholes and other natural disasters. That's why they're called natural disasters. They're natural. They're a part of nature. The fact that there are 200 hurricanes this year and only 10 next year doesn't help the people affected by them any more or less.
Don't misunderstand me, I'm not saying that there isn't global warming. I have skin. I can tell it's there, even over my relatively short lifespan. We should get in on the Kyoto accord (or at least emulate like we're a part of it), cut back our emissions and do our best not to perturb the natural rest-state of the environment. But in the short term, we need to figure out better ways to evacuate people from affected areas and find better methods to deal with disaster recovery.
You've almost got the correct solution. I'm convinced that the "real" correct solution is to maximize the amount of time a telemarketer has to spend on the phone with you without a successful sale.
The trivial method of doing this is straightforward, you get them into their selling mode, and then very quietly set the phone down. They'll talk for maybe 5-10 minutes before realizing that there's no one on the other end of the phone. After 15 minutes (or when you hear the annoying "phone off the hook" tone), come back and hang up.
The slightly more effective method would be to record a sample of yourself saying (at 10-15 second intervals) "OOOoooh... Aaaaaahhh.. That sounds really cool.... Yes, please, tell me more..." You want the recorded loop to be ~5 minutes long to try to make the tape last longer during the phone call... People are pretty good at picking up patterns, so the longer the loop, the longer you can keep the solicitor on the phone. There is a slight improvement possible on this method whereby you record the samples individually and then use winamp to randomize the playback. That oughta be good for at least 20-30 minutes of telemarketer time.
But the optimal solution is clearly to write an AI application that leads the telemarketer down the longest possible path through their script, and possibly loops them through it from time to time. Ideally, the application would even recognize call waiting and would ask the marketer to "hold on" while it clicked over and allowed you to speak with the person on the other line. It would need to analyze what they're saying and then say "no" at appropriate times to keep the marketer on the phone for as long as possible. I imagine with such an application, you could probably keep a marketer on the phone for 2-3 hours, if not more!
As soon as I'm done writing this app, I'll be happy to sell it to you for a mere $19.95. Just send me your telephone number so I can call you and....
Now that we've established that Dan doesn't know where to look for jobs in the game industry, let's talk about some of the other things he doesn't seem to get.
For one thing, the "programs" Dan is talking about are primarily things that I've discovered through years of experience (for example, real world Database Design), or things that I've picked up in a weekend over the course of my employment (for example, a second 'Big' language, a scripting/'agile' language or two, XML (and why it's actually a pretty terrible file format), and common protocols).
But they all share one thing in common: the courses that Dan are suggesting would be great at somewhere like ITT Technical Institute, or at Devry "University," but they do not belong at an academic institution--by and large. The things he is proposing are largely vocational. They'll make for an okay programmer, and probably only a okay programmer in one field. They do not make a well-rounded computer scientist, nor do they help you out when you decide that you don't want to do database design anymore, you want to write commerical shrinkwrap software instead.
My well-rounded CS education has allowed me to run the gamut of employment in computer science related areas. I started out in Telcom, moved to commercial shrinkwrap, wrote several video games for very large video game publishers, and now I design graphics hardware for the market leading graphics chip company.
Which of the courses there in Dan's suggested curriculum are going to allow me to do all of that? I'll give you a hint; they aren't there.
Without advanced mathematics (Calc II, Linear Algebra), I would've never been able to do graphics programming, which would've kept me out of the commercial shrinkwrap business (where I did image editing software). It would've further kept me from doing 3D grapihcs applications, which would've kept me out of the game industry as well as my current position. Without Advanced Data Structures, and Automata theory, I would've been unable to write code that was efficient enough for the high performance needs of the games I worked on.
In short (too late), Dan's proposed course load (of bullshit) would lead you to be a moderately acceptable programmer. You would be able to make a living, but you would always be one of the first to be laid off. Get a real education from a real institution of higher learning, and bring me good fundamentals. Because for pretty much all junior level positions, it's on-the-job-training. Without good fundamentals you will be unable to learn quickly enough to be of any use to an employer.
No, no, no, no, wrong, wrong, bad dog, no biscuit.
The security model of a system is largely irrelevant when it comes to viruses, trojans and the like.
What is relevant is whether the machine has the concept of "privileged users" built into the processor. If it does not, then there is no protection, regardless of what limitations your software imposes. Software is only as secure as the processor it is run on.
What is also relevant (and significantly easier to exploit in fewer bytes) is what kinds of bugs exist in the processes run by privileged users. Don't assume there aren't any, they are always there. The reason Mac (and as a corollary Linux) have been relatively safe and secure from viruses and trojans so far has been that compared to the fatted cow that is Windows, they have offered very small targets. If the distribution of installs ever shifts significantly, the security through obscurity that is linux and the Mac will evaporate.
To assume otherwise is foolish and naive.
There is a subtle, but important difference between professional athletes and people in the video game industry.
Professional athletes are (by and large) paid enough money that they could conceivably retire after 2-3 years (some of them after only 1 year) and they could live comfortably for the rest of their lives.
People in the game industry are generally paid at or slightly above the IT industry average for their particular position, title, and experience.
In other words, churn and burn in the NBA, NFL or MLB is acceptable because those people are compensated accordingly. If someone gets burned out on playing football after 3 years, that's okay because he's made enough money to live on for the rest of his life. If someone gets burned out on making games after 3 years, he has nothing more to show for it than a resume that most regular IT companies won't touch.
The idiocy of that statement is so profound, I can only attribute it to higher education. You must have gone to college to write something so moronic (1).
You realize that about 90% of the work done by NASA is actually done by NGOs, right? Boeing, Lockheed Martin, USA and a whole lot of other contractors do all of the actual grunt work. The overwhelming majority of work done for NASA is done by the private sector. It has been forever. NASA basically just manages what is done. The reason that NASA is having a hard time with space flight is that we're still in space flight's infancy, and space flight is fundamentally challenging. It's difficult to get people and materials off this rock we call home, and more difficult to get them back.
(1) Penn & Teller: Bullshit! Season 2 Episode 1: Peta.
When I worked at EA as a programmer, I had a chance to meet the e-staff. They were all sort of exactly what I'd expected (having worked for the slave drivers for about 5 months at this point) except for Don.
He was the one guy on the e-staff who didn't seem to like the way the employees were treated, and didn't really like the way the company was headed. I expect that he's probably going to leave the game industry as well, but that's unfortunate.
What's truly disheartening about this is that it seems to indicate, from a high-level perspective, acceptance of what has become the standard in the game industry. Churn and burn your employees, there will always be two ready to replace any one that falls. The fact that Don disagreed with this worldview, was likely to take over the largest video game publisher, and decided that he didn't want the job would seem to indicate that he couldn't rectify profitability with employee rights / treatment.
As they would say at EA, Don Mattrick has left EA to pursue other opportunities. We wish him the best on all his future endeavors.
Actually, that's not a crime. Unless you are in a monopoly situation. Which is exactly what AMD has said, again and again.
Wow, it's times like this one that I wish /. had a -1, Chauvinist rating. Or at least an "Asshat".
I guess "Troll" will have to suffice.
"If slashdot had affected us as geeks we'd be coding in dark rooms, munching doritos and posting repetitive comments" /ducks
Who cares? It's playing at ~1/3 full framerate and is barely recognizable.
This was almost interesting, but then I noticed that there was a strange pattern in the wood in my desk and I got distracted.
What were we talking about again?
In 1491, we totally could. But that f'n Columbus guy went and messed everything up.
It's always a "would you rather" issue, unless you assume development of a second platform to be infinitely fast with 0 support.
Given that they already have two platforms, and one of them has OGL support, the development for a third shouldn't eat that many resources.
However, linux is a really tricky platform to develop for, especially for games. The support costs are *very* high by comparison to other platforms, because the term "linux" refers to so many different distributions.
Unfortunate, but true.
Density is disinteresting in this case. Would you rather have 1% of 90%, or 5% of 8%?
I'll give you a hint, it's not the latter.
Your reason for why they do not open the source earlier is not John's stated reason. He's mentioned this in blogs before, but the reason he does not open his source sooner is because of the perception of licensees. It would seem "rude" to charge someone for a license (to the tune of $250K) only to turn around and open the source up for all to see a month later.
id was planning on opening the source up about 4 months ago, but had just signed a new licensee who requested more time before the release happened.
Are we happy because a big company didn't get a patent for something obvious, or mad because Apple is being jerked around by Microsoft?
My head is gonna asplode.
No, it isn't. Microsoft had to kill Netscape because they hate to NOT have the majority of users in a particular field, particularly if they feel that area is a growth area or a high margins area.
It had nothing to do with their belief that web browsers would make the OS irrelevant. If it had, they would've brought that up in the anti-trust case levelled against them in the US. (Well, your honor, we feel that these two industries are absolutely intertwined, and we therefore were not using our monopoly in one business to gain an advantage in another business.)
This way, when the researchers get a chance to get more data and then decide that it's actually a comet, asteroid, or an object in the Kuiper belt and make an announcement to such an effect, the public will condemn them for releasing their initial findings too soon!
Yay!
...
Oh wait, that sucks.
Shut your whiney pie-hole. Developers, who are *undoubtedly* more responsible for the success or failure of a title than someone who comes in and says "Zug zug" are ahead of you in line.
Had game publishers agreed to residuals for voice actors, I'm pretty sure all holy hell would break lose. (Or at the least, you would've seen a mass exodus of developers).
I sure as hell wouldn't stick around in the industry while some prima-donna comes in, gets paid $150+ an hour, and then walks away with residuals for what amounts to 5-10 hours of work.
Trolling? Read my previous comments. If I were trolling, I'd be hiding under an AC... Like yourself.
I practice what I preach. I haven't played HL2. Why? Because I find it unacceptable that when I play a game--even in single-player--it's going to phone home.
You have some misconceptions about the industry. Please allow me to dispel them.
First off, DRM comes from the music industry, and from commercial shrinkwrap in general. The only reason that game publishers agree to add DRM to their media is that large retailers (ala Walmart) will not carry a game on their shelves without it. Seems they still allow returns, and are concerned about people copying the game and returning it.
Closed platforms? Well, duh. When you build a custom machine to do a particular job, it will be better at it than a general purpose machine. Consoles aren't closed platforms to prevent piracy. They're closed platforms to be more capable for less cost at their intended goals: playing games.
Dongles? In the game industry? What games are you playing? 3DStudio MAX does not count as a game.
Special CD/DVD drivers? Again, what are you talking about?
Phoning home is--I agree--disgusting. But I made my choice to vote with my dollars. I didn't buy or play HL2, which I would've otherwise purchased.
You think game developers have expensive digs? Try again. With the exception of Ion Storm Dallas, which was simply ludicrous, we generally work in normal office buildings. The last studio I was in was on the second floor of a totally ordinary suburban office building. Rent is not the primary cost of developing video games. Personnel is the primary cost. And personnel is required because of the requirements that consumers place on video games.
Again, producing original games requires that people will *buy* said original games. If you see a truly original game and you want to see more like it, buy a new copy of the game. That tells publishers--and the industry at large--that the game is something you'd like to see more of.
And games *are* priced more than competitively. It costs ~$50 USD to buy a video game. If your video game provides you with 10 hours of enjoyment, then it was $5 / hour. That's less than the price of a new release in the theater (depending on where you live). I played Quake3 for probably 10,000 hours (if not more). The cost of Q3 for me in terms of hours of enjoyment was so low that I feel like I practically stole money from id.
Plus, the cost of games on the shelf hasn't gone up in almost 30 years (I remember buying the original Test Drive for the PC in the late 80s. How much did it cost? You got it, $50.) The cost of making the games, OTOH, has gone up exponentially.
I'm not saying that there is a 1:1 correlation between pirated copies and lost revenue. But what I am saying is that there is some correlation, and that it isn't right for you to reap the benefits of someone else's labor, without their permission, without compensating them for it. And when you download and play a game, that is exactly what you are doing.
...If you don't like the way products are released in your market, you have several options. Piracy isn't (a legitimate) one of them. And before I hear that it's not piracy, it's copyright infringement, realize that I'm not referring to the product that you're downloading but the money you are depriving the developer of having.
If you don't like your options when a game comes out, you have several legitimate choices:
1) Purchase a substitution game that is released with terms you like. (IE, released in the US and UK on the same day with reasonable pricing that you agree on)
2) Wait for a price drop to bring the price in line with what you are willing to pay.
3) Wait for a copy to go on sale on the aftermarket for a price you are willing to pay.
And yes, some publishers are doing really well, and won't *really* mind the lost revenue. But the majority of them aren't. And developers aren't doing well, by and large.
Try again.