Whether or not it is a problem with the Linux community having to pay for software, or if it is because Linux does not have enough of the core gaming market is up for debate.
The more likely explanation is that people who might have been willing to pay full price for *new* Linux games aren't willing to pay full price for ports of old Windows games they already own. When a game is already out for a year, most of the people who would be interested in buying it already have bit the bullet and gotten the Windows version.
Case in point: Civ:CTP for linux sold well. It was not a year of waiting for the port like everyuthing else Loki put out. I'd have been willing to wait a year or so for a Linux port on most games I've bought - but most of the time I didn't even know a loki port was going to happen until well after the windows version was out. So to wait for a linux port I'd have to always wait every time a game came out, under the hope that it turns out to be one of the few that loki would port. That's not a reasonable expectation for a company to make of its potential customers. I realize this isn't Loki's faul - they can't get started on the port until the Windows version is done, usually. But it does show the flaw in their business strategy.
Re:This sucks, and it's the fault of Linux users.
on
Loki Games Closing?
·
· Score: 2
If I am interested in a game and I *know* Loki is going to do a port, then I'll wait and buy the loki version. But to date there was only ever one game where Loki made the announcement in time for me to do that and that was Civ Call to power, and so that's the only Loki game I own.
The problem is that when the game is first available for Windows, I don't even know yet whether or not there will be a Loki port later on. The chances are high that there *won't* be - given that they only can do a small fraction of the games that ever come out.
And some games don't last on the store shelves that long. A game that I like isn't
necessarily going to be a game that others like.
You are (and Lokisoft was) asking people to gamble by waiting a year to see if a linux port will exist, in a situation where waiting that long often results in *never* being able to buy the game in any form.
In that one instance where Lokisoft got the announcement out early enough to forestall this effect (Civ:CTP), they did well. Unfortunately, that was an isolated incident.
I hope I got people thinking about some possible reasons why Loki had a hard time. You don't learn anything from a failure if you don't know why..
There really big reason Loki had a hard time, and it's pretty much the only one that matters, is that their business model was: "Pay full price a second time for a game you already bought a year ago, so that you don't have to reboot." Linux users are in a different sort of situation than Mac users. For Mac users, playing the Windows version (while perhaps grumbling about it) is not even an option. So for them the year-old port they see is the first ever occurance of them getting to buy the game. Not so for Linux users. As long as Loki couldn't get started on their ports until after the Windows version was already out, they were doomed. Look at the one title they *did* do well with - Civ Call to Power. It was very different from the rest in several important ways - for one it had a publisher who put it out on store shelves right next to the Windows game, and in a very timely manner so it was still around while the original game was in its first round of sales.
You seem to think that I can do something about
how another person acts. I don't understand where you think I got that power from, but trust me, I don't have it. Therefore saying that the solution is to change how other people act is the same thing as saying there is no solution.
The reason *I* only bought one Loki game is simply that the games they ended up porting are not the ones I liked. The only exception to this was Civ:CTP, which got released onto store shelves alongside the Windows version, and was thus easy to buy,
and I did.
Plus, they took too long to get a port out, and they didn't announce ports until after the windows version was alredy out. This might not be their fault, but it is the main reason they failed. If a game you want hits the stores today, and you don't even know yet whether or not Loki will be doing a port, are you going to wait 1 year to find out before deciding to buy the windows version?
The so called predatory business pratices are also crap, I think about expanding my own business along the ideas in the "Halloween Document" all the time. The only reason MS got shafted for it was their market position.
The problem is that the practices mentioned in the Halloween document won't work for you if your business is still small. That's what the Sherman Act is all about - The checks and balances of a free market economy fail utterly when there exist some business strategies that are guaranteed to succeed if you are already in the majority while being guaranteed to fail if you are not in the majority:
Predatory pricing (dumping)
Forced packaging (to buy A you must buy B and C and D, even though they have nothing to do with each other).
Exclusivity agreements with distributors (To resell our product you have to agree to resell *only* our product and not our competitors' product).
The things listed above are business strategies that are guaranteed to make your business fail if you are just getting started, but are guaranteed to make your business thrive if you are already in a monopoly position. THAT is why monopolies have to live under stricter rules than non-monopolies. Without those rules the ability of the consumer to choose a competing product goes away and with it, all accountability on the part of the company.
As far as political issues go, there is nothing more important than keeping communication open to all. Fail in that and people effectively become disenfranchised. Then *everything else* suffers - including having a lifestyle in which you don't have to worry about where your next meal comes from.
Not for long, at the rate we're going in this country. Voting with your wallet is a good thing, but not if it becomes the ONLY way you can effectively vote.
Uhm - you do realize that the BBC *IS* what he was talking about with regard to the television tax?
Independant media alternative my a$$ - they are funded by government taxation. No, the lesson we Americans can learn from this is that not everything the government does has to suck automatically just because it's the government doing it. Despite it's unfair funding scheme, without the BBC there'd be no Robot Wars, or Junkyard Wars, or Red Dwarf, or in earlier generations Monty Python and Dr Who.
I don't get it - if you can't get accurate figures for who is and isn't a linux user, then this whole survey is bogus. So now I'm a troll for simply pointing this out?
You are lying because of one simple fact:
You can't figure out who is a Linux user. Therefore correct data for this survey cannot exist.
Re:Improve your reading comprehension
on
The Drone War
·
· Score: 2
Central America is not all democracies. I stopped reading your post at that first factual error.
Improve your reading comprehension
on
The Drone War
·
· Score: 2
He said democracies almost never go into conflict WITH EACH OTHER (emphasis mine). No matter how many examples you find of a democracy going to war with a non-democracy, that doesn't do a thing to disprove his statement.
You're talking like the Iraqui army was well equipped at first and then ran-out of supplies because of the siege. It's not like that. The reason they were ill-equipped is because most of them had just been drafted. The bulk of surrendring troops were people that were never well equipped in the first place.
The well-equipped troops were held back in reserve against a US invasion of the capital - which never happened.
The circle model is better than the line, but still not very good. ANY model is going to be terrible because in reality there are multiple axes of swinging opinions on different issues and this is impossible to graph given the difficulty with drawing an N-dimensional graph for N > 3.
The first myth of anarchy is that it is possible.
In an anarchy, either the bullies start rising to the top and taking over, and then *poof* - no more anarchy, or the decent folk band together to stop the bullies and then that banding together becomes the framework for a new government, and *poof* no more Anarchy.
SOMEONE will be "in charge", whether we like it or not. The question is, what criteria is best for determining who that ends up being? THAT is what all the different systems of government are about. The dream of no government is a myth. Ideally, the best system is one in which companies are open to operate as they wish with ONE very big exception - the government forcing them to keep a level playing field that prevents monopolization.
(Monopolization happens when the setup is such that past success ends up being a guarantee of future success, so that once a company rises to the top they are no longer beholden to the same market forces that put them there.)
This system is in use in many countries, and I have a question - does it have a problem where people are afraid to take on big companies because of their highly paid lawyers? Imagine if you thought you were in the right, but of course nothing is certain so you put your chances of winning the case at about 80%. Are you willing to take on a 20% risk of having to pay the big-name multimillion dollar lawyers the company hires if you lose?
I would only support such a system if there was a reasonable cap on how much lawyer fees you would be responsible for if you lose. Otherwise you can scare people into not suing by threatening to hire really expensive lawyers - leading to uneven stakes - if the company loses it takes on the piddly additional cost of the individual's small-time lawyer. If the individual loses he takes on the additional cost of the company's big-name expensive lawyers, and he knows he can't take that risk.
I can't believe you are saying that the relevant issue here is whether they spoke to a small or a large audience, and the implication is that a statement about a company that is okay with a small audience is not with a large one. Imagine if, for example, you were allowed to point out flaws in Microsoft OS's only if you don't spread the information too widely - a scary precedent. No, ALL THAT MATTERS in this case is whether the statements they wrote are true. If so, then they have every right to publicly decry their former employer. If not, then they are guilty of slander. That's all that matters. The size of the audience does not.
Uhm - she *was* responsible for the flooding, even in the book. The change is that in the book she wasn't actually *at* the riverbank at the time. She sang her spell from back home and the reader only hears about it seconhand when other characters mention this.
I just re-read the FOTR book after the movie and realized that in many places where I thought the movie deviated, it was actually spot-on and my memory was bad. Some of the things you cite are like this. Frodo really *did* try to pass on the ring to a lot of people in the book. The place where he *stopped* doing that was after seeing how it affected Galadriel - that scared him into realizing he can't do that anymore.
As for his obsession with the ring, that doesn't start yet. In FOTR he isn't all that corrupted by it yet - it's not until later (the next 2 books) that it becomes hard for him to keep his mind off it.
Saruman *did* affect the pass at Caradharas, or at least Gandalf suspected so.
I also don't mind deleting Glorfindel. He doesn't appear for very long in the book, and in a movie it's a bad idea to spend precious time fleshing out a character that is never going to be seen again 15 minutes later in the film.
For satire to be recognizable, the source has to be one that you don't think would be dumb enough to actually say something so stupid and really mean it. The source has to be reasonably intelligent, and devoid of idiocy. A random slashdot post from someone you don't know doesn't fit that criteria. When you try to be satirical by saying something deliberately dumb, in a forum where there really are people dumb enough to say such things it will never work.
This is NOT the readers' fault. They've been subtly trained to expect idiotic posts to appear, so when one does it never occurs to them that it might not be what it seems.
This is the same problem usenet has with satire. If you don't have a previous record to go on, you have to assume the poster might really BE a lunatic.
Correction: It could be corrected with LESS technology, not more. The MPAA enforces that DVD players must add the work to make these two unwanted features work: Region enforcement and mandatory-viewing sections (where you can't fast forward). To fix this would actually result in a SIMPLER player - just don't bother to enforce those flags in the player - ignore them.
Making a DVD player that doesn't have the fair use and free speech problems is actually easier. The MPAA had to force manufacturers to add these features because the consumer certainly doesn't have any need of them (the opposite in fact), and it would be cheaper to develop a player without them.
Slashdot Mirror
The problem is that when the game is first available for Windows, I don't even know yet whether or not there will be a Loki port later on. The chances are high that there *won't* be - given that they only can do a small fraction of the games that ever come out.
And some games don't last on the store shelves that long. A game that I like isn't
necessarily going to be a game that others like.
You are (and Lokisoft was) asking people to gamble by waiting a year to see if a linux port will exist, in a situation where waiting that long often results in *never* being able to buy the game in any form.
In that one instance where Lokisoft got the announcement out early enough to forestall this effect (Civ:CTP), they did well. Unfortunately, that was an isolated incident.
The reason *I* only bought one Loki game is simply that the games they ended up porting are not the ones I liked. The only exception to this was Civ:CTP, which got released onto store shelves alongside the Windows version, and was thus easy to buy, and I did.
Plus, they took too long to get a port out, and they didn't announce ports until after the windows version was alredy out. This might not be their fault, but it is the main reason they failed. If a game you want hits the stores today, and you don't even know yet whether or not Loki will be doing a port, are you going to wait 1 year to find out before deciding to buy the windows version?
- Predatory pricing (dumping)
- Forced packaging (to buy A you must buy B and C and D, even though they have nothing to do with each other).
- Exclusivity agreements with distributors (To resell our product you have to agree to resell *only* our product and not our competitors' product).
The things listed above are business strategies that are guaranteed to make your business fail if you are just getting started, but are guaranteed to make your business thrive if you are already in a monopoly position. THAT is why monopolies have to live under stricter rules than non-monopolies. Without those rules the ability of the consumer to choose a competing product goes away and with it, all accountability on the part of the company.Watching a show where the sound keeps cutting out every few seconds sucks no matter what, and that's what you're left with if you do what you suggest.
As far as political issues go, there is nothing more important than keeping communication open to all. Fail in that and people effectively become disenfranchised. Then *everything else* suffers - including having a lifestyle in which you don't have to worry about where your next meal comes from.
Perhaps you missed the part where he said "the day police come to my door..."
He *is* talking about physical enslavement.
(cyan screen)
"Anana Visita. (hisss) Shtay a ile. Shtay foreveva.."
- "Wow dude. That sounded so real. You could actually hear words and stuff."
(step, step, step, step)
"Deshtroy chim my row-bots"
- "Woah cool."
"aaaahhhhhhhhahhhhahhahhhh..."
- "oops."
= "Dude, do that again - that was awesome."
- "No way man. I'm trying to win."
= "come on, that was great. Do it again."
- "Okay, just one"
"AAAAAhhhahhaaaaaahhhhahhhhhhahhhhhhhhhh..."
- "Okay, that was kinda cool."
"AAAAaaaahhhhahhahaaaaaaaahaaaaaa..."
= "Dude, this game is totally awesome. Say, are those dalek-things or whatever they are dangerous?"
"BBBzzzzzzttttztzztt."
- "Yep."
= "That was kinda cool. But fall off the screen again, that was great."
"Aaaaahaaaaaaaaaaahhhhahaahaaaa...."
- "What on earth is that?"
= "I think a bowling ball is chasing you."
- "Uhhhm - right."
Not for long, at the rate we're going in this country. Voting with your wallet is a good thing, but not if it becomes the ONLY way you can effectively vote.
Uhm - you do realize that the BBC *IS* what he was talking about with regard to the television tax?
Independant media alternative my a$$ - they are funded by government taxation. No, the lesson we Americans can learn from this is that not everything the government does has to suck automatically just because it's the government doing it. Despite it's unfair funding scheme, without the BBC there'd be no Robot Wars, or Junkyard Wars, or Red Dwarf, or in earlier generations Monty Python and Dr Who.
I don't get it - if you can't get accurate figures for who is and isn't a linux user, then this whole survey is bogus. So now I'm a troll for simply pointing this out?
You are lying because of one simple fact:
You can't figure out who is a Linux user. Therefore correct data for this survey cannot exist.
Central America is not all democracies. I stopped reading your post at that first factual error.
He said democracies almost never go into conflict WITH EACH OTHER (emphasis mine). No matter how many examples you find of a democracy going to war with a non-democracy, that doesn't do a thing to disprove his statement.
You're talking like the Iraqui army was well equipped at first and then ran-out of supplies because of the siege. It's not like that. The reason they were ill-equipped is because most of them had just been drafted. The bulk of surrendring troops were people that were never well equipped in the first place.
The well-equipped troops were held back in reserve against a US invasion of the capital - which never happened.
The circle model is better than the line, but still not very good. ANY model is going to be terrible because in reality there are multiple axes of swinging opinions on different issues and this is impossible to graph given the difficulty with drawing an N-dimensional graph for N > 3.
The realistic model isn't possible in 3-D space.
The first myth of anarchy is that it is possible.
In an anarchy, either the bullies start rising to the top and taking over, and then *poof* - no more anarchy, or the decent folk band together to stop the bullies and then that banding together becomes the framework for a new government, and *poof* no more Anarchy.
SOMEONE will be "in charge", whether we like it or not. The question is, what criteria is best for determining who that ends up being? THAT is what all the different systems of government are about. The dream of no government is a myth. Ideally, the best system is one in which companies are open to operate as they wish with ONE very big exception - the government forcing them to keep a level playing field that prevents monopolization.
(Monopolization happens when the setup is such that past success ends up being a guarantee of future success, so that once a company rises to the top they are no longer beholden to the same market forces that put them there.)
I would only support such a system if there was a reasonable cap on how much lawyer fees you would be responsible for if you lose. Otherwise you can scare people into not suing by threatening to hire really expensive lawyers - leading to uneven stakes - if the company loses it takes on the piddly additional cost of the individual's small-time lawyer. If the individual loses he takes on the additional cost of the company's big-name expensive lawyers, and he knows he can't take that risk.
I can't believe you are saying that the relevant issue here is whether they spoke to a small or a large audience, and the implication is that a statement about a company that is okay with a small audience is not with a large one. Imagine if, for example, you were allowed to point out flaws in Microsoft OS's only if you don't spread the information too widely - a scary precedent. No, ALL THAT MATTERS in this case is whether the statements they wrote are true. If so, then they have every right to publicly decry their former employer. If not, then they are guilty of slander. That's all that matters. The size of the audience does not.
Peter Jackson called it a "New Zealand film, shot with mostly British actors, using mostly American money."
Uhm - she *was* responsible for the flooding, even in the book. The change is that in the book she wasn't actually *at* the riverbank at the time. She sang her spell from back home and the reader only hears about it seconhand when other characters mention this.
As for his obsession with the ring, that doesn't start yet. In FOTR he isn't all that corrupted by it yet - it's not until later (the next 2 books) that it becomes hard for him to keep his mind off it.
Saruman *did* affect the pass at Caradharas, or at least Gandalf suspected so.
I also don't mind deleting Glorfindel. He doesn't appear for very long in the book, and in a movie it's a bad idea to spend precious time fleshing out a character that is never going to be seen again 15 minutes later in the film.
This is NOT the readers' fault. They've been subtly trained to expect idiotic posts to appear, so when one does it never occurs to them that it might not be what it seems.
This is the same problem usenet has with satire. If you don't have a previous record to go on, you have to assume the poster might really BE a lunatic.
Making a DVD player that doesn't have the fair use and free speech problems is actually easier. The MPAA had to force manufacturers to add these features because the consumer certainly doesn't have any need of them (the opposite in fact), and it would be cheaper to develop a player without them.