I suppose he could have her set the modem to answer and call her via modem. I dunno.. I'm on cable now and forget all that dial-up nonsense... ahhhh... ignorance is bliss...
I will agree that *current* console QA is superior to PC game QA - at least on its face. But, as someone else noted, console games are generally more linear than PC games. As the console games expand their flexibility and complexity they are also going to expand their potential for bugs. No amount of QA is going to eliminate bugs. If console developers maintain their current level of QA but increase the scope of complexity of their games (as they are doing), they are going to have more bugs. If they increase their QA efforts to maintain their bug-free integrity, then the price of the console games will have to rise to cover the additional costs.
I believe that console systems of the future will eventually have an online patching system. It will be more automated and thus simpler to use than that which exists for PCs. This will require rewritable media - which can create problems of its own. But development of such a system, regardless of how it is implemented, will allow developers to create the sloppy code that is being bemoaned in regards to PC games. Are you ready for your buggy future?:)
Games do 'push the envelope'.. but PC games push the envelope much farther than console games. Both in terms of graphics and in terms of gameplay.
Agreed. I recall waiting on Enemy Territoty, the sequal to Return to Castle Wolfenstein. The game consisted of two parts, single-player and multi-player, that were being developed by two different companies. Eventually, Activision, the publisher, pulled the single-player project because the contractor was unable to produce the game that was designed. They went on to release the multiplayer portion of the game as a free download. But this was an unusual response for a company, IMHO. In most cases, I suspect that the publisher would just ram the single-player game through, warts and all, and let it earn some money in its failure.
I found this a remarkable feat. Rather than add to the bad blood created by cancelling the project altogether, they release the game for free (with PunkBuster support). The game proved quite popular and continues to remain fairly popular. It's my opinion that they did this to keep the Wolfenstein franchise alive in the eyes of gamers while they moved onto the next game engine - be that Doom3 or Quake4.
I don't have or play Thief 3 so I cannot really judge how important this bug is. But it strikes me that people aren't complaining about poor graphics, bad gameplay, predictable plotlines, boring characters... I've been thinking about trying the game (on PC - I don't have an XBox or a PS2). Given that a patch will no doubt be available for the PC to fix this bug, I am not that concerned.
I believe that his argument is that, regardless of what platform they are made for, modern games are routinely released with bugs. The PC platform is relatively easy to patch for. Consoles are not. Are you going to argue that console systems are better because they will somehow force developers to adopt better QA practices and eliminate bugs. Very utopian... and unrealistic.
That developers release programs with bugs in them is not a direct result of the ability of the developer to release later patches. It is a factor, but a more important factor is that the consumers whine, stomp their feet, type IN ALL CAPS, and otherwise make a idiot of themselves if the game does not come out quickly. Couple that with the growing complexity of modern games (perhaps the most important factor) and you are destined to have bugs slip through whatever QA system the developer's have.
I never played Quake, in any of its incarnations... I have played a few games built on the Q3A game engine though (RtCW, ET, and CoD) and like them all. I certainly expect the next Quake engine to be an improvement and look forward to Quake4.
Am I disappointed it won't make appearance at QuakeCon? No.. I wasn't going, so why would I care? Sure, I'd like to see some screenshots of the actual game.. but.. I can't say that I am on the edge of my seat waiting for it..
After all, with all the hoopla over the yet-to-appear Halflife2 and Doom3, why should I get all excited about a yet-to-appear Quake4? The bar has been set pretty low on delivery dates for the next generation of FPS's..
The concern being that if the gaming public does not support a game it will not have follow-ups. In this, I think he is correct. The game publishers will not throw good money after bad to create sequels to games that failed. But I think the author is incorrect in blaming the used game market for this.
If a game does not generate the interest of the market, you cannot blame the used-game market for its failure. The used game market is merely giving the game an extended shelf-life in which more customers are exposed to the title. If, for some reason, a game fails in general retail release and then has an explosion in popularity in the used-game market, the publishers will take note. A sequel to the now-popular title is likely to ensue. However, if the title had been popular from the outset, a follow-up is virtually guaranteed.
The call to resist used games is much ado about nothing.
As for the used game vendor making more money... good for them. The customer and the vendor both make out better in the purchase of a used game. In many cases, new game vendors can send unsold copies of the game back to the publisher - they cannot do that with a used game. Take a look at that used game bin. How many titles in there are never going to be sold because they just plain suck... The games that sit in the bin for eternity are a complete loss to the vendor - they cannot be sent back. So they make up the additional loss on the titles that do resell well.
If you don't like the price that a reseller is offering for your used game, take it to eBay. But don't bemoan the reseller for making a greater profit WHILE he is giving you a lower price on the product.
It certainly would appear that identity theft is perhaps the best way to prosecute these spammers. If they are not using their own address, then they are stealing the use of someone elses. If they can successfully prosecute a series of these cases, spammers may be forced to use their real addresses. At least the ethical ones... hahahahah.. sorry
For what its worth, MD just increased the penalties for spammers.
Its probably mentioned somewhere in this thread but there was recently a special on the MIT poker team (I believe on the History Channel). In it they mention that card counting is illegal in Monte Carlo, unlike the US casinos.
Granted... that was what the Monte Carlo police were telling them and they didn't get prosecuted. The lack of prosecution may have been for lack of proof rather than lack of legal standing though. (wow, 3 lacks in one sentence)
I still contend that the primary reason that DAT failed was that the consumers simply didn't want it. Consumers would need to buy whole new hardware to play that damned things, let along record them. And for what? Better sound quality? Most consumers couldn't tell the difference anyway... why shell out large sums of money for a new technology that doesn't provide an appreciable benefit?
Consider CDs...
CDs provided additional benefits to the consumer besides sound quality. In fact, early CDs were frowned upon by audio-philes, though they have since been embraced as the technology improved. CDs offered consumers a media that was smaller, could be played in portable players, allowed random access to tracks, and was more difficult to damage than the leading format of the time (LPs). In addition, the recording industry embraced the format.
However, this discussion is really off-topic so let me retreat a little. The RIAA certainly *did* fear the introduction of the DAT and the inevitable explosion of piracy and downfall of western civilization that would follow in its wake. To me, that merely points up their ignorance. So I record an LP onto my DAT and I give it to a friend. OMG! That's just like I recorded it on an analog tape and gave it to a friend, only the sound is better. The same amount of IP is lost.
The analogy does not correspond to the internet so neatly. I take a CD, rip the songs, and put them on the internet. Any number of jokers comes along and d/l the songs. This has the potential to be exponentially more damaging to the IP than simply making a tape of an LP for a friend. The RIAA's current strategies are not the solution. The internet provides a medium that can be used by artists to circumvent the traditional song publishing industry. The music industry is a dinosaur and a future that includes extinction is not unimaginable. They have to change their business model to catch up to the technology or they will die.
I would suggest that DAT failed because it wasn't 'better' in the eyes (ears?) of the consumer. Clearly, DAT actually was a superior quality format to standard audio tape, but most users were just taping stuff to play in the car or on a boombox. The quality of the recording does not need to be that high. There just wasn't much of a market for it among consumers.
Now, if the DAT tapes cost the same, or marginally more, than standard audio cassettes, things may have turned out differently. But that is not the case...
Business owners, such as you describe, are not the target audience of this article. Instead, the intended beneficiaries would be the software houses that are considering different development methods. The article tries to provide insight into whether different software development practices lead to better software products. To the business that is looking to hire a software firm to create a product for them this is of little consequence. But to a manager of a software house this could provide impetus to adopt a more effective development model.
While I would not classify this article as 'worthless', I would say that it is of only limited value. There are too many questions left unanswered and too many caveats with regards to interpreting the results. I commend the effort but they did not succeed in providing great insight into the issue. With this baseline investigation done, other studies can attempt to find greater distinctions.
One of the aspects that I feel was left unaddressed is how well the development models that the Indian/Japanese houses are using work at US/European houses that use those same models (and vice-versa). Is there a socio-cultural aspect that allows these models to work better in those societies? I did not see a classification for software performed for government institutions, which often have their own cryptic methodology and requirements.
You are mixing your stereotypes. The 'red-headed step child' is the child that is ostrasized for being different. The 'fiery temper' is stereotypically associated with the Irish while the red hair is stereotypically associated with the Scots. Though 'getting pissed' over any of these stereotypes strikes me as an overreaction bordering on.. hmm... a fiery temper?:)
There may be a rule stating that you may not physically strike the opponent or throw your racket at them, but I really doubt there is a rule "A player shall not use a firearm, knife, or other weapon to inflict harm to their opponent(s)." Its just one of those things that is just expected - probably because most of the communities in which matches take place already have laws against the use of guns. It is a poor analogy to begin with so we shouldn't really debate the point...
Not all games allow for multiple spawn points. Another issue is the amount of effect the spawncamper can do. In RtCW/ET, panzerfausts, artillery and airstrikes can virtually wipe out an entire enemy spawn. We tend to call that spawnraping rather than camping. At least in those games there is typically a second spawn you can select to break out from and kill the campers.
Some servers allow spawncamping. Sometimes I see it as a challenge - to break out from the pressure and beat them back. Or you sneak through and blow away THEIR spawn. Some of those campers may turn back and try to clear their spawn thus releaving your spawn of some pressure so your guys can break out. I prefer a ban on spawncamping but then you have to define it. This can be problematic if a defenders' spawn point is next to the offense's objective. After making their 'plant' on the target, they will strike up defensive positions in and around it... but you know a bunch of guys are going to spawn there and you keep your sights on it...
Alot of it depends on the game, the game mode, and the players on the server. If the player on the camped team are hesitant or complete n00bs, they aren't going to be aggressive enough to break out and waste the campers. Often, it only takes a few skilled players to kill off the campers and get the team moving in the right direction.
As others stated, average pay is regional. I graduated at the end of 2002 with a Comp. Sci. degree and struggled for a year to find a decent job. The market wanted people with 2-5 years and a TS clearance; neither of which I had. I was lucky enough to have the ability to wait out the slump while looking for a good job rather than just taking the first crappy opportunity that popped up. I am in the DC Metro area and ended up at a large company with good benefits and a starting salary of about $46k/yr. Not too shabby for an entry-level programmer with no experience outside of school. This is predicated on my gaining a clearance (which isn't a problem for me -- I hope!), but at least I am working in the meantime (at the same salary, I might add).
In retrospect, I have noticed that the hiring processes of large companies are clumsy, inflexible, and do a poor job at acquiring prospective personnel. Smaller companies are probably more agile but there weren't alot of them hiring new grads during last year's slump.
me: Most of these are run by clans or communities that host forums. Go to their forums and interact.
other guy: Don't have the desire/time to do that. I just want to play for an hour
Ok. But then you are going to have to survive on teh will of others. The gaming community caters to those that are active and participate. If you are not there to say, "I want vanilla [gameNameHere]" then YOU are going to have to seek it out. In a sense, its like the American political system. Alot of people choose not to participate and then whine about their leaders. If you want to make a difference you are going to have to participate. I still stand by the opinion that you find a server you like and you keep coming back to it. Avoid just randomly selecting servers every time you log on to play. Even if you aren't going to participate in their forum community, you know what you are likely to get on the same server.
Actually I would expect the game companies to provide vanilla servers for people who actually paid for the online experience and don't want to deal with more downloads. Its hard enough keeping up with patches. Now I have to keep up with versions of crappy mods?
I agree that the company that develops the product should maintain vanilla server(s). As I said in my previous post, this is not because mods are bad, but because the server should be demonstrating what the vanilla game can (and cannot) do. It also gives the player the occasional chance to actually play against members of the development team.
As for server mods thats great. The game company spent 4 months balancing the settings. I get on a server a 12 year old spent 5 minutes playing with the settings. Great. Thats fine if people want to do that. I just want to play the game the way it was designed. I paid the money for the game. The game companies should cater to the occasional gamer. We aren't out there pirating the game like some of the hard core gamers. If your a real hard core gamer spending 10 hours a day playing online you probably don't have a job.
Once again, I agree that the developing company should maintain vanilla servers. This would constitute 'catering' to the occasional gamer. But the vast majority of servers are going to be run by other people. That is one of the selling points of the game - that you can set up your own server and run it as you wish. That a small minority wants to play entirely mod-free is not reason to inhibit mod-creation across an entire game (not that you opined this, but others have).
Even is the server is vanilla, it can be tweaked so as to be annoying. Spawn times, map run times, gravity, etc.. can be adjusted to make a game more 'fun' in the eyes of the server administrator - the dreaded 12-year-old-with-too-much-bandwidth.
Anyone who has the bandwidth can set up a server. The vanilla games typically allow significant leeway in how the server can be set up. More important than any mods installed is the manner in which the server is administered. Are the admins capricious and arbitrary or are they level headed and even handed?
You imply vanilla gamers don't pirate the game but some 'hardcore' gamers do. That's a pretty empty accusation and besides the point. Its a matter of numbers. The intermittent gamer is not going to be catered to as much as the player who logs a couple hours a day on their favorite game. The latter is more likely to be a repeat customer.
Slashdot Mirror
I suppose he could have her set the modem to answer and call her via modem. I dunno.. I'm on cable now and forget all that dial-up nonsense... ahhhh... ignorance is bliss...
jroop
I will agree that *current* console QA is superior to PC game QA - at least on its face. But, as someone else noted, console games are generally more linear than PC games. As the console games expand their flexibility and complexity they are also going to expand their potential for bugs. No amount of QA is going to eliminate bugs. If console developers maintain their current level of QA but increase the scope of complexity of their games (as they are doing), they are going to have more bugs. If they increase their QA efforts to maintain their bug-free integrity, then the price of the console games will have to rise to cover the additional costs.
:)
I believe that console systems of the future will eventually have an online patching system. It will be more automated and thus simpler to use than that which exists for PCs. This will require rewritable media - which can create problems of its own. But development of such a system, regardless of how it is implemented, will allow developers to create the sloppy code that is being bemoaned in regards to PC games. Are you ready for your buggy future?
Games do 'push the envelope'.. but PC games push the envelope much farther than console games. Both in terms of graphics and in terms of gameplay.
jr
Agreed. I recall waiting on Enemy Territoty, the sequal to Return to Castle Wolfenstein. The game consisted of two parts, single-player and multi-player, that were being developed by two different companies. Eventually, Activision, the publisher, pulled the single-player project because the contractor was unable to produce the game that was designed. They went on to release the multiplayer portion of the game as a free download. But this was an unusual response for a company, IMHO. In most cases, I suspect that the publisher would just ram the single-player game through, warts and all, and let it earn some money in its failure.
I found this a remarkable feat. Rather than add to the bad blood created by cancelling the project altogether, they release the game for free (with PunkBuster support). The game proved quite popular and continues to remain fairly popular. It's my opinion that they did this to keep the Wolfenstein franchise alive in the eyes of gamers while they moved onto the next game engine - be that Doom3 or Quake4.
I don't have or play Thief 3 so I cannot really judge how important this bug is. But it strikes me that people aren't complaining about poor graphics, bad gameplay, predictable plotlines, boring characters... I've been thinking about trying the game (on PC - I don't have an XBox or a PS2). Given that a patch will no doubt be available for the PC to fix this bug, I am not that concerned.
jr
I believe that his argument is that, regardless of what platform they are made for, modern games are routinely released with bugs. The PC platform is relatively easy to patch for. Consoles are not. Are you going to argue that console systems are better because they will somehow force developers to adopt better QA practices and eliminate bugs. Very utopian... and unrealistic.
That developers release programs with bugs in them is not a direct result of the ability of the developer to release later patches. It is a factor, but a more important factor is that the consumers whine, stomp their feet, type IN ALL CAPS, and otherwise make a idiot of themselves if the game does not come out quickly. Couple that with the growing complexity of modern games (perhaps the most important factor) and you are destined to have bugs slip through whatever QA system the developer's have.
jr
I never played Quake, in any of its incarnations... I have played a few games built on the Q3A game engine though (RtCW, ET, and CoD) and like them all. I certainly expect the next Quake engine to be an improvement and look forward to Quake4.
Am I disappointed it won't make appearance at QuakeCon? No.. I wasn't going, so why would I care? Sure, I'd like to see some screenshots of the actual game.. but.. I can't say that I am on the edge of my seat waiting for it..
After all, with all the hoopla over the yet-to-appear Halflife2 and Doom3, why should I get all excited about a yet-to-appear Quake4? The bar has been set pretty low on delivery dates for the next generation of FPS's..
jr
The concern being that if the gaming public does not support a game it will not have follow-ups. In this, I think he is correct. The game publishers will not throw good money after bad to create sequels to games that failed. But I think the author is incorrect in blaming the used game market for this.
If a game does not generate the interest of the market, you cannot blame the used-game market for its failure. The used game market is merely giving the game an extended shelf-life in which more customers are exposed to the title. If, for some reason, a game fails in general retail release and then has an explosion in popularity in the used-game market, the publishers will take note. A sequel to the now-popular title is likely to ensue. However, if the title had been popular from the outset, a follow-up is virtually guaranteed.
The call to resist used games is much ado about nothing.
As for the used game vendor making more money... good for them. The customer and the vendor both make out better in the purchase of a used game. In many cases, new game vendors can send unsold copies of the game back to the publisher - they cannot do that with a used game. Take a look at that used game bin. How many titles in there are never going to be sold because they just plain suck... The games that sit in the bin for eternity are a complete loss to the vendor - they cannot be sent back. So they make up the additional loss on the titles that do resell well.
If you don't like the price that a reseller is offering for your used game, take it to eBay. But don't bemoan the reseller for making a greater profit WHILE he is giving you a lower price on the product.
jr
It certainly would appear that identity theft is perhaps the best way to prosecute these spammers. If they are not using their own address, then they are stealing the use of someone elses. If they can successfully prosecute a series of these cases, spammers may be forced to use their real addresses. At least the ethical ones... hahahahah.. sorry
For what its worth, MD just increased the penalties for spammers.
jr
Its probably mentioned somewhere in this thread but there was recently a special on the MIT poker team (I believe on the History Channel). In it they mention that card counting is illegal in Monte Carlo, unlike the US casinos.
Granted... that was what the Monte Carlo police were telling them and they didn't get prosecuted. The lack of prosecution may have been for lack of proof rather than lack of legal standing though. (wow, 3 lacks in one sentence)
Of course, that doesn't really apply to poker...
jr
I still contend that the primary reason that DAT failed was that the consumers simply didn't want it. Consumers would need to buy whole new hardware to play that damned things, let along record them. And for what? Better sound quality? Most consumers couldn't tell the difference anyway... why shell out large sums of money for a new technology that doesn't provide an appreciable benefit?
Consider CDs...
CDs provided additional benefits to the consumer besides sound quality. In fact, early CDs were frowned upon by audio-philes, though they have since been embraced as the technology improved. CDs offered consumers a media that was smaller, could be played in portable players, allowed random access to tracks, and was more difficult to damage than the leading format of the time (LPs). In addition, the recording industry embraced the format.
However, this discussion is really off-topic so let me retreat a little. The RIAA certainly *did* fear the introduction of the DAT and the inevitable explosion of piracy and downfall of western civilization that would follow in its wake. To me, that merely points up their ignorance. So I record an LP onto my DAT and I give it to a friend. OMG! That's just like I recorded it on an analog tape and gave it to a friend, only the sound is better. The same amount of IP is lost.
The analogy does not correspond to the internet so neatly. I take a CD, rip the songs, and put them on the internet. Any number of jokers comes along and d/l the songs. This has the potential to be exponentially more damaging to the IP than simply making a tape of an LP for a friend. The RIAA's current strategies are not the solution. The internet provides a medium that can be used by artists to circumvent the traditional song publishing industry. The music industry is a dinosaur and a future that includes extinction is not unimaginable. They have to change their business model to catch up to the technology or they will die.
jr
I would suggest that DAT failed because it wasn't 'better' in the eyes (ears?) of the consumer. Clearly, DAT actually was a superior quality format to standard audio tape, but most users were just taping stuff to play in the car or on a boombox. The quality of the recording does not need to be that high. There just wasn't much of a market for it among consumers.
Now, if the DAT tapes cost the same, or marginally more, than standard audio cassettes, things may have turned out differently. But that is not the case...
jr
While I would not classify this article as 'worthless', I would say that it is of only limited value. There are too many questions left unanswered and too many caveats with regards to interpreting the results. I commend the effort but they did not succeed in providing great insight into the issue. With this baseline investigation done, other studies can attempt to find greater distinctions.
One of the aspects that I feel was left unaddressed is how well the development models that the Indian/Japanese houses are using work at US/European houses that use those same models (and vice-versa). Is there a socio-cultural aspect that allows these models to work better in those societies? I did not see a classification for software performed for government institutions, which often have their own cryptic methodology and requirements.
jroop
jroop
Not all games allow for multiple spawn points. Another issue is the amount of effect the spawncamper can do. In RtCW/ET, panzerfausts, artillery and airstrikes can virtually wipe out an entire enemy spawn. We tend to call that spawnraping rather than camping. At least in those games there is typically a second spawn you can select to break out from and kill the campers.
Some servers allow spawncamping. Sometimes I see it as a challenge - to break out from the pressure and beat them back. Or you sneak through and blow away THEIR spawn. Some of those campers may turn back and try to clear their spawn thus releaving your spawn of some pressure so your guys can break out. I prefer a ban on spawncamping but then you have to define it. This can be problematic if a defenders' spawn point is next to the offense's objective. After making their 'plant' on the target, they will strike up defensive positions in and around it... but you know a bunch of guys are going to spawn there and you keep your sights on it...
Alot of it depends on the game, the game mode, and the players on the server. If the player on the camped team are hesitant or complete n00bs, they aren't going to be aggressive enough to break out and waste the campers. Often, it only takes a few skilled players to kill off the campers and get the team moving in the right direction.
jroop
jroop
In retrospect, I have noticed that the hiring processes of large companies are clumsy, inflexible, and do a poor job at acquiring prospective personnel. Smaller companies are probably more agile but there weren't alot of them hiring new grads during last year's slump.
jroop
other guy: Don't have the desire/time to do that. I just want to play for an hour
Ok. But then you are going to have to survive on teh will of others. The gaming community caters to those that are active and participate. If you are not there to say, "I want vanilla [gameNameHere]" then YOU are going to have to seek it out. In a sense, its like the American political system. Alot of people choose not to participate and then whine about their leaders. If you want to make a difference you are going to have to participate. I still stand by the opinion that you find a server you like and you keep coming back to it. Avoid just randomly selecting servers every time you log on to play. Even if you aren't going to participate in their forum community, you know what you are likely to get on the same server.
Actually I would expect the game companies to provide vanilla servers for people who actually paid for the online experience and don't want to deal with more downloads. Its hard enough keeping up with patches. Now I have to keep up with versions of crappy mods?
I agree that the company that develops the product should maintain vanilla server(s). As I said in my previous post, this is not because mods are bad, but because the server should be demonstrating what the vanilla game can (and cannot) do. It also gives the player the occasional chance to actually play against members of the development team.
As for server mods thats great. The game company spent 4 months balancing the settings. I get on a server a 12 year old spent 5 minutes playing with the settings. Great. Thats fine if people want to do that. I just want to play the game the way it was designed. I paid the money for the game. The game companies should cater to the occasional gamer. We aren't out there pirating the game like some of the hard core gamers. If your a real hard core gamer spending 10 hours a day playing online you probably don't have a job.
Once again, I agree that the developing company should maintain vanilla servers. This would constitute 'catering' to the occasional gamer. But the vast majority of servers are going to be run by other people. That is one of the selling points of the game - that you can set up your own server and run it as you wish. That a small minority wants to play entirely mod-free is not reason to inhibit mod-creation across an entire game (not that you opined this, but others have).
Even is the server is vanilla, it can be tweaked so as to be annoying. Spawn times, map run times, gravity, etc.. can be adjusted to make a game more 'fun' in the eyes of the server administrator - the dreaded 12-year-old-with-too-much-bandwidth.
Anyone who has the bandwidth can set up a server. The vanilla games typically allow significant leeway in how the server can be set up. More important than any mods installed is the manner in which the server is administered. Are the admins capricious and arbitrary or are they level headed and even handed?
You imply vanilla gamers don't pirate the game but some 'hardcore' gamers do. That's a pretty empty accusation and besides the point. Its a matter of numbers. The intermittent gamer is not going to be catered to as much as the player who logs a couple hours a day on their favorite game. The latter is more likely to be a repeat customer.
jroop