I don't see many copyrighted works that are of any real value after, say, 20 years (compare the number of songs people still listen to to the overall amount of songs produced). You can sit on it indefinitely and hope it makes money forever but realistically most copyrighted works lose value quickly as people lose interest. It is a much greater challenge to create a work that will make money even a few decades later. The greater the work the longer its sales last so there remains an incentive to create something people will still want decades or even centuries later. If e.g. copyrights expired after 20 years there would be little incentive to create something of lasting value that goes beyond 20 years compared to something that'll die after 20 years.
While that may be a bit niche in its effect I don't see much value in making old works public domain except to preserve them when the copyright holder no longer has any interest in reproducing them as their commercial value hit rock bottom much earlier. What would we gain from a public domain Mickey Mouse except legal furry porn?
Problem is that currently pollution does not cost the producer (enough). Force them to pay so much for the pollution that the new plants become the cheaper solution and you've solved the problem the capitalist way.
And a damned good thing, too. A democracy is three wolves and two sheep voting on what's for dinner. A republic, restrained by constitutional protections of individual rights, is quite different.
That's law trumping democracy, not capitalism. Capitalism trumping democracy means power is equal (or corelated) to wealth. Like in ancient Rome (may have been Greece, I'm a bit fuzzy on that) where the rich people had 51% of the vote and the poor people 49%, regardless of the number of people they represented.
And let's not forget that MS actually kept the promise of launching in all territories (though with minor delays). Sony just says "Europe is used to waiting".
True, however that was many years ago, when Carmack still had some ambition and imagination.
Blame id's game designer for the game design, Carmack is a coder and making the game fun is not his department. He makes it run and easy to modify, the game designers make the gameplay work as intended after that.
Doom 3 has a great engine but most of its capabilities aren't in plain sight. Someone made bots for Doom 3 and just by using the AAS (with the AAS data automatically calculated for the MP maps) they were quickly able to navigate levels better than many bots that were in development for years, no waypoints necessary.
The 360 has a triple core CPU, you have to use multithreading on that as well. The difference is that Sony has one main core and seven helper cores which means you have pretty much single-threaded main code (not necessary but probably more efficient) that's starting many short-lived helper threads.
Also MS was known for providing very good development tools for quite some time. They used those for earlier games, too. Doesn't mean they can't make them cross-platform.
I'd be surprised if they even ask him when it comes to gameplay design. He's the lead programmer, not the game designer. Maybe that seems a bit strange since all other famous people in game development (well, after the NES) are the designers (Sid Meier, Shigeru Miyamoto, Hideo Kojima, Will Wright,...) so people aren't used to the idea of a famous person not being in charge of "his" games.
Seriously, although I am not for disqualifying the SCRPG, how would you feel about a new FPS entering the contest called Maryland Sniper? Remember the guy who was sniping innocent people coming out of the parking lot or attempting to use a gas pump? Would that be an acceptable entry as well?
As long as there's more to it than just shooting random people, yes. A videogame is probably the best way to introduce the player to the way of thinking of an individual they cannot immediately understand (not just ordinary criminals, politicians too). If you e.g. make a game that has the player going through all kinds of degradation from a number of characters that recurr and in the end give him a gun he might decide entirely by himself to kill the characters he hates. Videogames are great for demonstrating what-if scenarios. Movies can show only one way the protagonist reacts (often leaving the question "why didn't he do X?") but a videogame can let the player make the choices and even try some multiple times to see what it influences.
This ban applies to games depicting Nazi symbols, not games involving Nazis (unless they're the kind made by neonazis like concentration camp tycoon). Remove the swastikas and the game can be sold freely.
I wager that everyone who says "Linux isn't ready" knows full well what Linux is, and can name at least one reason why they don't recommend it to their clients/boss/relatives.
Which most likely is related to the user interface rather than the security issues of the graphics system.
Previously MS had a "no patches" (or more specifically, no patches that aren't for online multiplayer) policy which forced developers to get it right on the first try. Seems they abolished that which allows publishers to force the release of a game before QA is complete and patch bugs later on.
The entire console business model is based around selling the hardware at reduced cost and then making the loss back on the licencing fee charged to games developers in order to publish on your product.
Which does't mean they aren't making a profit on the hardware itself. They're probably gearing up for a price drop by now.
What about gambling? I think my country defines that as any game that can net you more money than you invest (games that have no costs associated with them are exempt).
Slashdot Mirror
I don't see many copyrighted works that are of any real value after, say, 20 years (compare the number of songs people still listen to to the overall amount of songs produced). You can sit on it indefinitely and hope it makes money forever but realistically most copyrighted works lose value quickly as people lose interest. It is a much greater challenge to create a work that will make money even a few decades later. The greater the work the longer its sales last so there remains an incentive to create something people will still want decades or even centuries later. If e.g. copyrights expired after 20 years there would be little incentive to create something of lasting value that goes beyond 20 years compared to something that'll die after 20 years.
While that may be a bit niche in its effect I don't see much value in making old works public domain except to preserve them when the copyright holder no longer has any interest in reproducing them as their commercial value hit rock bottom much earlier. What would we gain from a public domain Mickey Mouse except legal furry porn?
It'd be cheaper to make Sontag meet Samedi.
In other words, "We don't negotiate with terrorists".
Nuclear waste is not necessarily much denser than water, the water that was used for cooling the reactor needs to be locked away as well.
Problem is that currently pollution does not cost the producer (enough). Force them to pay so much for the pollution that the new plants become the cheaper solution and you've solved the problem the capitalist way.
To repeat a tired Slashdot meme: You're working for Verizon, aren't you?
The limit is larger than the remaining time until the end of the universe. Happy now?
And a damned good thing, too. A democracy is three wolves and two sheep voting on what's for dinner. A republic, restrained by constitutional protections of individual rights, is quite different.
That's law trumping democracy, not capitalism. Capitalism trumping democracy means power is equal (or corelated) to wealth. Like in ancient Rome (may have been Greece, I'm a bit fuzzy on that) where the rich people had 51% of the vote and the poor people 49%, regardless of the number of people they represented.
No, logic needs a set of axioms.
And let's not forget that MS actually kept the promise of launching in all territories (though with minor delays). Sony just says "Europe is used to waiting".
True, however that was many years ago, when Carmack still had some ambition and imagination.
Blame id's game designer for the game design, Carmack is a coder and making the game fun is not his department. He makes it run and easy to modify, the game designers make the gameplay work as intended after that.
Doom 3 has a great engine but most of its capabilities aren't in plain sight. Someone made bots for Doom 3 and just by using the AAS (with the AAS data automatically calculated for the MP maps) they were quickly able to navigate levels better than many bots that were in development for years, no waypoints necessary.
The 360 has a triple core CPU, you have to use multithreading on that as well. The difference is that Sony has one main core and seven helper cores which means you have pretty much single-threaded main code (not necessary but probably more efficient) that's starting many short-lived helper threads.
Also MS was known for providing very good development tools for quite some time. They used those for earlier games, too. Doesn't mean they can't make them cross-platform.
I'd be surprised if they even ask him when it comes to gameplay design. He's the lead programmer, not the game designer. Maybe that seems a bit strange since all other famous people in game development (well, after the NES) are the designers (Sid Meier, Shigeru Miyamoto, Hideo Kojima, Will Wright, ...) so people aren't used to the idea of a famous person not being in charge of "his" games.
Hardcore is only risky if you put a lot of value into your individual characters, instead of the play itself.
Yes but you always risk aving to play act 1 AGAIN.
If it's not entertaining it can still get a place on artistic merit. But if it lacks both it's just a waste of time.
Seriously, although I am not for disqualifying the SCRPG, how would you feel about a new FPS entering the contest called Maryland Sniper? Remember the guy who was sniping innocent people coming out of the parking lot or attempting to use a gas pump? Would that be an acceptable entry as well?
As long as there's more to it than just shooting random people, yes. A videogame is probably the best way to introduce the player to the way of thinking of an individual they cannot immediately understand (not just ordinary criminals, politicians too). If you e.g. make a game that has the player going through all kinds of degradation from a number of characters that recurr and in the end give him a gun he might decide entirely by himself to kill the characters he hates. Videogames are great for demonstrating what-if scenarios. Movies can show only one way the protagonist reacts (often leaving the question "why didn't he do X?") but a videogame can let the player make the choices and even try some multiple times to see what it influences.
Virtual Car Accident - Engineer the most violent and destructive car accident possible in 3-D!
We used to call that game Burnout.
This ban applies to games depicting Nazi symbols, not games involving Nazis (unless they're the kind made by neonazis like concentration camp tycoon). Remove the swastikas and the game can be sold freely.
I wager that everyone who says "Linux isn't ready" knows full well what Linux is, and can name at least one reason why they don't recommend it to their clients/boss/relatives.
Which most likely is related to the user interface rather than the security issues of the graphics system.
This excludes any OpenGL game from being able to get certified with the 'Games for Windows' program.
Good, the "Games for Windows" logo is ugly as hell and I'd hate having that plastered on every game box.
Previously MS had a "no patches" (or more specifically, no patches that aren't for online multiplayer) policy which forced developers to get it right on the first try. Seems they abolished that which allows publishers to force the release of a game before QA is complete and patch bugs later on.
The entire console business model is based around selling the hardware at reduced cost and then making the loss back on the licencing fee charged to games developers in order to publish on your product.
Which does't mean they aren't making a profit on the hardware itself. They're probably gearing up for a price drop by now.
I was running Abuse at 1600x1200 on a 14" monitor (that would probably have exploded had I tried that more often). It reminded me of Lemmings.
What about gambling? I think my country defines that as any game that can net you more money than you invest (games that have no costs associated with them are exempt).
Complicated? Naah, territory belongs to anyone who claims it belongs to him and has the firepower to back that claim up.