Crytek is acting like interactivity isn't a major factor in games.
Crytek is a poster boy of the old paradigm of game production. Their primary goal is to make more and more beautiful graphics engines for top end systems. This paradigm started falling apart in 2005 when the DS beat the crap out of the PSP with inferior graphics and games that didn't even remotely push the system's limits (Brain Age being a big system seller, for example). Then the Wii came, the iPhone came, flash and social gaming grew. The number of gamers increased by an insane amount by moving away from the bigger = better paradigm. Instead games are expanding in directions that the old paradigm has never even considered. They are becoming more social, more interactive, etc. While an old paradigm game can easily show its best side in a trailer the new games that use technology like motion controls need to be played to be understood. And motion controls are expanding, soon the PS3 and 360, the last refuges of the old paradigm will have them. The core gamer turned out to be a niche as new game makers joined the fray and old ones lost their myopia. The only major growth the core market can still show is the exponentially increasing costs to make their games.
Crytek is not capable of adapting to the new ways, they are completely focused on the old ones and are marginalizing themselves.
Or because they simply think in different ways than an actual user. Look at the number of reviewers that crapped all over Wii Fit because it didn't fit their preconceived notions of what a game should be, yet many millions of people love the game.
Don't generalize against bad enemy AI, some games just don't need smart enemies. The last thing I want when blasting hordes of giant ants is for them to develop actual tactics, they're already dangerous enough without doing any real thinking.
Demos are advertising. If he thinks he can sell his game without advertising with demos more power to him but I don't think the competition is going to ignore that opportunity.
Maybe the judges just don't recognize that? I mean, look at the crap that makes it through patent offices! Judging the validity of scientific evidence doesn't seem like it's in the standard skillset for judges.
Corollary: Attach a dollar bill to a conveyor line, build that line to go around the block and turn the motor on, watch investigators jog around the block.
Those explicitly state that the online functionality may be ended and since it's a service that's understandable. The Other OS feature is not a service and did not come with a warning that it can be revoked later on.
Sony's legal counsel thought it was a great idea to stick rootkits on their music CDs. When it comes to technology the legal counsel often fails to see important facts.
The Chinese handle corrupt officials like that by executing them. They can look the other way but now that they've got people's attention they better shape up or they'll get a third nostril in their forehead.
Child labor is against the laws in our countries, while money has different values in different areas rights have the same value everywhere (or at least that's what we wrote into our constitutions when we put all those rights in there).
Unless you connect all people to a hivemind (or use force to subordinate them all to a single mind) they will prefer short term benefits over long term advantages, that's just how human nature works. Given the choice between a significantly reduced standard of living (we're talking about wages for the production of these goods going up tenfold so people cannot afford as many) or being tied to other nations that may THEORETICALLY some day invade the US most prefer the higher standard of living.
Even more, many vital systems of western countries are privately owned, they may not appear as vital as military installations but look at the damage the banking bankruptcies did, imagine attackers specifically trying to cause damage to the financial institutions to wreck the country's economy and over decades effect a reduction of military strength. Boom, invasion potential.
There's more damage an electronic attack can do than simply destroy stuff. Information is vital in war and having your enemy get intelligence on things you wanted hidden can give him a gigantic advantage in a war (e.g. if he knows where your production facilities are and how they can be best attacked or if he can gain data on your planned operations and ambushes). While the actual nukes are protected you can't expect millions of people only trained for thinking in physical attack terms to be perfect at making sure no important info ever gets on attackable systems. The user is often the weakest link and even the toughest defense can be compromised if there are idiots inside. Just takes one higher officer deciding to take some logistics data on his personal laptop to work at home and an attacker could gain access to important data that would allow their military to interrupt your supply lines.
Hell, didn't we even hear of a case of a special ops dude being stupid enough to post about his next assignment on Facebook? For every case of extreme stupidity there's dozens of cases of mild stupidity.
I'm more for letting each country decide what they let people do on their segment (as long as they don't interfere with traffic that merely passes through), what one finds reprehensible another finds holy.
I believe they only published Tyrian. BTW, did you know that the Tyrian graphics have been released under an open license and you can use them in your game?
Game sequels often improve on the previous game because the medium is so heavily based on mechanics that can be tweaked to be better. Not many sequels are actually worse, often they just fail to bring as much new stuff to the table as the original did.
A game where you move freely and aim manually plays pretty much identical independent of whether the camera is inside or next to the head of the protagonist, the first games that used this style were using a first person view so that name stuck but it's really not dependent on the view.
Slashdot Mirror
Crytek is acting like interactivity isn't a major factor in games.
Crytek is a poster boy of the old paradigm of game production. Their primary goal is to make more and more beautiful graphics engines for top end systems. This paradigm started falling apart in 2005 when the DS beat the crap out of the PSP with inferior graphics and games that didn't even remotely push the system's limits (Brain Age being a big system seller, for example). Then the Wii came, the iPhone came, flash and social gaming grew. The number of gamers increased by an insane amount by moving away from the bigger = better paradigm. Instead games are expanding in directions that the old paradigm has never even considered. They are becoming more social, more interactive, etc. While an old paradigm game can easily show its best side in a trailer the new games that use technology like motion controls need to be played to be understood. And motion controls are expanding, soon the PS3 and 360, the last refuges of the old paradigm will have them. The core gamer turned out to be a niche as new game makers joined the fray and old ones lost their myopia. The only major growth the core market can still show is the exponentially increasing costs to make their games.
Crytek is not capable of adapting to the new ways, they are completely focused on the old ones and are marginalizing themselves.
Or because they simply think in different ways than an actual user. Look at the number of reviewers that crapped all over Wii Fit because it didn't fit their preconceived notions of what a game should be, yet many millions of people love the game.
Don't generalize against bad enemy AI, some games just don't need smart enemies. The last thing I want when blasting hordes of giant ants is for them to develop actual tactics, they're already dangerous enough without doing any real thinking.
Demos are advertising. If he thinks he can sell his game without advertising with demos more power to him but I don't think the competition is going to ignore that opportunity.
Maybe the judges just don't recognize that? I mean, look at the crap that makes it through patent offices! Judging the validity of scientific evidence doesn't seem like it's in the standard skillset for judges.
Forget the Italians, they know the rule: Never fight a land war in Asia.
Corollary: Attach a dollar bill to a conveyor line, build that line to go around the block and turn the motor on, watch investigators jog around the block.
Just keep your cache in volatile memory?
Tiger's whole career is based on getting white stuff into many holes as fast as possible.
I believe he was actually convicted for having actual child pornography in there, the drawings are just a red herring.
Those explicitly state that the online functionality may be ended and since it's a service that's understandable. The Other OS feature is not a service and did not come with a warning that it can be revoked later on.
Even then the EU has limitations on the terms a non-negotiated contract is allowed to contain.
Careful, the story that reported on the first refund also mentioned that not all EU member states implement that clause.
Oh, so we can heap antitrust violations on the pile of wrongdoings?
Only if the system presented you an EULA on startup and even that's shaky.
Sony's legal counsel thought it was a great idea to stick rootkits on their music CDs. When it comes to technology the legal counsel often fails to see important facts.
The Chinese handle corrupt officials like that by executing them. They can look the other way but now that they've got people's attention they better shape up or they'll get a third nostril in their forehead.
Child labor is against the laws in our countries, while money has different values in different areas rights have the same value everywhere (or at least that's what we wrote into our constitutions when we put all those rights in there).
Unless you connect all people to a hivemind (or use force to subordinate them all to a single mind) they will prefer short term benefits over long term advantages, that's just how human nature works. Given the choice between a significantly reduced standard of living (we're talking about wages for the production of these goods going up tenfold so people cannot afford as many) or being tied to other nations that may THEORETICALLY some day invade the US most prefer the higher standard of living.
Even more, many vital systems of western countries are privately owned, they may not appear as vital as military installations but look at the damage the banking bankruptcies did, imagine attackers specifically trying to cause damage to the financial institutions to wreck the country's economy and over decades effect a reduction of military strength. Boom, invasion potential.
There's more damage an electronic attack can do than simply destroy stuff. Information is vital in war and having your enemy get intelligence on things you wanted hidden can give him a gigantic advantage in a war (e.g. if he knows where your production facilities are and how they can be best attacked or if he can gain data on your planned operations and ambushes). While the actual nukes are protected you can't expect millions of people only trained for thinking in physical attack terms to be perfect at making sure no important info ever gets on attackable systems. The user is often the weakest link and even the toughest defense can be compromised if there are idiots inside. Just takes one higher officer deciding to take some logistics data on his personal laptop to work at home and an attacker could gain access to important data that would allow their military to interrupt your supply lines.
Hell, didn't we even hear of a case of a special ops dude being stupid enough to post about his next assignment on Facebook? For every case of extreme stupidity there's dozens of cases of mild stupidity.
I'm more for letting each country decide what they let people do on their segment (as long as they don't interfere with traffic that merely passes through), what one finds reprehensible another finds holy.
I believe they only published Tyrian. BTW, did you know that the Tyrian graphics have been released under an open license and you can use them in your game?
Game sequels often improve on the previous game because the medium is so heavily based on mechanics that can be tweaked to be better. Not many sequels are actually worse, often they just fail to bring as much new stuff to the table as the original did.
A game where you move freely and aim manually plays pretty much identical independent of whether the camera is inside or next to the head of the protagonist, the first games that used this style were using a first person view so that name stuck but it's really not dependent on the view.