I am curious, though, with MP3 over the net distro being the future, what is holding more artists back from being indie and reaping more profit on their own hard work?
I imagine it's the power of big label marketing and radio hype. It's just way easier and more profitable to hook in to a huge system already mass-marketing other crap, even after signing your life away to it.
I completely agree with you about SPM. I just finished the game yesterday and the culmination of gameplay elements into the last boss was astoundingly well done. Not only that, but I "beat" the game and there is still lots of stuff for me to go back and play around with. It's one of the best platformers I've played since Super Mario World, and it's got just the right amount of RPG in it.
I suppose it's worth mentioning that the $100 fee isn't automatic (I forgot to mention that in the summary). You have a window, albeit short, to respond before you get cut. Still, the notice seems to be cut and dry with harsh punishments despite the validity of any complaints received.
All joking aside, I am more apt to buy games that I know traditionally have tons of user-created content. Neverwinter nights 2, Half-life 2, Counter-strike:Source and Unreal Tournament 2k4 are all games I bought knowing that I will have no shortage of game to play should I ever tire of their high quality primary content.
I salute Valve for talking about this and hope they follow through with it. It's a shame companies like Microsoft insist that "content have value" and heavily pressure production studios to charge for content that has been classically free for PC games. Why should four multiplayer maps cost ten dollars when companies like Epic have given away expansion-sized updates for their Unreal Tournament games? I can't understand how value-added content is such a bad thing when you're already shelling out $60 for a game.
I hadn't seen that they were so blatant. I had heard they were simply replacing the flavor adverts that were around anyway (like out the windows in office and in the old backalley) with actual products. From those screenshots, they also seem to be in very distracting places. Do they allow these in competition?
I see what you mean, but I'm of the opinion that sequels should be evolutions not revolutions. If you want to make a TF-like game with 9 classes each going by the same name but all with different abilities than the original, with new maps having the same names but completely different flow, and with now-defunct base game mechanics that defined the series, it seems like cheating to call it TF2. I haven't played Quake 4, so I can't make an accurate comparision of it to Quake 3 on that point.
BTW, my first reply was very unclear. I meant the teeball reference in response to people taking games too seriously, and the remainder refered to those decrying change.
CS maps always had adverts, they just used to be for fake products. Are you really that anti-capitalist that changing Pop-dog Soda into Coca-cola is going to make you have less fun?
You can say the same thing about teeball, or solitaire or any other sport that pits people against something. Regardless, that isn't why people are upset in this case. When you take a game as old as Team Fortress and say you're going to make a sequel, people expect certain things. Changing core gameplay features such as this aren't one of those expectations and are going to lead to a certain amount of moaning. If they want to make a related game, they are certainly free to do so, just don't dangle the Team Fortress name out there just to market it.
I hate systems that handicap success. They also tend to lead to no team winning ever, which is even less fun than getting stomped by a stacked team. If one team works together better, has better players, or is just plain lucky they deserve to win. Arbitrarily bolstering a weaker opponent provides goes against the very nature of competition.
Thank you for verbalizing everything I thought when I read the "article". I think the reason TF had such longevity in the first place was the extreme familiarity players had with the game and it's maps. Valve carried this tradition faithfully by copying original TF maps in TFC. Sure they added their own fun maps later on, but the community stayed in part thanks to the timeless classics. We had gobs of player made maps to fulfill that need for new content. Randomizing maps is best left to the realm of strategy games where environmental discovery and adapting to new tactical situations are the name of the game.
It's sad, really, the more I read about TF2. They might as well have spawned some other brand. It helps that I have Fortress Forever to hope on, though.
Penny-arcade's podcast from yesterday includes a discussion of game ranking systems. This isn't the first time they have made mention of the futility of assigning video games a score, but they bring up some good points. The most pertinent in my mind is comparing the way you describe a game to a friend (what you felt was exceptionally good or bad followed by a "yea play it" or "don't waste your time") to the way these websites run their reviews. They also highlight the problem of reviewing multiplayer-focused games with advance copies as is often the case in big blockbuster titles.
Software per se is not patentable. It is considered an abstract idea in the realm of algorithms and natural phenomenon. How people get around this is to patent that same software on a physical medium that is then used to produce some kind of tangible or usable result.
It's very difficult to tell from the article. I haven't read the summary yet, but even that will probably be a bit vague. The courts help narrow the scope of patent code, but they rarely spell everything out enough to remove all ambiguity.
Reddit is quicky following this trend. It can turn an interesting picture link every once in a while, but worthwhile news or tech articles are quickly burried by political spam and stupidly redundant discussion. I joined late in the game and have found it isn't worth the time to try and get my story preferences set to make the site worthwhile.
Thx for the suggestion. My computer has built-in Nvidia graphics so I'll probably just yank out the old, loud Radeon and go with that and a Hauppauge card. This is all kinda surprising considering the amount of AIW cards out there. Guess I'm starting to see people's point about ATI and Linux.
I see now, after sifting through some Ubuntu forum threads and Radeon driver wiki's it seems that even if you manage to jump through all the hoops to get TV-in support, it is, as you mentioned, unwatchable.
Ugh. Would you suggest I use the onboard Nvidia graphics and buy a Hauppage card for TV support? I don't wach a ton of TV, but for the shows I do watch, this computer is all I've got.
It's been my plan to replace Windows on my second PC with this Ubuntu release. The only problem I can forsee is setting up MythTV to work with my Radeon AIW. Either way it should make for a fun weekend project!
You're seperating the act of buying the game from the act of playing the game. The goal of laws like this are to stop a kid from playing the game, not from buying it per se. A parent definitely has the tools to take this game away and return it if they don't approve.
Well, the article pointed out that TDP (typical dissipation power, or something like that) ratings are likely to remain the same. They paraphrase Intel as saying they used the reduction in process size to pack in my transistors instead of pursue the power-savings route.
Slashdot Mirror
Do it whenever possible?
Service Temporarily Unavailable
The server is temporarily unable to service your request due to maintenance downtime or capacity problems. Please try again later.
I imagine it's the power of big label marketing and radio hype. It's just way easier and more profitable to hook in to a huge system already mass-marketing other crap, even after signing your life away to it.
I completely agree with you about SPM. I just finished the game yesterday and the culmination of gameplay elements into the last boss was astoundingly well done. Not only that, but I "beat" the game and there is still lots of stuff for me to go back and play around with. It's one of the best platformers I've played since Super Mario World, and it's got just the right amount of RPG in it.
I suppose it's worth mentioning that the $100 fee isn't automatic (I forgot to mention that in the summary). You have a window, albeit short, to respond before you get cut. Still, the notice seems to be cut and dry with harsh punishments despite the validity of any complaints received.
Are you familiar with Valve's release schedules?
All joking aside, I am more apt to buy games that I know traditionally have tons of user-created content. Neverwinter nights 2, Half-life 2, Counter-strike:Source and Unreal Tournament 2k4 are all games I bought knowing that I will have no shortage of game to play should I ever tire of their high quality primary content.
I salute Valve for talking about this and hope they follow through with it. It's a shame companies like Microsoft insist that "content have value" and heavily pressure production studios to charge for content that has been classically free for PC games. Why should four multiplayer maps cost ten dollars when companies like Epic have given away expansion-sized updates for their Unreal Tournament games? I can't understand how value-added content is such a bad thing when you're already shelling out $60 for a game.
On a related (somewhat sarcastic) note, what does it say about your own products if this is true?
Was there music constantly playing whenever he appeared in public?
I hadn't seen that they were so blatant. I had heard they were simply replacing the flavor adverts that were around anyway (like out the windows in office and in the old backalley) with actual products. From those screenshots, they also seem to be in very distracting places. Do they allow these in competition?
I see what you mean, but I'm of the opinion that sequels should be evolutions not revolutions. If you want to make a TF-like game with 9 classes each going by the same name but all with different abilities than the original, with new maps having the same names but completely different flow, and with now-defunct base game mechanics that defined the series, it seems like cheating to call it TF2. I haven't played Quake 4, so I can't make an accurate comparision of it to Quake 3 on that point.
BTW, my first reply was very unclear. I meant the teeball reference in response to people taking games too seriously, and the remainder refered to those decrying change.
CS maps always had adverts, they just used to be for fake products. Are you really that anti-capitalist that changing Pop-dog Soda into Coca-cola is going to make you have less fun?
You can say the same thing about teeball, or solitaire or any other sport that pits people against something. Regardless, that isn't why people are upset in this case. When you take a game as old as Team Fortress and say you're going to make a sequel, people expect certain things. Changing core gameplay features such as this aren't one of those expectations and are going to lead to a certain amount of moaning. If they want to make a related game, they are certainly free to do so, just don't dangle the Team Fortress name out there just to market it.
I hate systems that handicap success. They also tend to lead to no team winning ever, which is even less fun than getting stomped by a stacked team. If one team works together better, has better players, or is just plain lucky they deserve to win. Arbitrarily bolstering a weaker opponent provides goes against the very nature of competition.
Thank you for verbalizing everything I thought when I read the "article". I think the reason TF had such longevity in the first place was the extreme familiarity players had with the game and it's maps. Valve carried this tradition faithfully by copying original TF maps in TFC. Sure they added their own fun maps later on, but the community stayed in part thanks to the timeless classics. We had gobs of player made maps to fulfill that need for new content. Randomizing maps is best left to the realm of strategy games where environmental discovery and adapting to new tactical situations are the name of the game. It's sad, really, the more I read about TF2. They might as well have spawned some other brand. It helps that I have Fortress Forever to hope on, though.
Penny-arcade's podcast from yesterday includes a discussion of game ranking systems. This isn't the first time they have made mention of the futility of assigning video games a score, but they bring up some good points. The most pertinent in my mind is comparing the way you describe a game to a friend (what you felt was exceptionally good or bad followed by a "yea play it" or "don't waste your time") to the way these websites run their reviews. They also highlight the problem of reviewing multiplayer-focused games with advance copies as is often the case in big blockbuster titles.
In the future this may help. The short of it: blame the timber industry and government issued monopolies.
Software per se is not patentable. It is considered an abstract idea in the realm of algorithms and natural phenomenon. How people get around this is to patent that same software on a physical medium that is then used to produce some kind of tangible or usable result.
It's very difficult to tell from the article. I haven't read the summary yet, but even that will probably be a bit vague. The courts help narrow the scope of patent code, but they rarely spell everything out enough to remove all ambiguity.
Reddit is quicky following this trend. It can turn an interesting picture link every once in a while, but worthwhile news or tech articles are quickly burried by political spam and stupidly redundant discussion. I joined late in the game and have found it isn't worth the time to try and get my story preferences set to make the site worthwhile.
Thx for the suggestion. My computer has built-in Nvidia graphics so I'll probably just yank out the old, loud Radeon and go with that and a Hauppauge card. This is all kinda surprising considering the amount of AIW cards out there. Guess I'm starting to see people's point about ATI and Linux.
I see now, after sifting through some Ubuntu forum threads and Radeon driver wiki's it seems that even if you manage to jump through all the hoops to get TV-in support, it is, as you mentioned, unwatchable.
Ugh. Would you suggest I use the onboard Nvidia graphics and buy a Hauppage card for TV support? I don't wach a ton of TV, but for the shows I do watch, this computer is all I've got.
It's been my plan to replace Windows on my second PC with this Ubuntu release. The only problem I can forsee is setting up MythTV to work with my Radeon AIW. Either way it should make for a fun weekend project!
You're seperating the act of buying the game from the act of playing the game. The goal of laws like this are to stop a kid from playing the game, not from buying it per se. A parent definitely has the tools to take this game away and return it if they don't approve.
Well, the article pointed out that TDP (typical dissipation power, or something like that) ratings are likely to remain the same. They paraphrase Intel as saying they used the reduction in process size to pack in my transistors instead of pursue the power-savings route.