It's about trust in the manufacturer. The Atari to Xbox comparison is dishonest, because the new GBA is still a platform for the same games. An earlier-adopter would not be unreasonable to feel a bit "burned" right now, since there's an unspoken expectation that the next upgrade-cycle would be the next iteration of the technology, not an incremental release with features that should have been in the original.
What this means is that there may well be a reluctance to adopt the next GB platform (if there is one) as the market waits until the optimal model for that platform is released. That's not a good message to send to your market.
I'm an advocate of progressive taxation, based on marginal utility value and "next-dollar" analysis of wealth, but instead of defending that for now, I'm just going to ask you this: how do encourage people to save while still taxing wealth instead of income? Seems to me thats a formula for "use it or lose it," which discourages savings. Not that it is necessarily a bad thing - perhaps discourage the accumulation of liquid goods (that is, "wealth," ownings which can be converted into cash within 6 months) would encourage the circulation of money through the economy, but it certainly wouldn't encourage savings.
Licensing costs? Being able to migrate an organization to Linux and reduce training and transition downtime, ensuring better business continuity during a rollout ? Sometimes I forget that Slashdot is so dominated by students and computer hobbyists, that they have no sense about the sorts of situations that can occur in a business environment.
If you stop thinking of the US as a capitalist system, but instead start realizing that it is the export of the cheapest labor that makes the system what it is, you end up comparing Cuba with US + India + Thailand, and suddenly the comparison isn't so one-sided.
The galling part for those who lack business and managerial skills, is that the jobs that remain will be for those who have the business and managerial skills to coordinate the work of offshore contractors with the needs of their customers in the US. That means moderately technically skilled people with good business/managerial training and generally good people (not necessarily sales- type) skills will have more opportunities than someone with strong technical skills and mediocre people/business skills.
Of course, all anyone needs is just one job at a time. "Less opportunity" doesn't mean the end of the world - it just means one may look longer for work that pays less than it used to. Despair doesn't help anyone.
But I still like RTS and, to a lesser extent, FPS (my favorites include Shogun: and Medieval:Total War, Warcraft III etc.) But I consider those somewhat on the sugar-cereal side of my diet, it's true. (And my dream games are pretty outre: Rez, Mr. Mosquito, and Ico are all good games, and it's becaming apparent to me that the people really moving things along are in Japan - Greg mentions the creativity in the Japanese market with things like MojibRibbon).
And the problem is the genres, after all (FPS, RTS, RPG, etc.) The genre games are so - generic (yes, it's a cognate) - tthat it's questionable just how many of them the market can support. Or how much innovation (I am getting tired of the word - how about "creativity") that can be found within a genre.
Incidentally, GTA3 is a great game; The Sopranos plus Tarrantino in a video game, and probably going to be remembered for a long time as part of the maturing of the game medium. BMXXXX is just puerile pandering, and I feel deeply sorry for anyone over the age of 18 who gets off on it.
It's not just that. It's also the fact that the industry is still largely driven by its target market: adolescent boys. Not that there's anything wrong with developing content for adolescent boys, but that market's taste for experimentation is somewhat limited. The games that innovate are often found boring or weird by the usual target market - games like The Sims or Mister Mosquito. (There are a couple games that I consider masterpieces that are liked by the mainstream gaming market - GTA3 and Final Fantasy X - but the former has already become a center for a genre of its own).
Part of the problem from the side of the game industry is its knee-jerk hostility towards being anything other than a business - they don't want to see themselves as part of a cultural discourse, they don't understand how a "high art" and "experimental/avant-garde" wing to the media can come back and recharge the mainstream one.
I think that what might happen is that more art and film schools will start teaching more game design - that's what will recharge the media.
I think the point isn't that the UK is the unsung mecca of game development. The point is that there's a lot to be said for people coming from outside the mainstream centers of development, and that "national cultures" of game development can produce a lot of original work that might not be produced or concieved in the US. The trouble is that there's just so damn much capital in the US, that it's easier to get a clone funded there than to get an original idea (which are, of course, riskier) funded elsewhere. (Japan is a fascinating exception.)
France, Germany, Eastern Europe and Korea also have game dev industries, but sometimes, especially in the case of Eastern Europe, they are just relegated to being the production sweat-shops to implement American-designed games.
If European governments didn't fund film production within their own countries, it's possible that no films of quality would get produced in those countries: the US has too much leverage worldwide, and foreign markets are more willing to consume Hollywood films than Americans are willing to watch foreign films (even anime has trouble getting theatrical releases - look at the hedging that Disney is doing in the distribution of Spirited Away, even as it is up for Oscar consideration.) Without public investment, filmmakers in other countries would just have too much incentive to move to the US and make films there (you should check out just how many directors and cinematographers are foreign-born.) If those societies are going to want to have a film that really reflects the cultures that they are part of, they really have to subsidize them.
The prices weren't a cap. They were a floor - part of a contractual agreement with the energy providers (and requested by PG&E in order to ensure profitability during the transition to a deregulated environment). The price was locked in by mutual agreement, and then the vendor found out that its upstream was going to jack up the rates. There is nothing about a lack of government involvement that guarantees against costs exceeding profits in any given period of time. And, of course, it turns out that much of the crisis was artificially created by Enron.
Waitasec. Propping up the essential infrastructure is good old fashioned capitalism, because the Infrastructure Is Important, but funding things like the arts (because that's what it entails, to give grants and loads to small content vendors) is Dangerous, because The Government Screws Things Up, and Would Be Socialism?
If the medium is going to grow into any kind of maturity, and break out of the grip of the genres is it mostly in now (exceptions: Black & White, The Sims, Ico, Mister Mosquito, Rez) then I suspect an "art genre" will develop. And it may develop with some public help. If not in the US (which seems to have an allergy to publicly supported art), then maybe in Europe or Asia.
The film industry is subsidized in many countries because they were unable to compete against Hollywood, not the other way around. Arts that are thriving without public support don't go looking for public support.
He's inviting us to daydream, but essentially telling us to not document our daydreaming, our share it.
It reminds me of what a German film maker once said, during the 50's - that the Americans were colonizing their subconscious. That's what he wants to do: colonize our subconscious. Establish his tropes and "franchises," and that make sure that we depend only on him for them.
It is an idea that needs to be resisted. The people at Illegal Art have the right idea. It's important to counter the "artist's rights" rhetoric - which is a fair rhetoric insofar as artists do need support, even if the implications of the ownership model are grossly unfair - with the idea that we are all potentially artists, and that, since Homer, we all use reworked and reframed ideas.
You know, ubiquitous presence is cool and everything (although not nearly as cool as it would have been, say, 5 years ago) but really, the world is not waiting with baited breath for real-time updates of your trip across the states. I mean, not that it wouldn't be nice or anything, but it *can wait till you get home.* The whole "wow" factor of getting a stupid IP address at any given spot is gone. It's done. It's about as exciting as "woo hoo! I can make a phone call!" or "yow! Flush toilets all the way!"
It's because I like my time alone that I like my cell phone. My cell phone means that I can largely go about my business in the world and still maintain a lot of my commitments by using the phone. It gives me far more freedom of movement than it takes away freedom from interaction, since my level of interactin is generally a constant, or at least something that I can control more actively.
But my work habits have long been nomadic: I always look for positions and projects that give me maximum mobility.
I would make it simpler. I would give money to Slashdot if they had real, professional editing, and some original, paid content. That's it: the rest is gravy.
It should work for every PhD candidate doing work in Oxford on computational number theory, like he is. Of course, the rest of us might actually have to do a bit more singing and dancing.
Most of these people would recognize the irony in her remark, and accept it. You don't have to be a Marxist to recognize the existence of class structure (Thorsten Veblen, anyone?), and the wealthy are more aware of the reality of it, and of the nature of their position, than anyone.
Slashdot Mirror
Coasties go out in hurricanes all the time, and sometimes with a laptop.
What this means is that there may well be a reluctance to adopt the next GB platform (if there is one) as the market waits until the optimal model for that platform is released. That's not a good message to send to your market.
So you are making an incentive for the wealthy to not purchase goods or services within the US? That seems like a really bad idea.
I'm an advocate of progressive taxation, based on marginal utility value and "next-dollar" analysis of wealth, but instead of defending that for now, I'm just going to ask you this: how do encourage people to save while still taxing wealth instead of income? Seems to me thats a formula for "use it or lose it," which discourages savings. Not that it is necessarily a bad thing - perhaps discourage the accumulation of liquid goods (that is, "wealth," ownings which can be converted into cash within 6 months) would encourage the circulation of money through the economy, but it certainly wouldn't encourage savings.
Um, most people use computers for, you know, work.
Licensing costs? Being able to migrate an organization to Linux and reduce training and transition downtime, ensuring better business continuity during a rollout ? Sometimes I forget that Slashdot is so dominated by students and computer hobbyists, that they have no sense about the sorts of situations that can occur in a business environment.
If you stop thinking of the US as a capitalist system, but instead start realizing that it is the export of the cheapest labor that makes the system what it is, you end up comparing Cuba with US + India + Thailand, and suddenly the comparison isn't so one-sided.
Of course, all anyone needs is just one job at a time. "Less opportunity" doesn't mean the end of the world - it just means one may look longer for work that pays less than it used to. Despair doesn't help anyone.
And the problem is the genres, after all (FPS, RTS, RPG, etc.) The genre games are so - generic (yes, it's a cognate) - tthat it's questionable just how many of them the market can support. Or how much innovation (I am getting tired of the word - how about "creativity") that can be found within a genre.
Incidentally, GTA3 is a great game; The Sopranos plus Tarrantino in a video game, and probably going to be remembered for a long time as part of the maturing of the game medium. BMXXXX is just puerile pandering, and I feel deeply sorry for anyone over the age of 18 who gets off on it.
Part of the problem from the side of the game industry is its knee-jerk hostility towards being anything other than a business - they don't want to see themselves as part of a cultural discourse, they don't understand how a "high art" and "experimental/avant-garde" wing to the media can come back and recharge the mainstream one.
I think that what might happen is that more art and film schools will start teaching more game design - that's what will recharge the media.
France, Germany, Eastern Europe and Korea also have game dev industries, but sometimes, especially in the case of Eastern Europe, they are just relegated to being the production sweat-shops to implement American-designed games.
If European governments didn't fund film production within their own countries, it's possible that no films of quality would get produced in those countries: the US has too much leverage worldwide, and foreign markets are more willing to consume Hollywood films than Americans are willing to watch foreign films (even anime has trouble getting theatrical releases - look at the hedging that Disney is doing in the distribution of Spirited Away, even as it is up for Oscar consideration.) Without public investment, filmmakers in other countries would just have too much incentive to move to the US and make films there (you should check out just how many directors and cinematographers are foreign-born.) If those societies are going to want to have a film that really reflects the cultures that they are part of, they really have to subsidize them.
The Krispy Kreme Endowment for Excellence in Cosmology.
The prices weren't a cap. They were a floor - part of a contractual agreement with the energy providers (and requested by PG&E in order to ensure profitability during the transition to a deregulated environment). The price was locked in by mutual agreement, and then the vendor found out that its upstream was going to jack up the rates. There is nothing about a lack of government involvement that guarantees against costs exceeding profits in any given period of time. And, of course, it turns out that much of the crisis was artificially created by Enron.
Pardon me while my head explodes.
If the medium is going to grow into any kind of maturity, and break out of the grip of the genres is it mostly in now (exceptions: Black & White, The Sims, Ico, Mister Mosquito, Rez) then I suspect an "art genre" will develop. And it may develop with some public help. If not in the US (which seems to have an allergy to publicly supported art), then maybe in Europe or Asia.
The film industry is subsidized in many countries because they were unable to compete against Hollywood, not the other way around. Arts that are thriving without public support don't go looking for public support.
It reminds me of what a German film maker once said, during the 50's - that the Americans were colonizing their subconscious. That's what he wants to do: colonize our subconscious. Establish his tropes and "franchises," and that make sure that we depend only on him for them.
It is an idea that needs to be resisted. The people at Illegal Art have the right idea. It's important to counter the "artist's rights" rhetoric - which is a fair rhetoric insofar as artists do need support, even if the implications of the ownership model are grossly unfair - with the idea that we are all potentially artists, and that, since Homer, we all use reworked and reframed ideas.
OK, it's "bated breath." Although after the lobster bisque I had this evening, it's deba(i)table.
Apparently, "bated breath" is from the archaic form of "abated;" the breath is being held back, cut short, in anticipation.
You know, ubiquitous presence is cool and everything (although not nearly as cool as it would have been, say, 5 years ago) but really, the world is not waiting with baited breath for real-time updates of your trip across the states. I mean, not that it wouldn't be nice or anything, but it *can wait till you get home.* The whole "wow" factor of getting a stupid IP address at any given spot is gone. It's done. It's about as exciting as "woo hoo! I can make a phone call!" or "yow! Flush toilets all the way!"
But my work habits have long been nomadic: I always look for positions and projects that give me maximum mobility.
I would make it simpler. I would give money to Slashdot if they had real, professional editing, and some original, paid content. That's it: the rest is gravy.
I attribute the moan hoax to the schemings of the cheese industry. If we knew the truth, international cheese prices would plummet.
I winced when I saw the headline for this article. And to think that there are real editors out there in the world who could use jobs ...
It should work for every PhD candidate doing work in Oxford on computational number theory, like he is. Of course, the rest of us might actually have to do a bit more singing and dancing.
Most of these people would recognize the irony in her remark, and accept it. You don't have to be a Marxist to recognize the existence of class structure (Thorsten Veblen, anyone?), and the wealthy are more aware of the reality of it, and of the nature of their position, than anyone.