That's what we used to say about Lycos and Yahoo. The simple fact is, when something better comes along in the search engine market, they become the next "Kleenex". You can only change tissues so much, so the brands remain very static. It's not like that with search engines. There will always be ways to reinvent the product.
This weekend I bought seasons 2 and 3 of the new Battlestar Galactica on iTunes. I did it for two reasons.
The first reason was price -- I was able to get season 2 for $25, where it is priced out on Amazon for $10 more. I could shop around and find a better deal I'm sure, but that leads into the second reason.
There was an instantly gratifying lack of hassle.
I didn't have to go to the store to get it. I didn't have to wait 3 days for shipping. I simply clicked "buy now" and began watching as it downloaded. I don't feel ripped off for having a lack of physical media because plain and simple, I'd probably just rip it to my shared drive anyway -- which is another layer of hassle to get it in the portable format I desire.
It's the same old reasons for why I bought my first music album online rather than getting the slightly more expensive CD. I didn't need the CD anymore. Many more people feel that way each year.
We're not all deaf and lazy. We're simply out to hear a decent tune without a lot of work going into the process. We, the average, enjoy slightly lossy music as much as we enjoy less than HD video. We don't study our entertainment too much and are quite satisfied with substantially less than perfect.
That's why we are the masses and others are the aficionados. We all play our parts, and the sales follow the trends we set.
The reason Linux doesn't have full gaming support is that the community simply hasn't chosen a stand-out front-runner. With Ubuntu's rise in popularity, I could see us getting a few "RUNS FINE ON UBUNTU!" stickers on the rare game box, but until we are no longer at a point that every person is running a completely different config, we're not going to get serious gaming attention. Debian, Suse, Slack, Knoppix, Fedora? Gnome, KDE, Xf?
Saying, "Make it work on Linux" is just plain silly, and any real *nix user knows that.
What we're looking at is the beginning of a new product line. We all know how Microsoft does things -- piece by piece.
This round it's more likely than not that we'll get a very high profile, seriously marketed, media player with a few minor games and the potential for expandability within their overall product line and future focus.
Microsoft really wants focus to be on the 360 this year. They have a major battle to win, and diluting their own market would be a serious mistake. I expect it will be mid-way through this console generation that we'll see them making serious portable gaming moves.
I really only clicked this thread because I saw enormous potential for a Star Wars droid mockery. After reading the first few posts I knew I'd be modded redundant. Now I'll have to settle for off-topic.
Now compare the crap games released for Nintendo systems with the countless thousands made in Flash each week. See why there are checks and balances for consoles?
I work in an industry full of stuff like this. Everyone outside the industry calls it "the media". Everyone inside calls it advertising. The purpose of a newspaper is to sell ads. The purpose of television programming is to sell ads. The purpose of most web sites is to sell ads. Eventually, if you deal with it day in and day out, you start to despise the system.
So you load up Linux and start playing with something like OpenOffice. You enjoy the lack of commercial draw. You enjoy the movement away from advertising, into the realm of products shipping on their own worth.
Then you see people throwing away money on ads that could be better used elsewhere. Honestly, the first thing that came to mind was, "Those thousands of dollars could go to a worthwhile charity and do more good for the cause."
Maybe I'm just tired. I simply hate commercial advertising for a product that has so much more going for it.
In DC, $60k will get you in debt and not much else. In Dallas you could live quite well. In many places $60k is just enough to get by. In quite a few it isn't even close.
It's all about location, really.
That's a good idea unless you are somewhere like Norfolk, VA or the surrounding cities where their idea of public transportation is two busses and a limping hobo that offers piggy-back rides for a dollar.
Ok, so I am exaggerating. The city planners would never budget for an extra bus.
I've always found it easy to pick game type, map, number of players, and so on. I like the complete control that the PC experience offers.
I suppose it's simply two different schools of thought. Auto-aim and server matchups vs manual aim and server selection. Maybe those of us that play PC FPS games have just learned to do more things for ourselves and still have fun.
Hmm... weapon selection? Awareness of your environment? Teamwork?
Every PC FPS I've played online required those things to be the best... and also the ability to accurately aim the weapon you selected at the target you designated within the surrounding environment, for your team.
Have you played a PC FPS game that's done online play nearly as well?
Tribes
Counter Strike
Battlefield 1942
Call of Duty & United Offensive Expansion
Battlefield 2
There are countless dozens of others that did it right. Many did it before the Xbox was around, much less Halo. You may also note that originally Halo was set to be for Mac and PC only. Then Bungy was bought out by Microsoft and it moved over to Xbox exclusive, with PC/Mac ports delayed to maximize console sales.
Halo is loved for all the reasons good PC FPS games are loved, only it's been done better before. The reason Halo was huge on Xbox is because it gave the console gamers what PC gamers have had for years. I just have to shake my head when someone tries to tell me Halo was innovative. It wasn't. It was nothing new. It was just new to Xbox.
It seems to me that Microsoft is trying to create an "All in one" operating system. A bundle of software that is "all you need" when setting up a new PC. Most PC manufacturers include other options. Musicmatch, AOL IM, Quicktime, etc. These things come pre-installed on many systems. That is how it should be.
A PC manufacturer installs the customer's chosen OS. The manufacturer then adds-in software bundles such as AOL, Musicmatch, Apple's iTunes and Quicktime, and the consumer now has alternatives on their system. If the PC manufacturer had not chosen to add the additional bundles, the consumer would have to locate additional software for himself.
Where is it Microsoft's duty to supply alternatives? Doesn't the burden lay squarely on the consumer? If Microsoft blocked mention of competing products, or went out of their way to make sure they did not work on a Microsoft OS, then I could see a real problem, but as it is, they are getting fined for bundling free software with their OS?
I don't like the idea of having to strip a product to its core to sell it. I like having additional "selling points" bundled in. As a consumer, I choose not to use WM9 as my default video player. That was the choice I made and it took only minutes after initial setup to download and install my preferred player. The install was not hindered in any way by Microsoft, nor did I feel pressured to use WM9 at any point.
It is up to the consumer to find their own alternatives. Forcing that product's competitor to do so is beyond reasonable.
Slashdot Mirror
Google is Kleenex.
That's what we used to say about Lycos and Yahoo. The simple fact is, when something better comes along in the search engine market, they become the next "Kleenex". You can only change tissues so much, so the brands remain very static. It's not like that with search engines. There will always be ways to reinvent the product.
This weekend I bought seasons 2 and 3 of the new Battlestar Galactica on iTunes. I did it for two reasons.
The first reason was price -- I was able to get season 2 for $25, where it is priced out on Amazon for $10 more. I could shop around and find a better deal I'm sure, but that leads into the second reason.
There was an instantly gratifying lack of hassle.
I didn't have to go to the store to get it. I didn't have to wait 3 days for shipping. I simply clicked "buy now" and began watching as it downloaded. I don't feel ripped off for having a lack of physical media because plain and simple, I'd probably just rip it to my shared drive anyway -- which is another layer of hassle to get it in the portable format I desire.
It's the same old reasons for why I bought my first music album online rather than getting the slightly more expensive CD. I didn't need the CD anymore. Many more people feel that way each year.
We're not all deaf and lazy. We're simply out to hear a decent tune without a lot of work going into the process. We, the average, enjoy slightly lossy music as much as we enjoy less than HD video. We don't study our entertainment too much and are quite satisfied with substantially less than perfect.
That's why we are the masses and others are the aficionados. We all play our parts, and the sales follow the trends we set.
Which distrobution? Which kernel? Which GUI?
The reason Linux doesn't have full gaming support is that the community simply hasn't chosen a stand-out front-runner. With Ubuntu's rise in popularity, I could see us getting a few "RUNS FINE ON UBUNTU!" stickers on the rare game box, but until we are no longer at a point that every person is running a completely different config, we're not going to get serious gaming attention. Debian, Suse, Slack, Knoppix, Fedora? Gnome, KDE, Xf?
Saying, "Make it work on Linux" is just plain silly, and any real *nix user knows that.
Just as food for thought, and to add to the conversation, here's a recent interview with Mythic regarding Warhammer Online.
e =6&page_id=1512&uid=3#top1512
http://home.hamptonroads.com/blog/threads.cfm?pag
Generally speaking, though, the term API is widely overused and sadly misunderstood.
I had a vendor tell me the other day that they had a File Transfer API for collecting data.
They were referring to a plain old FTP server.
It's a brave new world, full of wonder and things that make me want to stab myself in the face.
Actually, yes. I'm sorry, man. I'm so, so, sorry.
What we're looking at is the beginning of a new product line. We all know how Microsoft does things -- piece by piece.
This round it's more likely than not that we'll get a very high profile, seriously marketed, media player with a few minor games and the potential for expandability within their overall product line and future focus.
Microsoft really wants focus to be on the 360 this year. They have a major battle to win, and diluting their own market would be a serious mistake. I expect it will be mid-way through this console generation that we'll see them making serious portable gaming moves.
Many of us drew the same conclusions as this article, days ago.
I really only clicked this thread because I saw enormous potential for a Star Wars droid mockery. After reading the first few posts I knew I'd be modded redundant. Now I'll have to settle for off-topic.
Not the droids I was looking for, I'm afraid.
Now compare the crap games released for Nintendo systems with the countless thousands made in Flash each week. See why there are checks and balances for consoles?
Why? Why spend money on ads like this?
I work in an industry full of stuff like this. Everyone outside the industry calls it "the media". Everyone inside calls it advertising. The purpose of a newspaper is to sell ads. The purpose of television programming is to sell ads. The purpose of most web sites is to sell ads. Eventually, if you deal with it day in and day out, you start to despise the system.
So you load up Linux and start playing with something like OpenOffice. You enjoy the lack of commercial draw. You enjoy the movement away from advertising, into the realm of products shipping on their own worth.
Then you see people throwing away money on ads that could be better used elsewhere. Honestly, the first thing that came to mind was, "Those thousands of dollars could go to a worthwhile charity and do more good for the cause."
Maybe I'm just tired. I simply hate commercial advertising for a product that has so much more going for it.
In DC, $60k will get you in debt and not much else. In Dallas you could live quite well. In many places $60k is just enough to get by. In quite a few it isn't even close. It's all about location, really.
Obviously it's worth 47 first posts asking if they meant rupees, yen, chickens, or virgin sacrifices.
They just told everyone that reads slashdot where to find nudity online. I hope Maxim UK can hadle the load. Nasa buckled over a moon rock.
Forget anti-matter, let's go a step beyond and make don't-matter weapons.
Nevermind. I guess they wouldn't really make a difference.
Take a swig of Vodka and pronounce it with a Russian accent. It sounds ok.
"Labs Compete to Built New Nuclear Bomb"
Take another couple of swigs of Vodka and it somehow sounds even better.
"Lab Completes two Built Nude Nuclear Boobs"
Now finish the bottle as you ponder how the term 'fall-out' would apply to the last reading.
If that's the case, I encourage you all to read my blog and make me instantly wealthy.
What? Can't blame me for trying...
Yes, and we all see how well Sega has done with predicting successful console launches.
That's a good idea unless you are somewhere like Norfolk, VA or the surrounding cities where their idea of public transportation is two busses and a limping hobo that offers piggy-back rides for a dollar.
Ok, so I am exaggerating. The city planners would never budget for an extra bus.
I've always found it easy to pick game type, map, number of players, and so on. I like the complete control that the PC experience offers.
I suppose it's simply two different schools of thought. Auto-aim and server matchups vs manual aim and server selection. Maybe those of us that play PC FPS games have just learned to do more things for ourselves and still have fun.
Hmm... weapon selection? Awareness of your environment? Teamwork? Every PC FPS I've played online required those things to be the best... and also the ability to accurately aim the weapon you selected at the target you designated within the surrounding environment, for your team.
Tribes
Counter Strike
Battlefield 1942
Call of Duty & United Offensive Expansion
Battlefield 2
There are countless dozens of others that did it right. Many did it before the Xbox was around, much less Halo. You may also note that originally Halo was set to be for Mac and PC only. Then Bungy was bought out by Microsoft and it moved over to Xbox exclusive, with PC/Mac ports delayed to maximize console sales.
Halo is loved for all the reasons good PC FPS games are loved, only it's been done better before. The reason Halo was huge on Xbox is because it gave the console gamers what PC gamers have had for years. I just have to shake my head when someone tries to tell me Halo was innovative. It wasn't. It was nothing new. It was just new to Xbox.
An offtopic aside: never liked that Boy-Wolf parable. Wolves don't kill people.
They may not kill people, but they kill sheep. It's about protecting your flock, and being aware enough to cause them no harm.
How many random "A/S/L????" IM's did it take to reach this conclusion?
It seems to me that Microsoft is trying to create an "All in one" operating system. A bundle of software that is "all you need" when setting up a new PC. Most PC manufacturers include other options. Musicmatch, AOL IM, Quicktime, etc. These things come pre-installed on many systems. That is how it should be. A PC manufacturer installs the customer's chosen OS. The manufacturer then adds-in software bundles such as AOL, Musicmatch, Apple's iTunes and Quicktime, and the consumer now has alternatives on their system. If the PC manufacturer had not chosen to add the additional bundles, the consumer would have to locate additional software for himself. Where is it Microsoft's duty to supply alternatives? Doesn't the burden lay squarely on the consumer? If Microsoft blocked mention of competing products, or went out of their way to make sure they did not work on a Microsoft OS, then I could see a real problem, but as it is, they are getting fined for bundling free software with their OS? I don't like the idea of having to strip a product to its core to sell it. I like having additional "selling points" bundled in. As a consumer, I choose not to use WM9 as my default video player. That was the choice I made and it took only minutes after initial setup to download and install my preferred player. The install was not hindered in any way by Microsoft, nor did I feel pressured to use WM9 at any point. It is up to the consumer to find their own alternatives. Forcing that product's competitor to do so is beyond reasonable.
Don't you see? All of Sony is run by one man intent on abusing your trust. It's not actually several dozen companies with different management structures and operational objectives and standards. Nooooo... Of course it isn't... It's one little guy. He lives at Sony HQ. Follow the path there and you can't miss him. He's behind the curtain with the big head floating over it.