The forced rollout of Windows 10 is what finally forced me to switch to Linux on the Desktop. There's a learning curve, and not every application I want is available, but at least I feel like it's my computer again - not a "device" on Microsoft's ecosystem.
I agree that by pirating software you weren't going to buy anyway you do not harm the company you pirate from.
However, you ignored my other point. "Even if you've decided that you would rather go without than pay for the game, the conclusion that piracy is then victimless is also false. If you want to play a Diablo-style game without DRM, then find a publisher who is making that and pay them for your entertainment. Or create a free software group and build it yourself."
Given that they created the game, they have the right to choose the conditions under which they're willing to sell it. If I don't like those conditions, I have the right not to buy it.
Even if you've decided that you would rather go without than pay for the game, the conclusion that piracy is then victimless is also false. If you want to play a Diablo-style game without DRM, then find a publisher who is making that and pay them for your entertainment. Or create a free software group and build it yourself. But breaking the law doesn't show up on my list of valid choices.
These are totally valid issues, but I guess it just comes down to how much I want it.
Give up privacy to play games on Facebook? No, thanks.
Requiring me to be connected and preventing me from reselling Diablo III? Sign me up. As long as it's a one-time fee for a game I expect to get many hours of enjoyment from, I'm only interested in the practical considerations. I have a network connection. I'm not planning on ever selling my copy of the game.
That said, I was one of the people who stayed away from Spore a few years ago because they planned to do this kind of thing. The difference? Spore was something that looked "neat" but I didn't really see myself getting into it. Diablo III, I really want.
Note here that I'm going to glom first and second party together, as I'm never sure which ones are first or second.
The second party is you. The first party is Nintendo, a third party is anyone else not in the original transaction. So there are no second-party games. (Unless you've been a very busy Slashdotter!)
Interesting. Designing the adventure engine is not the hard part in making a good adventure game, it's the scripting of the story itself. If these guys don't have that experience, it would explain the negative Bone reviews.
I was excited at first, but maybe there's nothing to see here, and I should go about my business.
Ah. I see now. You're saying that the $7500 box is $1625/CPU.
So the retail price of buying and running 1 CPU is $1625 + $250 + 100 = $1975. Which is still not $8760.
$7500 + 4 * $250 + 4 * $100 = $8760? Nope, that's $8900. Not sure what you're sayin' here.
Anyway, yeah: $1/CPU-hour is nuts. It's so far out of line with the cost of purchasing that you would always want to buy with your budget, take twice as long to run your first job, and then re-sell your hardware or keep it around for the next job.
Right, but the Guru doesn't say "If there is exactly one blue-eyed person, he will leave at midnight." The Guru says (in effect) "There is at least one blue-eyed person, and this knowledge is universal to the nth degree." Using that information, everyone deduces that if there were exactly one blue-eyed person, he would leave at midnight.
My question is, is there another way for them to deduce "There is at least one blue-eyed person, and this knowledge is universal to at least the minimum degree required." If there is, everyone can begin acting on the deduction "If there is exactly one blue-eyed person, he will leave at midnight," as soon as that happens.
For example, here's an alternate setup: The guru never speaks to the crowd. Instead, each day she speaks to a different individual and says "Each day I speak to a different individual and tell them this: I have seen a blue-eyed person."
So on day 200, everyone knows that the information is universal, and that one blue-eyed person would leave on that night.
If: You agree that there exists some specific minimum number of people with blue eyes, who, upon seeing each other, all know that the knowledge of blue-eyed people is universal to the requisite degree. Then: Each perfect logician can conclude that if there were only one blue-eyed person, he would leave on the first night.
There are two possible objections you're raising... I'll try to address them both.
My comment doesn't depend on the knowledge of an equal distribution. My point was that 100 is much greater than the threshold for knowing that everyone knows that everyone knows that there are Us and Bs on the island. Therefore people can act on that information before Guru says "I see a U".
If there are 99 Us and I am one of the 101 Bs, on day 99 the Us will all leave. On day 100, if they have not left yet, I know there are at least 100 Us. Because I can see only 99 Us, I must be a U.
I enjoyed the aha! moment of figuring this one out. Thanks!
But... now I'm troubled by the question of the additional information the Guru added. You've stated that they are all perfect logicians. Additionally, they each need to know that all are perfect logicians. And they need to know that this knowledge is itself universal. I don't think it needs to go to another layer beyond that.
Now, what information did the Guru give them? She told them that there existed a person with blue eyes. And, by presenting that information to all, she told them that everyone knew there existed a person with blue eyes. And, in fact, that everyone knows that everyone knows that such a person exists. Again, I think this is as far as we have to go.
Is there another way for them to get this information? Suppose there are three Us (blue-eyes) on the island. Then everyone can see at least 2 Us. So everyone knows that everyone knows that Us exist. If there are 4 Us, everyone can see at least three, and we take it to the next level.
Therefore, I submit that with 100 Us and 100 Bs on the island, the information is already universal and the countdown can begin immediately. On day 100, each person who sees 99 Bs knows he is a B, and each person who sees 99 Us knows he is a U. The poor Guru is stuck all alone.
A lot of people are really championing this move, while a few are panning it.
I'm not an MMORPG player, but would someone explain to me what alternatives NCSoft had? Everyone's made it pretty clear that noone has time to play two MMOs simultaneously. So CoH players would have stopped playing CoH to play CoV? That would either cut into CoV sales, or limit the CoH population, neither of which is good for NCSoft.
I see how this is a good thing for those people who want to play both games, but given that they both take place in the same universe, this seems like a no-brainer decision to me. Announcing it like it's a brilliant new idea seems more like a marketing ploy to get attention for their games than anything else.
Certainly, in the immediate-term, it is easier to do something without getting permission. And perhaps you will be forgiven for it.
But perhaps not.
I've been around two different people who pulled this before. In each case, as soon as the person was no longer critical, the person was laid off. (And Management started working to make sure the person was not critical as soon as the event occurred.)
When you do something like this, you are taking all of the risk on your own head, and little of the reward. If you're successful, that makes up for not going through channels, but that's all. If you fail, you've squandered resources beyond your authority, and you're fired.
So would this thread be the on-topic place to promote indie games we're fans of?
Star Chamber has a small, die-hard fan base, but now the developer has merged with a slightly larger company, and they've gotten together with an indie publisher (Matrix Games). I'm hopeful that SC will grow large with their upcoming release.
Anyway, I agree with the article: the key value provided by an internet publisher will be advertising. If that brings in the bucks, indie games have a shot. Otherwise, they'll always be small fry.
Just scheduled my LSAT test. Seriously. It's difficult to outsource lawyers. If we're going to work long hours on hard tasks, we might as well get paid for it.
I'm not sure I'm happy working just for money... I might rather be working for less for a non-profit or such. I'm curious about the path you took.
Regards.
Maybe it's possible for you. It's not possible for me.
If you can't treat people with respect, you don't deserve it yourself. And you certainly don't deserve the kind of following Apple has.
I don't agree with the monopolistic practices of the Evil Empire, but everything I'm hearing says that Jobs would do the exact same thing if he had the chance. So why support him? The de-facto standard of the Windows OS means that software is available and cheap. If I want to "rebel", I'll go to Linux.
I've worked for arrogant and productive leaders, and it was interesting for a bit, but in the end it was de-motivating to almost everyone else who worked with them.
As Paul Atreides refused to do, these leaders eliminate the 2nd-best people in their organizations by refusing to treat them with respect. Eventually the company built around an individual will fall to an organization of people that can work effectively together.
Judging from past upgrades, I am long overdue for another PC upgrade, but there doesn't really seem to be any reason to. The RTS genre seems to have stagnated, and everything else I'm interested in is just as good on my PS2. And often cheaper.
I totally agree with those who argue that music is overpriced. I think $1 a track is too high, when you compare it with the value provided by games and DVDs.
My solution? Join BMG. The selection isn't unlimited, true, but I get albums for about $8 shipped (on average), which is 50-75 cents a track.
Slashdot Mirror
The forced rollout of Windows 10 is what finally forced me to switch to Linux on the Desktop. There's a learning curve, and not every application I want is available, but at least I feel like it's my computer again - not a "device" on Microsoft's ecosystem.
I agree that by pirating software you weren't going to buy anyway you do not harm the company you pirate from.
However, you ignored my other point. "Even if you've decided that you would rather go without than pay for the game, the conclusion that piracy is then victimless is also false. If you want to play a Diablo-style game without DRM, then find a publisher who is making that and pay them for your entertainment. Or create a free software group and build it yourself."
No, that's not right either.
Given that they created the game, they have the right to choose the conditions under which they're willing to sell it. If I don't like those conditions, I have the right not to buy it.
Even if you've decided that you would rather go without than pay for the game, the conclusion that piracy is then victimless is also false. If you want to play a Diablo-style game without DRM, then find a publisher who is making that and pay them for your entertainment. Or create a free software group and build it yourself. But breaking the law doesn't show up on my list of valid choices.
These are totally valid issues, but I guess it just comes down to how much I want it. Give up privacy to play games on Facebook? No, thanks. Requiring me to be connected and preventing me from reselling Diablo III? Sign me up. As long as it's a one-time fee for a game I expect to get many hours of enjoyment from, I'm only interested in the practical considerations. I have a network connection. I'm not planning on ever selling my copy of the game. That said, I was one of the people who stayed away from Spore a few years ago because they planned to do this kind of thing. The difference? Spore was something that looked "neat" but I didn't really see myself getting into it. Diablo III, I really want.
Note here that I'm going to glom first and second party together, as I'm never sure which ones are first or second.
The second party is you. The first party is Nintendo, a third party is anyone else not in the original transaction. So there are no second-party games. (Unless you've been a very busy Slashdotter!)The weak US$ will have an inflating influence on the price for import, not the deflating influence you imply.
I think I still have a copy of Globbo lying around!
Cute game!
Interesting. Designing the adventure engine is not the hard part in making a good adventure game, it's the scripting of the story itself. If these guys don't have that experience, it would explain the negative Bone reviews.
I was excited at first, but maybe there's nothing to see here, and I should go about my business.
I haven't played D&D since Jr. High, but I recognize the impact of the game on gamers, geeks, and even Unix culture.
Maybe once a year, it's worth an afternoon to play a disposable character and pay homage to the grand-daddy of RPGs.
I'm confused about your math.
Ah. I see now. You're saying that the $7500 box is $1625/CPU.
So the retail price of buying and running 1 CPU is $1625 + $250 + 100 = $1975. Which is still not $8760.
$7500 + 4 * $250 + 4 * $100 = $8760? Nope, that's $8900. Not sure what you're sayin' here.
Anyway, yeah: $1/CPU-hour is nuts. It's so far out of line with the cost of purchasing that you would always want to buy with your budget, take twice as long to run your first job, and then re-sell your hardware or keep it around for the next job.
Right, but the Guru doesn't say "If there is exactly one blue-eyed person, he will leave at midnight." The Guru says (in effect) "There is at least one blue-eyed person, and this knowledge is universal to the nth degree." Using that information, everyone deduces that if there were exactly one blue-eyed person, he would leave at midnight.
My question is, is there another way for them to deduce "There is at least one blue-eyed person, and this knowledge is universal to at least the minimum degree required." If there is, everyone can begin acting on the deduction "If there is exactly one blue-eyed person, he will leave at midnight," as soon as that happens.
For example, here's an alternate setup: The guru never speaks to the crowd. Instead, each day she speaks to a different individual and says "Each day I speak to a different individual and tell them this: I have seen a blue-eyed person."
So on day 200, everyone knows that the information is universal, and that one blue-eyed person would leave on that night.
If: You agree that there exists some specific minimum number of people with blue eyes, who, upon seeing each other, all know that the knowledge of blue-eyed people is universal to the requisite degree. Then: Each perfect logician can conclude that if there were only one blue-eyed person, he would leave on the first night.
There are two possible objections you're raising ... I'll try to address them both.
My comment doesn't depend on the knowledge of an equal distribution. My point was that 100 is much greater than the threshold for knowing that everyone knows that everyone knows that there are Us and Bs on the island. Therefore people can act on that information before Guru says "I see a U".
If there are 99 Us and I am one of the 101 Bs, on day 99 the Us will all leave. On day 100, if they have not left yet, I know there are at least 100 Us. Because I can see only 99 Us, I must be a U.
I enjoyed the aha! moment of figuring this one out. Thanks!
... now I'm troubled by the question of the additional information the Guru added. You've stated that they are all perfect logicians. Additionally, they each need to know that all are perfect logicians. And they need to know that this knowledge is itself universal. I don't think it needs to go to another layer beyond that.
But
Now, what information did the Guru give them? She told them that there existed a person with blue eyes. And, by presenting that information to all, she told them that everyone knew there existed a person with blue eyes. And, in fact, that everyone knows that everyone knows that such a person exists. Again, I think this is as far as we have to go.
Is there another way for them to get this information? Suppose there are three Us (blue-eyes) on the island. Then everyone can see at least 2 Us. So everyone knows that everyone knows that Us exist. If there are 4 Us, everyone can see at least three, and we take it to the next level.
Therefore, I submit that with 100 Us and 100 Bs on the island, the information is already universal and the countdown can begin immediately. On day 100, each person who sees 99 Bs knows he is a B, and each person who sees 99 Us knows he is a U. The poor Guru is stuck all alone.
No, the original poster is correct. The Guru does speak exactly once.
I'm not an MMORPG player, but would someone explain to me what alternatives NCSoft had? Everyone's made it pretty clear that noone has time to play two MMOs simultaneously. So CoH players would have stopped playing CoH to play CoV? That would either cut into CoV sales, or limit the CoH population, neither of which is good for NCSoft.
I see how this is a good thing for those people who want to play both games, but given that they both take place in the same universe, this seems like a no-brainer decision to me. Announcing it like it's a brilliant new idea seems more like a marketing ploy to get attention for their games than anything else.
Certainly, in the immediate-term, it is easier to do something without getting permission. And perhaps you will be forgiven for it.
But perhaps not.
I've been around two different people who pulled this before. In each case, as soon as the person was no longer critical, the person was laid off. (And Management started working to make sure the person was not critical as soon as the event occurred.)
When you do something like this, you are taking all of the risk on your own head, and little of the reward. If you're successful, that makes up for not going through channels, but that's all. If you fail, you've squandered resources beyond your authority, and you're fired.
Mod it to +6, eh? ;)
Star Chamber has a small, die-hard fan base, but now the developer has merged with a slightly larger company, and they've gotten together with an indie publisher (Matrix Games). I'm hopeful that SC will grow large with their upcoming release.
Anyway, I agree with the article: the key value provided by an internet publisher will be advertising. If that brings in the bucks, indie games have a shot. Otherwise, they'll always be small fry.
I've heard conflicting reports on this. Can you point to any online documentation? I'm curious to know. Thanks.
Just scheduled my LSAT test. Seriously. It's difficult to outsource lawyers. If we're going to work long hours on hard tasks, we might as well get paid for it.
I'm not sure I'm happy working just for money ... I might rather be working for less for a non-profit or such. I'm curious about the path you took.
Regards.
If you can't treat people with respect, you don't deserve it yourself. And you certainly don't deserve the kind of following Apple has.
I don't agree with the monopolistic practices of the Evil Empire, but everything I'm hearing says that Jobs would do the exact same thing if he had the chance. So why support him? The de-facto standard of the Windows OS means that software is available and cheap. If I want to "rebel", I'll go to Linux.
I've worked for arrogant and productive leaders, and it was interesting for a bit, but in the end it was de-motivating to almost everyone else who worked with them.
As Paul Atreides refused to do, these leaders eliminate the 2nd-best people in their organizations by refusing to treat them with respect. Eventually the company built around an individual will fall to an organization of people that can work effectively together.
Judging from past upgrades, I am long overdue for another PC upgrade, but there doesn't really seem to be any reason to. The RTS genre seems to have stagnated, and everything else I'm interested in is just as good on my PS2. And often cheaper.
My solution? Join BMG. The selection isn't unlimited, true, but I get albums for about $8 shipped (on average), which is 50-75 cents a track.
We're talking about someone who committed murder to resolve a dispute that the law didn't recognize as being legitimate.
Why? Because there was no legal reason for them to go after the perp. A contract would've addressed that.