PCs and consoles are gradually becoming the same device, with one big exception: Interoperability. You can plug your phone or tablet into a PC. You can't even plug a keyboard into an XBox (and expect it to work). The funny thing is that Microsoft really is the front runner in both categories. I expect that a future XBox will run a Windows variant and will finally start using standardized I/O stuff. And MS will be in a strange Apple-like position of selling the software AND the hardware.
So we'll never see either the console or the PC die first, because MS will morph them together.
it can be ad supported (with the help of the base subscription fee), or even ala carte if they want to be jerks about it
I just realized that I described something that Netflix is not currently doing, and that it would probably annoy all of us. But you have to admit that it's a very possible scenario, especially if they are serious about getting a better selection of fresh content on there. For me it would be worth it to skip the cost of a cable subscription and the limitations of DVR.
Or why have channels at all? A lot of these content providers are clever conglomerates who would start to spread good shows around different channels if the subscription model were per-channel.
The Netflix or Amazon model or some variation is the way of the future. No one will bother with DVRs any more (copyright holders can breathe easier), it can be ad supported (with the help of the base subscription fee), or even ala carte if they want to be jerks about it. They could (and should) even start doing live events.
Live events are the one thing missing from Netflix. There's something about watching scheduled TV that gives you a sense of connection with other viewers. Why not incorporate live TV? The broadcast time would just be the kickoff time... it could be viewed any time later as well.
I'm glad you've been able to remove yourself from 80 hour weeks, but I would say 50 hour weeks are pretty bad too. The subject of 80 hour weeks comes up regularly on Slashdot, but I don't hear much discussion about the 40 hour week. Maybe 40 hours *is* the ideal amount of time for a "full time" work week, but what if it's not? What if 20 or 30 is better? No one ever talks about it. I guess they are afraid others will see them as lazy.
I can think of a few reasons to challenge the 40 hour rule. One, you're doing an unhealthy amount of sitting. Two, we already know people aren't doing 8 hours of work during an 8 hour day. Not even close, in most cases. Three, 8 hour days are usually out of sync with school schedules, for people who have kids (I don't, for the record). Shouldn't we at least talk about it? We know 80 hours destroys people. Why are we so quick to assume 40 is OK?
This all comes down to lazy, gutless management. Why take the time to get to know Dave and monitor the quality of Dave's work when we can just look at a spreadsheet at the end of the month? Managers prefer to tinker with automatic analysis software rather than manage.
Which is more fun, getting a better handle on what Dave is doing, or researching fancy new software tools that might get you all sorts of praise from metric-craving executives?
Dave's job, which was once about creating a quality product, now shifts to merely satisfying the metrics.
He proposes to cut 15% from the DOD, including ending all foreign wars. No mention of mercenaries in his budget proposal, but I'd never expect such specific language there.
He plans to privatize the TSA and to cut some of the DHS funding. Source. (BTW, I may be blind, but I don't see the TSA on his itemized lists, even though he mentions it in writing.)
TFA is strictly about science. If you read Ron's actual proposed budget you'll see that the VAST majority of his budget savings will come from the military.
This is a state issue. Or a local issue. The reason we have states is so that we don't have one giant authoritarian hand pushing us around (if you don't like your state's rules you can leave and take your tax money with you, with no immigration issues). If some crazies in Utah want to teach about Jesus riding dinosaurs, let them! If ludicrous stuff like this DOES happen, it will spur people to get off the couch and get involved in local politics. That is a GOOD thing.
The problem is not that they are stealing your money, the problem is that they are stealing your time. They've figured out some psychological hooks that keep people playing their games 24/7. This is not ethical, not when you can just as easily have the hooks bringing your customers back in more reasonable time chunks.
I'll give you an example. Animal Crossing (which is a traditional buy-it-and-own-it game) is a very addictive game that rewards players for coming back day after day. But unlike some games, Animal Crossing places a soft limit on the number of activities you can do in a particular day. At a certain point the game gracefully encourages you to hang up your hat and come back tomorrow. This doesn't hurt the addictive qualities of the game, but it does help the user to be more reasonable with their time commitment. People still collect items obsessively, so there's still plenty of room for microtransactions. But there's also room for sanity.
Contrast this to World of Warcraft, which pours on the crack cocaine and never holds back.
Re:I haven't read the article, but hear me out her
on
Who Killed Videogames?
·
· Score: 1
What really pisses off CoD gamers who haven't drunk the Koolaid is prestige itself; a merit badge for grinding that encourages 75% of the Black Ops servers to run the tiniest map on infinite repeat, to help people level up faster.
While the July price change was necessary, we are now done with price changes.
Why would he say this?? It's off-topic to begin with (the email was about Qwikster), and he's setting himself up to be a hypocrite. What happens when it really is time for the inevitable price change? Has he never heard of inflation? Does he expect the industry to remain changeless? He must have one heck of a crystal ball.
If OnLive could do 5-20ms they would. But according to this article it runs about 150-200ms. And of course this will vary depending on your location. Google has the cash to distribute a lot more servers than some little gaming service.
Wow, I never thought people would consider 150ms of lag (for *every movement*) acceptable, but apparently they do! I wouldn't mind so much for RPGs I guess, but something like Super Mario Brothers would drive me nuts.
Modern online games not running through the cloud are designed to mask online latency by providing you with instant feedback for certain actions (movement, firing animations). OnLive games, unless custom-coded, would not have this luxury. It would be akin to playing the original Quake (aka NetQuake) online... press button, wait, press button, wait.
Their idea is to render the graphics on the server farm and stream them over to a thin client? If the server farm is local, then it's an expensive solution that only a small subset of users can afford. If it's cloud-based then there will be massive control lag. Neither idea is practical.
Whenever I hear combat described as "grinding" it merely tells me that the mechanics aren't any good. Don't forget, that so-called grinding is the *game* part of the game! You think talking to NPCs and traveling from point A to point B is the game? No! It's a side show which, over the last few decades, has unfortunately been given center stage. That's why I (and many others) gravitate toward arcade and puzzle-style games; you get rid of the fluff and appreciate the game purely for its mechanics. If the mechanics on a puzzle game suck everyone knows it, because there are no fancy cutscenes, storylines, and gimmick features to mask its crappiness. That's also why there's a lot of nostalgia for older games which lacked the technology to entertain us with anything other than the game itself.
Slashdot Mirror
Domestic demand for goods, yes. International demand for goods, no. Those foreigners making more money are spending more too.
The annoyance of the ribbon is partly offset by the new right-click context menu. That thing is awesome.
PCs and consoles are gradually becoming the same device, with one big exception: Interoperability. You can plug your phone or tablet into a PC. You can't even plug a keyboard into an XBox (and expect it to work). The funny thing is that Microsoft really is the front runner in both categories. I expect that a future XBox will run a Windows variant and will finally start using standardized I/O stuff. And MS will be in a strange Apple-like position of selling the software AND the hardware.
So we'll never see either the console or the PC die first, because MS will morph them together.
I just realized that I described something that Netflix is not currently doing, and that it would probably annoy all of us. But you have to admit that it's a very possible scenario, especially if they are serious about getting a better selection of fresh content on there. For me it would be worth it to skip the cost of a cable subscription and the limitations of DVR.
Or why have channels at all? A lot of these content providers are clever conglomerates who would start to spread good shows around different channels if the subscription model were per-channel.
The Netflix or Amazon model or some variation is the way of the future. No one will bother with DVRs any more (copyright holders can breathe easier), it can be ad supported (with the help of the base subscription fee), or even ala carte if they want to be jerks about it. They could (and should) even start doing live events.
Live events are the one thing missing from Netflix. There's something about watching scheduled TV that gives you a sense of connection with other viewers. Why not incorporate live TV? The broadcast time would just be the kickoff time... it could be viewed any time later as well.
I'm glad you've been able to remove yourself from 80 hour weeks, but I would say 50 hour weeks are pretty bad too. The subject of 80 hour weeks comes up regularly on Slashdot, but I don't hear much discussion about the 40 hour week. Maybe 40 hours *is* the ideal amount of time for a "full time" work week, but what if it's not? What if 20 or 30 is better? No one ever talks about it. I guess they are afraid others will see them as lazy.
I can think of a few reasons to challenge the 40 hour rule. One, you're doing an unhealthy amount of sitting. Two, we already know people aren't doing 8 hours of work during an 8 hour day. Not even close, in most cases. Three, 8 hour days are usually out of sync with school schedules, for people who have kids (I don't, for the record). Shouldn't we at least talk about it? We know 80 hours destroys people. Why are we so quick to assume 40 is OK?
This all comes down to lazy, gutless management. Why take the time to get to know Dave and monitor the quality of Dave's work when we can just look at a spreadsheet at the end of the month? Managers prefer to tinker with automatic analysis software rather than manage.
Which is more fun, getting a better handle on what Dave is doing, or researching fancy new software tools that might get you all sorts of praise from metric-craving executives?
Dave's job, which was once about creating a quality product, now shifts to merely satisfying the metrics.
The article only mentions how it will benefit small electronic gadgets. Is there any reason this might not benefit cars?
He proposes to cut 15% from the DOD, including ending all foreign wars. No mention of mercenaries in his budget proposal, but I'd never expect such specific language there.
He's cutting from the DOD, but not the CIA or FBI.
I wish I could mod you up. Even if you're wrong, you said something really interesting.
He plans to privatize the TSA and to cut some of the DHS funding. Source. (BTW, I may be blind, but I don't see the TSA on his itemized lists, even though he mentions it in writing.)
Ron Paul proposes to cut the DOD by 15%, and to end all foreign wars. Source.
For every quotable quote there is another quotable quote that says exactly the opposite yet seems equally true.
TFA is strictly about science. If you read Ron's actual proposed budget you'll see that the VAST majority of his budget savings will come from the military.
This is a state issue. Or a local issue. The reason we have states is so that we don't have one giant authoritarian hand pushing us around (if you don't like your state's rules you can leave and take your tax money with you, with no immigration issues). If some crazies in Utah want to teach about Jesus riding dinosaurs, let them! If ludicrous stuff like this DOES happen, it will spur people to get off the couch and get involved in local politics. That is a GOOD thing.
The problem is not that they are stealing your money, the problem is that they are stealing your time. They've figured out some psychological hooks that keep people playing their games 24/7. This is not ethical, not when you can just as easily have the hooks bringing your customers back in more reasonable time chunks.
I'll give you an example. Animal Crossing (which is a traditional buy-it-and-own-it game) is a very addictive game that rewards players for coming back day after day. But unlike some games, Animal Crossing places a soft limit on the number of activities you can do in a particular day. At a certain point the game gracefully encourages you to hang up your hat and come back tomorrow. This doesn't hurt the addictive qualities of the game, but it does help the user to be more reasonable with their time commitment. People still collect items obsessively, so there's still plenty of room for microtransactions. But there's also room for sanity.
Contrast this to World of Warcraft, which pours on the crack cocaine and never holds back.
What really pisses off CoD gamers who haven't drunk the Koolaid is prestige itself; a merit badge for grinding that encourages 75% of the Black Ops servers to run the tiniest map on infinite repeat, to help people level up faster.
Why would he say this?? It's off-topic to begin with (the email was about Qwikster), and he's setting himself up to be a hypocrite. What happens when it really is time for the inevitable price change? Has he never heard of inflation? Does he expect the industry to remain changeless? He must have one heck of a crystal ball.
Someone else needs to write Netflix's emails.
Netflix is pioneering the new TV landscape. This nerd, for one, wants to hear news about them.
If OnLive could do 5-20ms they would. But according to this article it runs about 150-200ms. And of course this will vary depending on your location. Google has the cash to distribute a lot more servers than some little gaming service.
Wow, I never thought people would consider 150ms of lag (for *every movement*) acceptable, but apparently they do! I wouldn't mind so much for RPGs I guess, but something like Super Mario Brothers would drive me nuts.
Modern online games not running through the cloud are designed to mask online latency by providing you with instant feedback for certain actions (movement, firing animations). OnLive games, unless custom-coded, would not have this luxury. It would be akin to playing the original Quake (aka NetQuake) online... press button, wait, press button, wait.
Their idea is to render the graphics on the server farm and stream them over to a thin client? If the server farm is local, then it's an expensive solution that only a small subset of users can afford. If it's cloud-based then there will be massive control lag. Neither idea is practical.
According to Google unit conversion, 1 mebibyte = 1 megabyte, and both equal 1024 kilobytes each. Can someone please explain?
Whenever I hear combat described as "grinding" it merely tells me that the mechanics aren't any good. Don't forget, that so-called grinding is the *game* part of the game! You think talking to NPCs and traveling from point A to point B is the game? No! It's a side show which, over the last few decades, has unfortunately been given center stage. That's why I (and many others) gravitate toward arcade and puzzle-style games; you get rid of the fluff and appreciate the game purely for its mechanics. If the mechanics on a puzzle game suck everyone knows it, because there are no fancy cutscenes, storylines, and gimmick features to mask its crappiness. That's also why there's a lot of nostalgia for older games which lacked the technology to entertain us with anything other than the game itself.