User satisfaction is important, and that's what could end up busting Facebook at the bank.
The users are their commodity. If they are unsatisfied and stop using the service (which they will when the next big-splash social site opens), Facebook finds itself with less and less value to offer their customers.
Not concerning yourself with the users is a great model for a turn-and-burn, but not for sustaining a business. Zuckerberg comes off short sighted enough that he either doesn't get it, or doesn't care because he can cash out with a big sale before the critical event.
Sure, congress bends over when it comes to passing favorable copyright laws, but that's a long way from acting as enforcers of private property rights, which the *AAs seem to be indicating here. When it the feds have to pay their own money, you'll see far less bending over going on.
It didn't help that Mythic was completely unable to produce a viable business plan to support an ongoing MMO game. The ongoing profitability was tied to subscriptions, but they provided no mandate or even an incentive to subscribe. "Subscribe if you'd like, but you really don't get anything out of it," combined with a need to have the subscription income is just foolish business practice.
Good riddance to Mythic, and now we get the joy of seeing Bill Roper able to ruin Champions Online and Star Trek Online with his insane business and game design ideas.
I'm certainly not signing up for anything that absolutely requires an active high bandwidth connection to play single player offline games until companies like Comcast have been brought to heel.
They're already complaining about those pesky high-bandwidth users, they aren't upgrading their infrastructure, and they're charging fees for just about anything they can think of. Now wait until their metered plan really takes off, and tell me about gaming in the cloud. Any savings from hardware cost with this setup will be eaten by increasing ISP charges.
Besides, really, aren't we reaching the point where mandatory PC upgrades for games are much farther apart, really mitigating that factor?
Are they really relying on the argument that the previous jury upheld their claims, when said verdict was overturned? Are they that dense, or is this desperation?
Better yet, do they have a song on their list which the artist didn't assign the copyright to the label?
Minus one point for doubling up on Malcolm in the Middle. Plus 10 points for referencing Spaced, which I hope you all have seen.
That's why, precisely. Because comic book fans feed the stereotype, at least partly as self-deprecation. The other part is just being oblivious to how we fit it.
In some cases, as with Ridley Scott's sci-fi classic Blade Runner, the adaptations are loose to say the least.
Given the nature of most of Dick's work, a direct 1:1 film adaptation of his writing would be at best nonsensical. Adapting the theme of the work, and leaving leeway with the details is generally the best approach.
Hell, even with other author's works it's the best approach. They are completely different media after all, and require completely different approaches to storytelling.
They can file a lawsuit. Do you have any idea how expensive those are, even if you settle before any substantial court apperances? Lawyers don't stop charging just because you're in the right.
Never heard of Paul Bunyan, have we? Or Johnny Appleseed? Or John Henry. Hell, nearly 100% of the stories about old west outlaws and lawmen fall under the rubric of myths and legends.
Just because it's not a god tossing around lightning bolts doesn't mean it's not mythological.
"Proving that science fiction can still be great entertainment"
When was this something that needed to be proven? I've found plenty of entertaining science fiction around. Did I miss the elitist newsletter that told us all we had to say science fiction was crap now?
Who's going to patch it? The development company went out of business back in '05, and only lasted the last year becasue they laid off all their staff. None of the companies involved in UT had anything to do with it. Valve sold the engine (or liscensed it) to Troika, and doesn't have any financial incentive to patch it. The amature patch is the best you will ever get.
The only way I can reconcile that statment regarding the "techno-savvy crowd" and syfy, is that they constituted their focus groups entirely of ravers and techno music afficionados.
Why are you engaging extreme nationalists with logical debate? There's no point in it, you cannot convince them, you cannot stop them and you certainly cannot win.
It's like the old maxim about wrestling a pig. You get dirty and the pig likes it.
The FTC lost because they were trying to stretch anti-trust law to cover bad-faith acting in creating a standard. I think it's a weak argument, and obviously the courts thought so too.
While it definitely qualifies as douchebaggery, and quite possibly falls under civil contract law, I don't think it's really an anti-trust violation. Trying to expand the definition of a law isn't the place of the FTC.
No, the problem is they're looking for a link to an increase that doesn't exist. Science explicitly explains the "increase" in autism cases as actually better and earlier diagnosis due to broadened awareness.
These people are dangerous becasue they're trying to explain something that doesn't exist, and damning everything that gets in their way.
The Family Entertainment Protection Act died in committee, so I'd say no. As I recall, the SCOTUS judgement in question only gave partial 1st amendment protection.
And people shouldn't ignore him. The press should publish his rhetoric, and give him the audience he deserves. It's far better to have the voice of the censor lobby to be someone this insane, rather than someone more reasonable sounding, but who has the same views and goals. It allows for that entire side to be marginalize, and thus for acutal progress on reasonable restrictions (if any are appropriate) to take place.
If not for wingnuts like good ol' Jack; Lieberman and Rodham-Clinton may have been successful in creating government censorship of games.
Slashdot Mirror
User satisfaction is important, and that's what could end up busting Facebook at the bank. The users are their commodity. If they are unsatisfied and stop using the service (which they will when the next big-splash social site opens), Facebook finds itself with less and less value to offer their customers. Not concerning yourself with the users is a great model for a turn-and-burn, but not for sustaining a business. Zuckerberg comes off short sighted enough that he either doesn't get it, or doesn't care because he can cash out with a big sale before the critical event.
Sure, congress bends over when it comes to passing favorable copyright laws, but that's a long way from acting as enforcers of private property rights, which the *AAs seem to be indicating here. When it the feds have to pay their own money, you'll see far less bending over going on.
Someone actually found a viable real-world application for Segway that isn't a publicity gimmick.
Eh, you win some, you luge some.
we luge.
Is this some new cleric ability in D&D 4.0? Back in my day clerics could only turn undead.
Flagship, not mythic. That's what I get for trying to write two rants about games at the same time.
It didn't help that Mythic was completely unable to produce a viable business plan to support an ongoing MMO game. The ongoing profitability was tied to subscriptions, but they provided no mandate or even an incentive to subscribe. "Subscribe if you'd like, but you really don't get anything out of it," combined with a need to have the subscription income is just foolish business practice.
Good riddance to Mythic, and now we get the joy of seeing Bill Roper able to ruin Champions Online and Star Trek Online with his insane business and game design ideas.
You're seriously understaffed, and it's normal.
I'm certainly not signing up for anything that absolutely requires an active high bandwidth connection to play single player offline games until companies like Comcast have been brought to heel.
They're already complaining about those pesky high-bandwidth users, they aren't upgrading their infrastructure, and they're charging fees for just about anything they can think of. Now wait until their metered plan really takes off, and tell me about gaming in the cloud. Any savings from hardware cost with this setup will be eaten by increasing ISP charges.
Besides, really, aren't we reaching the point where mandatory PC upgrades for games are much farther apart, really mitigating that factor?
You can't beam a series of tubes!
Are they really relying on the argument that the previous jury upheld their claims, when said verdict was overturned? Are they that dense, or is this desperation?
Better yet, do they have a song on their list which the artist didn't assign the copyright to the label?
Minus one point for doubling up on Malcolm in the Middle. Plus 10 points for referencing Spaced, which I hope you all have seen.
That's why, precisely. Because comic book fans feed the stereotype, at least partly as self-deprecation. The other part is just being oblivious to how we fit it.
I prefer extortion. The X makes it sound cool. -Bender
In some cases, as with Ridley Scott's sci-fi classic Blade Runner, the adaptations are loose to say the least.
Given the nature of most of Dick's work, a direct 1:1 film adaptation of his writing would be at best nonsensical. Adapting the theme of the work, and leaving leeway with the details is generally the best approach.
Hell, even with other author's works it's the best approach. They are completely different media after all, and require completely different approaches to storytelling.
They can file a lawsuit. Do you have any idea how expensive those are, even if you settle before any substantial court apperances? Lawyers don't stop charging just because you're in the right.
Never heard of Paul Bunyan, have we? Or Johnny Appleseed? Or John Henry. Hell, nearly 100% of the stories about old west outlaws and lawmen fall under the rubric of myths and legends.
Just because it's not a god tossing around lightning bolts doesn't mean it's not mythological.
"Proving that science fiction can still be great entertainment"
When was this something that needed to be proven? I've found plenty of entertaining science fiction around. Did I miss the elitist newsletter that told us all we had to say science fiction was crap now?
Jeez, miss one meeting...
Who's going to patch it? The development company went out of business back in '05, and only lasted the last year becasue they laid off all their staff. None of the companies involved in UT had anything to do with it. Valve sold the engine (or liscensed it) to Troika, and doesn't have any financial incentive to patch it. The amature patch is the best you will ever get.
The only way I can reconcile that statment regarding the "techno-savvy crowd" and syfy, is that they constituted their focus groups entirely of ravers and techno music afficionados.
Why are you engaging extreme nationalists with logical debate? There's no point in it, you cannot convince them, you cannot stop them and you certainly cannot win.
It's like the old maxim about wrestling a pig. You get dirty and the pig likes it.
The FTC lost because they were trying to stretch anti-trust law to cover bad-faith acting in creating a standard. I think it's a weak argument, and obviously the courts thought so too.
While it definitely qualifies as douchebaggery, and quite possibly falls under civil contract law, I don't think it's really an anti-trust violation. Trying to expand the definition of a law isn't the place of the FTC.
No, the problem is they're looking for a link to an increase that doesn't exist. Science explicitly explains the "increase" in autism cases as actually better and earlier diagnosis due to broadened awareness.
These people are dangerous becasue they're trying to explain something that doesn't exist, and damning everything that gets in their way.
The Family Entertainment Protection Act died in committee, so I'd say no. As I recall, the SCOTUS judgement in question only gave partial 1st amendment protection.
And people shouldn't ignore him. The press should publish his rhetoric, and give him the audience he deserves. It's far better to have the voice of the censor lobby to be someone this insane, rather than someone more reasonable sounding, but who has the same views and goals. It allows for that entire side to be marginalize, and thus for acutal progress on reasonable restrictions (if any are appropriate) to take place.
If not for wingnuts like good ol' Jack; Lieberman and Rodham-Clinton may have been successful in creating government censorship of games.