hehe, as someone who has done hiring for IT... I'd love to know and find these 20-something go-getters. What I find are apathetic kids who went to a 2-year technical school or even a 4-year college and have put zero personal time or investment in their skills or training and expect to be handed everything. They want to text/facebook and slip in a bare minimum of work somewhere along the way.
I'd say this is anecdotal but in interviewing and hiring/training hundreds, I've found a handful with which this doesn't apply. One was a philosophy grad-student who had no computer experience prior. Sad.
I have been working in IT since I was 15 years old, and have never expected anything... even during the big dot com boom. Any bonuses have been appreciated, except in cases where they were part of hire conditions. There are only two things that *I* expect. 1. That I be treated as a professional and part of a team 2. When I have an issue or problem, that it be dealt with with the same care and precision I offer everyone else in my work. A third, I guess, would be that I am given a yearly percentage increase to at the least match inflation.
Sadly, in my career in IT my very minimum expectations are very often not met. It's not about perks or coffee, it is the view that we are somehow different than accounting, purchasing, or any other department. We aren't. And if we are so different and essential, then those minimum expectations should be even more minor...
I once worked running the IT dept. for a bank, and seriously, during a high-level meeting including the president, CFO, myself, and a bunch of VPs they sat and laughed while discussing, for 15 minutes, how they found even crappier plastic utensils that were super cheap (I calculated the savings which equaled $7.00 per month). The combined salary in that room for 15 minutes could have bought Oneida silverware for every kitchenette, and it ended with them stating: "haha, they are so weak and flimsy people will just stop using them and bring their own!" and had a good laugh.
I was probably never so disgusted with human beings as that moment.
In my 15 years or so with Linux and FOSS I have encountered many who think like you do, and unfortunately I think you are misguided. What you fight so heavily against is actually what you most desperately need. There's a saying "The stone that the builder refuse, will be the head cornerstone." It is true in this instance.
You skirted the issue that the Kernel itself REQUIRES this level of oversight or it would never work at all. It's all well and good to claim otherwise but the proof is right in front of everyone. The kernel has made massive leaps and bounds in the same time that the surrounding software has just slinked along. It too could get a massive boost, but we deny it.
Here's the part you are also missing: a base system, a foundation, with full oversight and steering, and vision, and goals, is not a threat to anything. It lays a solid foundation on which to build from in any way anyone sees fit. It wouldn't stop anyone from making a better widget or completely overhauling it for a specific need or want. But instead of just a kernel as the core, it would be the whole base system of some apps and config tools, and UI. From there anyone can still do their own thing. But some consistency and cohesiveness would go a long way in making it all better for everyone involved. Usability and look/feel would have a starting point. App interaction, updating, etc. would too. Some basic APIs and framework. How this can be scary or unwanted is beyond me.
Look, as much as all this Cathedral and Bazaar/Chaos crap sounds good in some righteous fight against the man, I've been using and helping to build Linux since 1995 and what we have sorely needed is some form of direction and vision. OS X has made such massive leaps and bounds with a relatively small number of developers because they have a solid vision and goal steering their efforts. We just flail about and continually eschew any sort of cohesive goal. It shows. Linus doesn't want to take control and everyone wants to claim that it is not needed, but amazingly the Kernel itself requires this type of management and oversight... and it is always the most progressive part of the whole. But what good is the best kernel without a supporting structure? It's time to either take the bull by the horns, or step back and allow a company like Google or Canonical to do it. Canonical and Ubuntu have floundered and have not come out as that entity even with the success in interest they garnered (like Red Hat before it), so it's time for another to try. I could care less who finally does it, just get it done!
Actually my comments are fully correct... I buy laptops for a multinational company and most are HP with a few Sony's... all of them business class, and all are Lion. And regardless of how much intelligence is in there, you can still disconnect it, replace the cells as long as they are the same in all manner, and reattach... the circuitry doesn't know or care and often it is one or two solder points. The electronics in there are easily in the couple dollar range even for a Macbook. Mostly the electronics are now there to keep them from bursting or catching fire since so many recalls have happened.
I don't see an actual movement away from Lion for a few years yet in all mainstream notebooks/netbooks. It'll happen, but not as soon as you seem to think.
Yes, LiPo is outside of the scope of what I was talking about... and while some laptops are going this way... many traditional laptops and almost all netbooks use 4-6 cells and are very basic.
Basically the only thing on newer laptops is that there is actual circuitry inside of the battery pack now, but it is all very basic and couldn't cost more than a dollar or two at best. I used to work at Radioshack in college (I know, I know, but I was actually intelligent and truly helpful... not a drone) and I once replaced the cells in my Thinkpad 600 right there on the counter with the Li cells we sold... Everyone was amazed that, that was all that was inside of there. People always seem to think because it has to do with a computer it must be magical and exotic. Basically as long as you know how to properly solder them without killing yourself (the ones with tabs help) it's a 5-10 minute job and cost about $10-15.
The only systems I keep currently hooked up to my TV: Atari 2600 (Taz, Warlords, and a couple others), NES (without a doubt the best gaming had to offer, check out ROMS/Emulators or at least the Wii store), PS2 (The original couple Tony Hawk's, some RPG's, and a scattering of others), and the Wii. I own every system, and close to every game for each of them since I did the reviewer gig and without a doubt those are the tops. Out of the 360/PS3 there are at best 3 games total that I enjoy and only 2 on the horizon for the next entire year.
A lot of us that grew up on the Atari 2600 are aging and have limited time and interest in rehashed leftovers. The kids coming up now have so many entertainment options that gaming is minor and the more social aspects are what they want like the Rock Band junk. Gameplay and depth are secondary to gamer scores and friends. It's polarizing and game companies can't reach both audiences at once, so there is a rift. Things are fragmented, and only getting more so.
Again, thanks for a good chat... sadly work calls.
Well, thanks for an actual intelligent discussion... so rare on teh intertoobz these days. Farmville and the like are just the same as those kinds of games always were, it's just more easily accessible to the average person. Games like that always existed but either needed a console or handheld (Harvest Moon, or even Animal Crossing) and as a result saw limited followings.
Nintendo could clean up by re-launching those titles in a place like Facebook... but they have always resisted that. Eventually they may be forced into this direction. Hop on with a media player vendor and create a real iPod alternative with Nintendo branded titles = insta-win over Apple.
Those $60 short games often have good production and gameplay, but they are short because of the enormous costs to make a game any longer... plus us gamers shot ourselves in the foot by glomming onto downloadable content packs and endless sequels. Make your game $60 and short with what normally be the rest of the game in multiple DLC packs for an extra $5-10 a pop and you suddenly got $100+ for the same game you normally would have sold for $50-60.
It is all interesting to me to watch play out simply because I was on the other side for so long. I also only wrote fully independent articles and reviews which meant I wouldn't take the standard bribes and payments for glowing reviews. It's also why I'm not afraid to speak out in forums like this. I have no dog in the fight, so it's purely academic anymore.
Nintendo isn't trying to "make" gamers they saw the numbers and decided children and older folks were less of a risk and almost eliminated piracy issues plaguing competitors. They are able to bring back some of the demographic that enjoyed th NES and 2D simpler games with solid production values and franchises. This is and was their play. There are fundamental flaws though, and these will begin to show more and more in the next year or two. Nintendo is being crushed by cell phone apps/games and ipod/media players. They know it which is why they are going even more after the older demographic with things like the DS XL, they don't use MP3/iPods or if they do they use them for music only.
Look at all of the NPD/sales numbers over even the last 8 years... you will see it hasn't been "hardcore" for a lot longer than many think... but hype and marketing was trying to keep a lid on it and a shiny veneer.
Motion control won't "save" anyone, what will happen is it will simply further fragment what market is left and ultimately turn off many of what is left.
There is one saving grace to gaming which will be coming, and that is built-in gaming to devices like TVs/streaming boxes. This has been a long time goal but technology just wasn't there... it is now. Sony will embed it in their products. Nintendo will most likely fight for a spot with a major Japanese producer. Microsoft will most likely partner with a Chinese OEM. As you can see from the massive fight over Netflix, this is the outlook and future.
"Consoles" will be gone after this round as we know them. Gaming and games will not, it will just dramatically change. There will always be a market for "hardcore" games, but production has to drop to the point that they can become viable again or they will simply become indie/niche and minor players.
You are actually quite wrong, console gaming has been dying since the initial shrinking of E3 (but by admitting there were massive slides they were hurting the marketing image that you and others buy into so they had to quickly recover even if it meant hemorrhaging money to attempt to save sales) and it continues rapidly. The issue is the risk/reward structure in the current generation of consoles. Development, production, and marketing costs are through the roof and the player base is not there. Much more money can be made from a small shop/indie game than a single A or double A title. This has been the case long before any economic issues.
Nintendo is actually in a very bad spot right now, and has been for a number of years too... you forget their massive restructuring which chopped huge chunks of Nintendo away. They are being consumed by media playes/phones/ipods and facing huge competition from their rivals who are going to bring out motion control very soon to fragment what little market is left. The DSi and DS XL are proof of this floundering.
Check the current sales numbers of handheld/consoles against the app store and you will quickly see the numbers shifting on a large scale. The profits are very large in that segment as well and no saturation point is even on the near horizon.
You've bought into an outdated notion struggling to be kept alive by marketers. I won't call names, but I'd rethink that idiot comment. I worked in this field for a long time and know it well, it's not trolling, it's the truth and whether or not you want to believe it, it will be more and more apparent in the coming year.
I already posted a lengthy reply below, but I worked as a game reviewer for over a decade, and I can tell you that the numbers you have posted there actually show the complete opposite of what you think. The only game in that list supporting the console market as a whole is GTA. The rest except for a small amount of bleed over with SMB and Kart, are casual games that do not require a "console" proper or involve a handheld. With the current super high costs of game development and marketing that list solidifies the death of console gaming. The "hardcore" market is a sham perpetuated by the industry and has been for a number of years now to keep things afloat, I saw the writing on the walls 5-6 years ago, as did many in the field and the bottom is falling out. Handhelds are being replaced by media players, and derivative and complex games are on the way out. It's sad but true, and the numbers you see there are proof positive.
I worked as a videogame writer/reviewer for over 10 years... covering the PS1 and PS2. When the "next generation" was just beginning to take form the Revolution/Wii was the only one I had any interest in and even then I saw massive issues/shortcomings. This industry has been massively declining for some time. The thing is, it's all media/marketing driven based on essentially lies. The concept of the "Hardcore" gamer has always been far less in number than marketing would like you to believe. It seems like a lot when you only travel in certain circles or sites (gaming sites, mags) but that is because they are essentially funneling everyone into a few small channels so the numbers seems very high. They are not. This charade was kept going for a number of years and only fairly recently have the cracks begun to show through. The E3 shrinking. The cost of game production began to rise meteorically and companies had to basically admit that the "hardcore" market is small and couldn't support the costs of such games. Franchises, sequels, and their ilk are all that can be made right now and it's not getting better.
Wow, assume much? I own no HD-DVDs and saw it for a dead format from the beginning. Blu-Ray numbers are not accurate from any number of sources because of combo packs and PS3s among other factors. The adoption is not as meteoric as you seem to think, digital distribution will be the adopted standard before Blu-Ray will have anywhere near DVD penetration.
Never. I'd love to believe that this will be some great new leap forward, but it is just a massive mis-step by a company trying to find new revenue streams. BR adoption is tepid at best, and that doesn't even exclude most of the population by requiring special glasses. It's always been a gimmick and nothing more. 3D offers very little to the viewer and certainly not enough to warrant wearing glasses for every movie you sit down to watch. Majorly flawed.
IT is filled with people who have massive egos and issues, and interns can be on the receiving end of any number of things. I used to head up the intern program at an ISP and while the intern positions were not paid, they were fairly short and I made damn sure that the interns actually learned something, had some fun, and I really took the time to fill out all of their paperwork and help them craft a real resume instead of the carbon copy the school had them make.
The best thing you could do is do your internship for a large company, probably like the one you mention. The pay is ancillary and should not even enter into the equation. $0, $8, $12, etc. the pay will be low because you bring very little to the table. There are thousands of actual qualified people out of work right now who would happily work for $8/hr. *and* have some skill and experience. Don't kiss ass, don't be anything but yourself and make an effort to learn everything you can and do some research and further learning as you go on your own outside of the internship to show you have initiative and a willingness to succeed. I'd much rather see that over a brown-noser which is easy to spot and would not become a hire for me.
I'm sadly an exception, though, and not filled with ego and fear as many are driven by. They are interested in keeping their job and doing the bare minimum to get by and have to carefully watch out and cut off any threats. When you have a solid mastery of your discipline you don't have to be on the defensive, again, sadly there's not a lot of that in IT. Just like yourself, a lot of people came because of dollar signs in their eyes or a perception of an "easy" non-laborious job. If that is the motivation you will just become one of the scared, defensive, ego-driven masses.
Who'd have thought that with all the technology and MMO-type games there still isn't a way to play D&D online with a group? As someone who enjoyed D&D back in the day and now a mature gamer with a life and family, I would still love to play but don't have time for bi/tri-weekly meetings in someones basement for hours on end. A night or two a week, online, for a few hours and I'd be a happy nerd.
(or if anyone knows of a solid group with a more relaxed campaign in the Pittsburgh, PA area, I'm down)
Not close. The point is that a lot of game design and theory are still based around concepts which were designed to do one of two things: a) eat quarters or b) hide hardware/software limitations. (well there is always c) laziness)
Without arcades anymore for the most part, you don't need to make that final spine rip require a complex combination so that you only pull it off 40-50% of the time and pump more quarters in to try again. You don't need cheap deaths and "puzzles"/patterns because you are limited in lines of code/sprites onscreen/etc.
Why not give the player an amazing experience filled with awesomeness from the first second and then just build on it? Look at Aion, they talk of adding flying to an MMO and people crap themselves... and then the flying turns out to be a kind of lame gimmick. Why? People like to fly, WANT to fly, make a damn game where they can fly... properly. These are games, I could be a flying giant with a bazooka on one arm and laserbeam cock that can crush and deform the entire environment. All you have to do is build a world around that which still offers fun and adventure (which wouldn't be too hard with a premise like that) and you have a game. Don't make me hit some tiny jump for no reason or else insta-death.
Awesome! Great stuff, and don't worry I once wrote a followup to Morte d'Arthur perfectly in the style of the original on which I received a C- for parts where my grammar and structure matched the original work but apparently were "incorrect" to the teacher... and then I won a National English Merit award for the same work when the teacher's assistant submitted it because she dug it. Grade never got changed.
I had worked as a game reviewer and playtester for some years and the one thing I always brought up was... they're games, we design them, back in the day they had to use certain cheesy tactics to suck up more quarters or to deal with hardware/software limitations... those are largely gone now... why not just make the whole game awesome? You could have amazing powers from the start and be able to do amazing things from start to finish... why limit and aggravate the player unnecessarily? You have the power and ability to make anything happen, why limit yourself and the player?
It was always met with initial "well you have to or there is no reason to play" and then as we would talk more, light bulbs would go off and they would finally realize a lot of the trappings and assumed constructs really weren't necessary after all... but they still would ignore it.
What benefit or importance is it if I can fly, shoot laser beams, and finish with the awesome rip your spine out fatality with easy button presses or complex cryptic sequences? There aren't actual quarters involved anymore (for the most part). Why have your character punch with a fist instead of plunging a plasma sword through flesh? They could accomplish the same goal but one is infinitely cooler. You can still have a progression and you can still have obstacle and challenges but make the entire damn thing awesome... it's a GAME!
agreed, and like I said, I'm no fanboy to any company of any sort except in my hiking/climbing gear which actually at times controls whether I live or die... *THAT* is a reason to be a fanboy, not technology.
I'm not trying to say either is some insane extreme, and yes there are customizations available in OS X it is more of a lock in to their workflow and mindset that I don't like. I may chose to tackle a problem in my own way, and often the options are simply not even there on OS X or in Apple apps. You do it their way or the highway, even if it isn't always the best or most efficient.
Obviously it isn't overly terrible or I wouldn't be considering a switch for my next machines (which are 3 years out so I'm looking forward to where all options are by then)
I'm no fanboy of any technology, but I have to say that Microsoft is just losing dismally to Apple lately. They are so cognizant of being too copy-catish of Apple and they are also trying to be so anti-Apple as well that all they are accomplishing is shooting themselves in the foot. What MS needs to do is to hire/buy a really unique and cutting edge design firm and rethink everything from the ground up.
There are people like myself who love the consistency and cleanness of OS X but don't like our every move dictated and locked down to the point that I'm told that I don't know what I actually want unless Steve tells me. But I also don't need umpteen layers of complexity like Linux offers. I want something that works, is flexible, and is intelligently put together and clean. I don't care about backwards compatibility that is for business to worry about and for a business OS.
My next computer will be a Mac unfortunately because Win 7 is just not for me and I don't see anything coming that will change my mind from Redmond. I've been a system builder and Linux user since 1995.
Slashdot Mirror
hehe, as someone who has done hiring for IT... I'd love to know and find these 20-something go-getters. What I find are apathetic kids who went to a 2-year technical school or even a 4-year college and have put zero personal time or investment in their skills or training and expect to be handed everything. They want to text/facebook and slip in a bare minimum of work somewhere along the way.
I'd say this is anecdotal but in interviewing and hiring/training hundreds, I've found a handful with which this doesn't apply. One was a philosophy grad-student who had no computer experience prior. Sad.
I have been working in IT since I was 15 years old, and have never expected anything... even during the big dot com boom. Any bonuses have been appreciated, except in cases where they were part of hire conditions. There are only two things that *I* expect. 1. That I be treated as a professional and part of a team 2. When I have an issue or problem, that it be dealt with with the same care and precision I offer everyone else in my work. A third, I guess, would be that I am given a yearly percentage increase to at the least match inflation.
Sadly, in my career in IT my very minimum expectations are very often not met. It's not about perks or coffee, it is the view that we are somehow different than accounting, purchasing, or any other department. We aren't. And if we are so different and essential, then those minimum expectations should be even more minor...
I once worked running the IT dept. for a bank, and seriously, during a high-level meeting including the president, CFO, myself, and a bunch of VPs they sat and laughed while discussing, for 15 minutes, how they found even crappier plastic utensils that were super cheap (I calculated the savings which equaled $7.00 per month). The combined salary in that room for 15 minutes could have bought Oneida silverware for every kitchenette, and it ended with them stating: "haha, they are so weak and flimsy people will just stop using them and bring their own!" and had a good laugh.
I was probably never so disgusted with human beings as that moment.
And all I said was "That piece of halibut was fit for Jehova!"
In my 15 years or so with Linux and FOSS I have encountered many who think like you do, and unfortunately I think you are misguided. What you fight so heavily against is actually what you most desperately need. There's a saying "The stone that the builder refuse, will be the head cornerstone." It is true in this instance.
You skirted the issue that the Kernel itself REQUIRES this level of oversight or it would never work at all. It's all well and good to claim otherwise but the proof is right in front of everyone. The kernel has made massive leaps and bounds in the same time that the surrounding software has just slinked along. It too could get a massive boost, but we deny it.
Here's the part you are also missing: a base system, a foundation, with full oversight and steering, and vision, and goals, is not a threat to anything. It lays a solid foundation on which to build from in any way anyone sees fit. It wouldn't stop anyone from making a better widget or completely overhauling it for a specific need or want. But instead of just a kernel as the core, it would be the whole base system of some apps and config tools, and UI. From there anyone can still do their own thing. But some consistency and cohesiveness would go a long way in making it all better for everyone involved. Usability and look/feel would have a starting point. App interaction, updating, etc. would too. Some basic APIs and framework. How this can be scary or unwanted is beyond me.
Look, as much as all this Cathedral and Bazaar/Chaos crap sounds good in some righteous fight against the man, I've been using and helping to build Linux since 1995 and what we have sorely needed is some form of direction and vision. OS X has made such massive leaps and bounds with a relatively small number of developers because they have a solid vision and goal steering their efforts. We just flail about and continually eschew any sort of cohesive goal. It shows. Linus doesn't want to take control and everyone wants to claim that it is not needed, but amazingly the Kernel itself requires this type of management and oversight... and it is always the most progressive part of the whole. But what good is the best kernel without a supporting structure? It's time to either take the bull by the horns, or step back and allow a company like Google or Canonical to do it. Canonical and Ubuntu have floundered and have not come out as that entity even with the success in interest they garnered (like Red Hat before it), so it's time for another to try. I could care less who finally does it, just get it done!
A European one, maybe.
Actually my comments are fully correct... I buy laptops for a multinational company and most are HP with a few Sony's... all of them business class, and all are Lion. And regardless of how much intelligence is in there, you can still disconnect it, replace the cells as long as they are the same in all manner, and reattach... the circuitry doesn't know or care and often it is one or two solder points. The electronics in there are easily in the couple dollar range even for a Macbook. Mostly the electronics are now there to keep them from bursting or catching fire since so many recalls have happened.
I don't see an actual movement away from Lion for a few years yet in all mainstream notebooks/netbooks. It'll happen, but not as soon as you seem to think.
Yes, LiPo is outside of the scope of what I was talking about... and while some laptops are going this way... many traditional laptops and almost all netbooks use 4-6 cells and are very basic.
Basically the only thing on newer laptops is that there is actual circuitry inside of the battery pack now, but it is all very basic and couldn't cost more than a dollar or two at best. I used to work at Radioshack in college (I know, I know, but I was actually intelligent and truly helpful... not a drone) and I once replaced the cells in my Thinkpad 600 right there on the counter with the Li cells we sold... Everyone was amazed that, that was all that was inside of there. People always seem to think because it has to do with a computer it must be magical and exotic. Basically as long as you know how to properly solder them without killing yourself (the ones with tabs help) it's a 5-10 minute job and cost about $10-15.
The only systems I keep currently hooked up to my TV: Atari 2600 (Taz, Warlords, and a couple others), NES (without a doubt the best gaming had to offer, check out ROMS/Emulators or at least the Wii store), PS2 (The original couple Tony Hawk's, some RPG's, and a scattering of others), and the Wii. I own every system, and close to every game for each of them since I did the reviewer gig and without a doubt those are the tops. Out of the 360/PS3 there are at best 3 games total that I enjoy and only 2 on the horizon for the next entire year.
A lot of us that grew up on the Atari 2600 are aging and have limited time and interest in rehashed leftovers. The kids coming up now have so many entertainment options that gaming is minor and the more social aspects are what they want like the Rock Band junk. Gameplay and depth are secondary to gamer scores and friends. It's polarizing and game companies can't reach both audiences at once, so there is a rift. Things are fragmented, and only getting more so.
Again, thanks for a good chat... sadly work calls.
Well, thanks for an actual intelligent discussion... so rare on teh intertoobz these days. Farmville and the like are just the same as those kinds of games always were, it's just more easily accessible to the average person. Games like that always existed but either needed a console or handheld (Harvest Moon, or even Animal Crossing) and as a result saw limited followings.
Nintendo could clean up by re-launching those titles in a place like Facebook... but they have always resisted that. Eventually they may be forced into this direction. Hop on with a media player vendor and create a real iPod alternative with Nintendo branded titles = insta-win over Apple.
Those $60 short games often have good production and gameplay, but they are short because of the enormous costs to make a game any longer... plus us gamers shot ourselves in the foot by glomming onto downloadable content packs and endless sequels. Make your game $60 and short with what normally be the rest of the game in multiple DLC packs for an extra $5-10 a pop and you suddenly got $100+ for the same game you normally would have sold for $50-60.
It is all interesting to me to watch play out simply because I was on the other side for so long. I also only wrote fully independent articles and reviews which meant I wouldn't take the standard bribes and payments for glowing reviews. It's also why I'm not afraid to speak out in forums like this. I have no dog in the fight, so it's purely academic anymore.
Nintendo isn't trying to "make" gamers they saw the numbers and decided children and older folks were less of a risk and almost eliminated piracy issues plaguing competitors. They are able to bring back some of the demographic that enjoyed th NES and 2D simpler games with solid production values and franchises. This is and was their play. There are fundamental flaws though, and these will begin to show more and more in the next year or two. Nintendo is being crushed by cell phone apps/games and ipod/media players. They know it which is why they are going even more after the older demographic with things like the DS XL, they don't use MP3/iPods or if they do they use them for music only.
Look at all of the NPD/sales numbers over even the last 8 years... you will see it hasn't been "hardcore" for a lot longer than many think... but hype and marketing was trying to keep a lid on it and a shiny veneer.
Motion control won't "save" anyone, what will happen is it will simply further fragment what market is left and ultimately turn off many of what is left.
There is one saving grace to gaming which will be coming, and that is built-in gaming to devices like TVs/streaming boxes. This has been a long time goal but technology just wasn't there... it is now. Sony will embed it in their products. Nintendo will most likely fight for a spot with a major Japanese producer. Microsoft will most likely partner with a Chinese OEM. As you can see from the massive fight over Netflix, this is the outlook and future.
"Consoles" will be gone after this round as we know them. Gaming and games will not, it will just dramatically change. There will always be a market for "hardcore" games, but production has to drop to the point that they can become viable again or they will simply become indie/niche and minor players.
You are actually quite wrong, console gaming has been dying since the initial shrinking of E3 (but by admitting there were massive slides they were hurting the marketing image that you and others buy into so they had to quickly recover even if it meant hemorrhaging money to attempt to save sales) and it continues rapidly. The issue is the risk/reward structure in the current generation of consoles. Development, production, and marketing costs are through the roof and the player base is not there. Much more money can be made from a small shop/indie game than a single A or double A title. This has been the case long before any economic issues.
Nintendo is actually in a very bad spot right now, and has been for a number of years too... you forget their massive restructuring which chopped huge chunks of Nintendo away. They are being consumed by media playes/phones/ipods and facing huge competition from their rivals who are going to bring out motion control very soon to fragment what little market is left. The DSi and DS XL are proof of this floundering.
Check the current sales numbers of handheld/consoles against the app store and you will quickly see the numbers shifting on a large scale. The profits are very large in that segment as well and no saturation point is even on the near horizon.
You've bought into an outdated notion struggling to be kept alive by marketers. I won't call names, but I'd rethink that idiot comment. I worked in this field for a long time and know it well, it's not trolling, it's the truth and whether or not you want to believe it, it will be more and more apparent in the coming year.
I already posted a lengthy reply below, but I worked as a game reviewer for over a decade, and I can tell you that the numbers you have posted there actually show the complete opposite of what you think. The only game in that list supporting the console market as a whole is GTA. The rest except for a small amount of bleed over with SMB and Kart, are casual games that do not require a "console" proper or involve a handheld. With the current super high costs of game development and marketing that list solidifies the death of console gaming. The "hardcore" market is a sham perpetuated by the industry and has been for a number of years now to keep things afloat, I saw the writing on the walls 5-6 years ago, as did many in the field and the bottom is falling out. Handhelds are being replaced by media players, and derivative and complex games are on the way out. It's sad but true, and the numbers you see there are proof positive.
I worked as a videogame writer/reviewer for over 10 years... covering the PS1 and PS2. When the "next generation" was just beginning to take form the Revolution/Wii was the only one I had any interest in and even then I saw massive issues/shortcomings. This industry has been massively declining for some time. The thing is, it's all media/marketing driven based on essentially lies. The concept of the "Hardcore" gamer has always been far less in number than marketing would like you to believe. It seems like a lot when you only travel in certain circles or sites (gaming sites, mags) but that is because they are essentially funneling everyone into a few small channels so the numbers seems very high. They are not. This charade was kept going for a number of years and only fairly recently have the cracks begun to show through. The E3 shrinking. The cost of game production began to rise meteorically and companies had to basically admit that the "hardcore" market is small and couldn't support the costs of such games. Franchises, sequels, and their ilk are all that can be made right now and it's not getting better.
The emperor has no clothes.
Wow, assume much? I own no HD-DVDs and saw it for a dead format from the beginning. Blu-Ray numbers are not accurate from any number of sources because of combo packs and PS3s among other factors. The adoption is not as meteoric as you seem to think, digital distribution will be the adopted standard before Blu-Ray will have anywhere near DVD penetration.
Never. I'd love to believe that this will be some great new leap forward, but it is just a massive mis-step by a company trying to find new revenue streams. BR adoption is tepid at best, and that doesn't even exclude most of the population by requiring special glasses. It's always been a gimmick and nothing more. 3D offers very little to the viewer and certainly not enough to warrant wearing glasses for every movie you sit down to watch. Majorly flawed.
IT is filled with people who have massive egos and issues, and interns can be on the receiving end of any number of things. I used to head up the intern program at an ISP and while the intern positions were not paid, they were fairly short and I made damn sure that the interns actually learned something, had some fun, and I really took the time to fill out all of their paperwork and help them craft a real resume instead of the carbon copy the school had them make.
The best thing you could do is do your internship for a large company, probably like the one you mention. The pay is ancillary and should not even enter into the equation. $0, $8, $12, etc. the pay will be low because you bring very little to the table. There are thousands of actual qualified people out of work right now who would happily work for $8/hr. *and* have some skill and experience. Don't kiss ass, don't be anything but yourself and make an effort to learn everything you can and do some research and further learning as you go on your own outside of the internship to show you have initiative and a willingness to succeed. I'd much rather see that over a brown-noser which is easy to spot and would not become a hire for me.
I'm sadly an exception, though, and not filled with ego and fear as many are driven by. They are interested in keeping their job and doing the bare minimum to get by and have to carefully watch out and cut off any threats. When you have a solid mastery of your discipline you don't have to be on the defensive, again, sadly there's not a lot of that in IT. Just like yourself, a lot of people came because of dollar signs in their eyes or a perception of an "easy" non-laborious job. If that is the motivation you will just become one of the scared, defensive, ego-driven masses.
Who'd have thought that with all the technology and MMO-type games there still isn't a way to play D&D online with a group? As someone who enjoyed D&D back in the day and now a mature gamer with a life and family, I would still love to play but don't have time for bi/tri-weekly meetings in someones basement for hours on end. A night or two a week, online, for a few hours and I'd be a happy nerd.
(or if anyone knows of a solid group with a more relaxed campaign in the Pittsburgh, PA area, I'm down)
Not close. The point is that a lot of game design and theory are still based around concepts which were designed to do one of two things: a) eat quarters or b) hide hardware/software limitations. (well there is always c) laziness)
Without arcades anymore for the most part, you don't need to make that final spine rip require a complex combination so that you only pull it off 40-50% of the time and pump more quarters in to try again. You don't need cheap deaths and "puzzles"/patterns because you are limited in lines of code/sprites onscreen/etc.
Why not give the player an amazing experience filled with awesomeness from the first second and then just build on it? Look at Aion, they talk of adding flying to an MMO and people crap themselves... and then the flying turns out to be a kind of lame gimmick. Why? People like to fly, WANT to fly, make a damn game where they can fly... properly. These are games, I could be a flying giant with a bazooka on one arm and laserbeam cock that can crush and deform the entire environment. All you have to do is build a world around that which still offers fun and adventure (which wouldn't be too hard with a premise like that) and you have a game. Don't make me hit some tiny jump for no reason or else insta-death.
Awesome! Great stuff, and don't worry I once wrote a followup to Morte d'Arthur perfectly in the style of the original on which I received a C- for parts where my grammar and structure matched the original work but apparently were "incorrect" to the teacher... and then I won a National English Merit award for the same work when the teacher's assistant submitted it because she dug it. Grade never got changed.
I had worked as a game reviewer and playtester for some years and the one thing I always brought up was... they're games, we design them, back in the day they had to use certain cheesy tactics to suck up more quarters or to deal with hardware/software limitations... those are largely gone now... why not just make the whole game awesome? You could have amazing powers from the start and be able to do amazing things from start to finish... why limit and aggravate the player unnecessarily? You have the power and ability to make anything happen, why limit yourself and the player?
It was always met with initial "well you have to or there is no reason to play" and then as we would talk more, light bulbs would go off and they would finally realize a lot of the trappings and assumed constructs really weren't necessary after all... but they still would ignore it.
What benefit or importance is it if I can fly, shoot laser beams, and finish with the awesome rip your spine out fatality with easy button presses or complex cryptic sequences? There aren't actual quarters involved anymore (for the most part). Why have your character punch with a fist instead of plunging a plasma sword through flesh? They could accomplish the same goal but one is infinitely cooler. You can still have a progression and you can still have obstacle and challenges but make the entire damn thing awesome... it's a GAME!
agreed, and like I said, I'm no fanboy to any company of any sort except in my hiking/climbing gear which actually at times controls whether I live or die... *THAT* is a reason to be a fanboy, not technology.
I'm not trying to say either is some insane extreme, and yes there are customizations available in OS X it is more of a lock in to their workflow and mindset that I don't like. I may chose to tackle a problem in my own way, and often the options are simply not even there on OS X or in Apple apps. You do it their way or the highway, even if it isn't always the best or most efficient.
Obviously it isn't overly terrible or I wouldn't be considering a switch for my next machines (which are 3 years out so I'm looking forward to where all options are by then)
I'm no fanboy of any technology, but I have to say that Microsoft is just losing dismally to Apple lately. They are so cognizant of being too copy-catish of Apple and they are also trying to be so anti-Apple as well that all they are accomplishing is shooting themselves in the foot. What MS needs to do is to hire/buy a really unique and cutting edge design firm and rethink everything from the ground up.
There are people like myself who love the consistency and cleanness of OS X but don't like our every move dictated and locked down to the point that I'm told that I don't know what I actually want unless Steve tells me. But I also don't need umpteen layers of complexity like Linux offers. I want something that works, is flexible, and is intelligently put together and clean. I don't care about backwards compatibility that is for business to worry about and for a business OS.
My next computer will be a Mac unfortunately because Win 7 is just not for me and I don't see anything coming that will change my mind from Redmond. I've been a system builder and Linux user since 1995.