Oh really? How much money do you think it cost MS to give software away for free? Hint: It's prob around the cost of the cd it's put on.
But hey, if we're talking about giving free software away for free, hasn't google done something like that before... what is it.... oh ya! it's that thing i use 23048912 times a day!
I tried to play that game, it seemed to be very good/interesting. However, it had way too much of a learning curve for my short attention span. It wasn't like a Meiers game in that you could make it however complex you wanted; it started off extremely compex no matter what(it did have a good tutorial game, to be fair). Still a good game and i know a few people who love it.
However, in your second paragraph it seems like you're saying that the civ AI needs to cheat on all difficulty levels. This simply isn't true, as far as i know. For SMAC atleast, on the first two difficulty levels the computer actually put the AI at the disadvantage and gave the human a lead. Then theres a middle difficulty where it's completely even. Then, only on the last two difficulty settings did the computer actually get the upper hand (the same upper hand that the person gets on the easy difficulty setting). I don't see anything wrong with doing the difficulty levels like this, since it seems like a better idea then creating 6 or so different AI sets for each difficulty level(multiply that times each faction and it makes it seem like an even worse idea).
I would have to say SMAC was my fav civ-type game. I never did play CivIII. At first, there was no PvP option, and I couldn't justify buying the game and then the expansion pack just to play against my friends. But I bought SMAC and Alien Crossfire, I still play those for hours on end. I missed the whole thrown room thing, i guess, but the ability to customize and upgrade units was awesome (i don't know if you can do this in CivIII). I think if you count the ways you can customize the units you could have somewhere around 250,000 different units, something like that. Damn, all this talk, i think i'm going to leave work early and go home and play.
Are you saying Meiers doesn't know squat about AI? Blasphemy! I really don't understand your point though, i mean, i know you're not suggesting that the complexity of the rules has nothing to do with the difficulty to design a strong AI. oh wait, you are? wow. just wow.
and then you get pissed cause you think sid should be grateful that people ripped off his game. i feel like i'm taking crazy pills!
IIRC, he abandoned the idea because he had a hard time trying to make it "fun". I couldn't find the exact article i read but a similar one can be found here.
Re:What's the point of these Q&A sessions?
on
Sid Meier Responds
·
· Score: 1
Yes, those bastard/. editors. How dare they do this to us! Someone needs to do something about this. I'm so tired of being forced to read and comment on the things that THEY post! man, i'm NEVER coming back!
haha, ya, i guess you're right about the independant films. I was watching stargate or some other sci-fi show with a friend of mine (it's not really my thing), and they used a keg for a prop, trying to make it look like something that would be in a medical room, and a pressure washer as a gun. laughed my ass off.
what i had in mind was half-life mods. DoD and CS were made independantly and ended up cutting deals with Valve. There are many other that didn't make it big, but i still consider them fun to play, ie natural selection. what i didn't like about the new versions of CS and DoD are mainly just graphic overhalls using the source engine. Now, i thought it was worth the dough and i gave them their money. but some people expected a little more than just that but they still wanted to play with everyone else that was moving on, so they downloaded the game(prob wouldn't work with Steam, but this is just an example). I can't blame them for that. I guess that's kinda my point, i payed full price for x game, they come out with x game + y (y being x) and expect me to pay what i payed for the original. it's upsetting, and some people can't justify paying that amount. Some people may think thats ok, but i find it worth bitching about. i like paying people for their ideas and creativity, and not some equation that gets applied to everything original that rakes in the most money for the publisher.
I'm not saying anything should be free. I'm not talking about necessities either. I'm not saying entertainment has no value. All I'm saying is that people in the entertainment industry should not expect to be making big bucks (as a very small portion are). People should create and be involved in entertainment because that's what they like and makes them feel good, not because it's going to make them money. It just makes me sick when i see some pro baseball player or some big industry bitching because they aren't making all the money they should be because the people who don't make nearly as much as them doing productive work for a living can't pay for it.
As for big budget movies and games, doesn't most of that money go into special affects and good looks and less into content and originality? I think so, which is why, in many cases, the small independant groups end up making it big. because they have more originality and are more about content, which is much cheaper than flashy graphics. Sadly, it's a vicious cycle where they end up churning out the same thing but with flashy graphics that they can now afford because they made it big.
My post was obviously very misunderstood. I should have been clearer.
I never said they should give their music away for free... did i?
Ok, your friend spent 6 months working on a cd. its his full time job, you said. ok, does he expect to make 50,000 a year? no, of course not. why he would make this his full time job is beyond me, but if thats what he wants to do more power to him. but he's prob realistic and doesn't expect to have 5 cars 4 houses and 20 mill in the bank like the other blood suckers that are whining because some chump downloaded their crappy music in the first place.
and for you first sentance, i have no idea what you're talking about, i never said anything of the sort in the first place. please dont misquote, kthnx.
I'm not saying they don't deserve to be compensated in some way for their "hard effort" I'm saying, which i think you missed, that they should not expect to make a living off of "entertainment". I'm not demanding that they work for free, and I think you're forgetting who makes the majority of the money. As far as productive goes, you can look the definition up for yourself. But what I'm refering to as being unproductive is its value in the economy. To put it in very simple terms for you, it doesn't make anyones job easier.
And as for the crap, why would you think I'm downloading it? I'm complaining about it because the people that produce the crap think it's worth far more than it is. Again, a point i thought i made in my original post.
Then, with the older stuff. If people are looking for things to fill their spare time with, entertainment i like to call it, my question is why don't they see that their are lifetimes of entertainment to occupy themselves with? There is so much already out there that one person can't say they have seen it all. So, why do we need more? Hopefully that made my point a little clearer to you.
As far as the real job thing goes, if you don't get it by now, i don't know how to explain it to you any clearer, i'm sorry.
I don't think it's anything like stating "all car repairs should be free." Cars are a neccessity and help increase productivity. Entertainment is simply entertainment and is not productive in any aspect. To be honest, I don't think anyone should really be able to make a living off "entertainment", especially not a whole corporation. Entertainment is something people should do in their spare time on the side of their "real" job. What I don't understand is why people think they need new music. Don't they realize there are decades of good music out there already? Not to mention modern pop music is pure CRAP.
That's not what the parent is talking about. He's talking about whoever implements the idea first. These patents people are getting arne't "solving any fundamental problems", it's people patenting broad ideas that have many implementations AND NOT EVEN DOING ANYTHING WITH THEM. We're not talking innovation here...
That's why I think this decision is wrong. Making it so minors are not able to buy violent video games concedes that there is, in fact, something wrong with playing violent video games. This is also what makes it different from the sale of tobacco, alcohol and firearms. With tobacco, alcohol, and firearms, there is a very strong correlation between using them and an above avg possibility of bad things happenning. With violent video games, i wouldn't be surprised to discover that there is more of a chance of getting into trouble if you don't play them. I can't tell you how many times violent video games have help me vent after a long day, it keeps me from killing people IRL.
Re:Waste of time and source of FUD for Microsoft
on
Dell Offering "Open" PC
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Actually, this price gap might not be as big as you think it is. I've always built mine and my families comps, it used to be alot cheaper that way. But with Dell selling so many boxes nowadays, they've lowered their prices ALOT, and they always have some kind of deal going on. I just recently bought the Dell SC420, their lowend workstation for businesses. It didn't come with an operating system, which is one of the reasons why i bought it, but I also got twice the memory for free and I got 200 bucks off. I just looked at similar hardware on Newegg and the prices without shipping come extremely close; prob only a difference of no more than 20 bucks.
They can't send a signal down to your xbox saying, "HE CAN NO LONGER PLAY THIS GAME ANYMORE".
Actually... YES, they CAN. this happened to friend of mine, where he had a modded xbox. He logged on to xbox live one day to play the new (at the time) Halo 2. And when he logged on, xbox live detected that he had a modded xbox and now he can no longer play anything with his xbox. There are many other stories like this if you google them, hell, you don't even have to go that far, just read the xbox EULA.
I agree with your other statements: the computer is for hardcore users only, the gaycube kids need not apply.
What dream world? haha... so your point is, since "the net cash flow goes into the US, not out" that we shouldn't be able to keep the internet that we developed. Or was it because we don't donate as much as other countries? or... because you think we are all brainwashed by propaganda... or... because we went to Iraq for ourself...wtf does any of that BS have to do with the US keeping the internet that we payed for?
and just for future reference, to keep yourself from looking like a dumbass again, all of america did not go to Iraq. just because someone is American doesn't mean they believe in this "Iraqi Freedom" crap. you really buy into this "propaganda" thing dont you? listen, i'm really sorry you hate america, or whatever your problem is, but I think we've given enough free handouts. kthnx
Uhhh... I thought the parent was talking about not worrying about global warming.. I think you pulled this "Rules free" thing right out your ass. The point your missing is: Now no one has to worry about spending rediculous amounts of money http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA328.html to try and slow down a problem that we have little to no control over. Environmentalist are going to have to find a different way to persuade us all from polluting now!
Apple is doing amazing things? Whats been so amazing? The iPod? I use google uncountable times a day, i use my ipod.. well, i can't remember the last time i used my ipod. Immense credit for a simple music player that costs a few hundred? And you say this is way better than a gateway to the internet THATS FREE? Aw I'm so confused
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, don't give your money to bums/beggars.
summary pls, thnx
Beaver, I dont even know her
Oh really? How much money do you think it cost MS to give software away for free? Hint: It's prob around the cost of the cd it's put on.
But hey, if we're talking about giving free software away for free, hasn't google done something like that before... what is it.... oh ya! it's that thing i use 23048912 times a day!
I tried to play that game, it seemed to be very good/interesting. However, it had way too much of a learning curve for my short attention span. It wasn't like a Meiers game in that you could make it however complex you wanted; it started off extremely compex no matter what(it did have a good tutorial game, to be fair). Still a good game and i know a few people who love it.
However, in your second paragraph it seems like you're saying that the civ AI needs to cheat on all difficulty levels. This simply isn't true, as far as i know. For SMAC atleast, on the first two difficulty levels the computer actually put the AI at the disadvantage and gave the human a lead. Then theres a middle difficulty where it's completely even. Then, only on the last two difficulty settings did the computer actually get the upper hand (the same upper hand that the person gets on the easy difficulty setting). I don't see anything wrong with doing the difficulty levels like this, since it seems like a better idea then creating 6 or so different AI sets for each difficulty level(multiply that times each faction and it makes it seem like an even worse idea).
I would have to say SMAC was my fav civ-type game. I never did play CivIII. At first, there was no PvP option, and I couldn't justify buying the game and then the expansion pack just to play against my friends. But I bought SMAC and Alien Crossfire, I still play those for hours on end. I missed the whole thrown room thing, i guess, but the ability to customize and upgrade units was awesome (i don't know if you can do this in CivIII). I think if you count the ways you can customize the units you could have somewhere around 250,000 different units, something like that.
Damn, all this talk, i think i'm going to leave work early and go home and play.
Are you saying Meiers doesn't know squat about AI? Blasphemy! I really don't understand your point though, i mean, i know you're not suggesting that the complexity of the rules has nothing to do with the difficulty to design a strong AI. oh wait, you are? wow. just wow.
and then you get pissed cause you think sid should be grateful that people ripped off his game. i feel like i'm taking crazy pills!
IIRC, he abandoned the idea because he had a hard time trying to make it "fun". I couldn't find the exact article i read but a similar one can be found here.
Yes, those bastard /. editors. How dare they do this to us! Someone needs to do something about this. I'm so tired of being forced to read and comment on the things that THEY post! man, i'm NEVER coming back!
y being LESS THAN x, heh
haha, ya, i guess you're right about the independant films. I was watching stargate or some other sci-fi show with a friend of mine (it's not really my thing), and they used a keg for a prop, trying to make it look like something that would be in a medical room, and a pressure washer as a gun. laughed my ass off.
what i had in mind was half-life mods. DoD and CS were made independantly and ended up cutting deals with Valve. There are many other that didn't make it big, but i still consider them fun to play, ie natural selection. what i didn't like about the new versions of CS and DoD are mainly just graphic overhalls using the source engine. Now, i thought it was worth the dough and i gave them their money. but some people expected a little more than just that but they still wanted to play with everyone else that was moving on, so they downloaded the game(prob wouldn't work with Steam, but this is just an example). I can't blame them for that. I guess that's kinda my point, i payed full price for x game, they come out with x game + y (y being x) and expect me to pay what i payed for the original. it's upsetting, and some people can't justify paying that amount. Some people may think thats ok, but i find it worth bitching about. i like paying people for their ideas and creativity, and not some equation that gets applied to everything original that rakes in the most money for the publisher.
I'm not saying anything should be free. I'm not talking about necessities either. I'm not saying entertainment has no value. All I'm saying is that people in the entertainment industry should not expect to be making big bucks (as a very small portion are). People should create and be involved in entertainment because that's what they like and makes them feel good, not because it's going to make them money. It just makes me sick when i see some pro baseball player or some big industry bitching because they aren't making all the money they should be because the people who don't make nearly as much as them doing productive work for a living can't pay for it.
As for big budget movies and games, doesn't most of that money go into special affects and good looks and less into content and originality? I think so, which is why, in many cases, the small independant groups end up making it big. because they have more originality and are more about content, which is much cheaper than flashy graphics. Sadly, it's a vicious cycle where they end up churning out the same thing but with flashy graphics that they can now afford because they made it big.
My post was obviously very misunderstood. I should have been clearer.
I never said they should give their music away for free... did i?
Ok, your friend spent 6 months working on a cd. its his full time job, you said. ok, does he expect to make 50,000 a year? no, of course not. why he would make this his full time job is beyond me, but if thats what he wants to do more power to him. but he's prob realistic and doesn't expect to have 5 cars 4 houses and 20 mill in the bank like the other blood suckers that are whining because some chump downloaded their crappy music in the first place.
and for you first sentance, i have no idea what you're talking about, i never said anything of the sort in the first place. please dont misquote, kthnx.
I'm not saying they don't deserve to be compensated in some way for their "hard effort" I'm saying, which i think you missed, that they should not expect to make a living off of "entertainment". I'm not demanding that they work for free, and I think you're forgetting who makes the majority of the money. As far as productive goes, you can look the definition up for yourself. But what I'm refering to as being unproductive is its value in the economy. To put it in very simple terms for you, it doesn't make anyones job easier.
And as for the crap, why would you think I'm downloading it? I'm complaining about it because the people that produce the crap think it's worth far more than it is. Again, a point i thought i made in my original post.
Then, with the older stuff. If people are looking for things to fill their spare time with, entertainment i like to call it, my question is why don't they see that their are lifetimes of entertainment to occupy themselves with? There is so much already out there that one person can't say they have seen it all. So, why do we need more? Hopefully that made my point a little clearer to you.
As far as the real job thing goes, if you don't get it by now, i don't know how to explain it to you any clearer, i'm sorry.
I don't think it's anything like stating "all car repairs should be free." Cars are a neccessity and help increase productivity. Entertainment is simply entertainment and is not productive in any aspect. To be honest, I don't think anyone should really be able to make a living off "entertainment", especially not a whole corporation. Entertainment is something people should do in their spare time on the side of their "real" job. What I don't understand is why people think they need new music. Don't they realize there are decades of good music out there already? Not to mention modern pop music is pure CRAP.
That's not what the parent is talking about. He's talking about whoever implements the idea first. These patents people are getting arne't "solving any fundamental problems", it's people patenting broad ideas that have many implementations AND NOT EVEN DOING ANYTHING WITH THEM. We're not talking innovation here...
I think Bill has already though about this
That's why I think this decision is wrong. Making it so minors are not able to buy violent video games concedes that there is, in fact, something wrong with playing violent video games. This is also what makes it different from the sale of tobacco, alcohol and firearms. With tobacco, alcohol, and firearms, there is a very strong correlation between using them and an above avg possibility of bad things happenning. With violent video games, i wouldn't be surprised to discover that there is more of a chance of getting into trouble if you don't play them. I can't tell you how many times violent video games have help me vent after a long day, it keeps me from killing people IRL.
Actually, this price gap might not be as big as you think it is. I've always built mine and my families comps, it used to be alot cheaper that way. But with Dell selling so many boxes nowadays, they've lowered their prices ALOT, and they always have some kind of deal going on. I just recently bought the Dell SC420, their lowend workstation for businesses. It didn't come with an operating system, which is one of the reasons why i bought it, but I also got twice the memory for free and I got 200 bucks off. I just looked at similar hardware on Newegg and the prices without shipping come extremely close; prob only a difference of no more than 20 bucks.
They can't send a signal down to your xbox saying, "HE CAN NO LONGER PLAY THIS GAME ANYMORE".
Actually... YES, they CAN. this happened to friend of mine, where he had a modded xbox. He logged on to xbox live one day to play the new (at the time) Halo 2. And when he logged on, xbox live detected that he had a modded xbox and now he can no longer play anything with his xbox. There are many other stories like this if you google them, hell, you don't even have to go that far, just read the xbox EULA.
I agree with your other statements: the computer is for hardcore users only, the gaycube kids need not apply.
What dream world? haha... so your point is, since "the net cash flow goes into the US, not out" that we shouldn't be able to keep the internet that we developed. Or was it because we don't donate as much as other countries? or... because you think we are all brainwashed by propaganda... or... because we went to Iraq for ourself...wtf does any of that BS have to do with the US keeping the internet that we payed for?
and just for future reference, to keep yourself from looking like a dumbass again, all of america did not go to Iraq. just because someone is American doesn't mean they believe in this "Iraqi Freedom" crap. you really buy into this "propaganda" thing dont you? listen, i'm really sorry you hate america, or whatever your problem is, but I think we've given enough free handouts. kthnx
Uhhh... I thought the parent was talking about not worrying about global warming.. I think you pulled this "Rules free" thing right out your ass.
The point your missing is: Now no one has to worry about spending rediculous amounts of money
http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA328.html to try and slow down a problem that we have little to no control over. Environmentalist are going to have to find a different way to persuade us all from polluting now!
Apple is doing amazing things? Whats been so amazing? The iPod? I use google uncountable times a day, i use my ipod.. well, i can't remember the last time i used my ipod. Immense credit for a simple music player that costs a few hundred? And you say this is way better than a gateway to the internet THATS FREE? Aw I'm so confused
I would have to say that aliens exist. This is based on the fact that if aliens really did exist, no one would tell us. There is alot we're not told