I've been a profession game developer for well over a decade
How much money did you have to save up in order to relocate to search for your first job in the industry? What did you have in your portfolio in order to qualify for an interview? And how has the entry-level environment changed since then?
I needed roughly $10K or so to move if I recall correctly, since it was just me and I didn't have to move an entire household. At the time, all I needed in terms of qualifications was some good demos and a phone interview. This was at a very small company. Keep in mind this was over fifteen years ago, though. It's hard for me to gauge accurately now though, since I've got much more experience and a solid enough resume that I now have a pretty good shot at being hired no matter where I apply. It was definitely a lot harder to get hired earlier in my career, but I guess that's to be expected.
I think that what hasn't changed is that having at least one demonstrable game-related product that you've either created on your own or contributed significantly is very helpful. No one wants to hire a rookie that is going to make all the mistakes that are bound to be made on your first big project, so you essentially want to get that first project out of the way as soon as possible. Also, having a finished product on your resume demonstrates that you can actually finish products that you start. When I was involved in the hiring process, this was always something I looked out for at least. In my case, I had some game demos and a non-game related product I was already selling on the side, so I could offer that up as a demonstration of my coding style and ability.
Of course, this assumes you can pass the technical portions of the interviews, where you have to demonstrate your coding and analytical competency. That's sort of a given as well, and I don't think that part of things has changed much at all.
So what are two guys in a garage supposed to make instead in order to get into the industry?
Just build a fun, entertaining, and highly polished game, price it realistically, and hope for the best. It's certainly still possible for "two guys in a garage" (actually, it's just me working on this game) to create games independently.
I've been a profession game developer for well over a decade, and worked on some of the industries biggest games, so I understand all too well the enormous volume of modern art, design, and programming assets that are poured into a modern title. I turned indie (started making my own game full time) over a year ago. My first game was deliberately chosen in a style that would allow a single developer to produce the code, design, and art assets within a reasonable timeframe. There are simply some games for which this wouldn't work, so you have to choose pretty carefully. In other words, don't choose a design that's meant to compete with the AAA titles out there. It's just not feasible.
In my case, I'm completely eschewing 3D, and sticking to 2D tile-based worlds, albeit with a game engine that supports modern hardware and effects. Even within this limited subset of game options, I also chose a specific game design that would work to my strengths instead of requiring a massive amount of art, something I just don't have the resources to produce myself.
There's nothing I can really do about a "race to the bottom" in terms of pricing, but I think indie games are well positioned here. It won't actually take a lot of game sales even at a low price point, relatively speaking, to support my next game's development, and since I've already got the engine and base game finished, I'll be able to get the sequel out the door a lot faster.
I just have to hope that people are still willing to actually pay for small, entertaining games instead of always looking for freemuim products, because I'd much rather that people have a "pure" gaming experience unencumbered by attempts to suck out more money. This does mean a purchase is required up front, though.
I guess we'll see in about a year's time. I'd really love to keep doing what I'm doing, but if all else fails, I guess it's back to the big game companies for me. I'm not complaining, of course, since even working for others, making videogames is pretty awesome as a career, but I really hope that the two years I've invested in this game pays off.
You cannot create anything in a vacuum. Your time and resources may be of your own but, your effort is build upon the effort of those who came before you. Asking for repayment of your time and resources is reasonable. Asking for indefinite repayment on all similar creations, while holding to the naive idea that all effort was yours alone, is disingenuous if not fraudulent. If you have enhanced society with your contributed effort then, society should reward you.
The only debate is the terms of that reward, nothing more, nothing less. The false notion that effort entitles one to complete dominion over similar effort is new, relatively speaking, and not universally agreed upon as being reasonable. I would argue that, monetary rewards be the only reward, and that false dominion is for those who are selfish and lack awareness.
An honest man borrows and stands on the shoulders of others. A dishonest man claims he alone is the progenitor. See original quote.
From your previous statements, it would seem you are dishonest, if not selfish... or I'm reading into this too much.
I always hear this "but you get so much from society, so you can't hog your property forever" argument, but keep in mind that the author has invested just as much in the establishment and payment for those societal protections as anyone else (on average, of course). In fact, it's society (or our representative government, more precisely) that established these artificial constraints on "intellectual property rights" precisely in order to provide incentives for people and companies to generate and sell creative works, with the understanding that they will be able to profit by those works. I think that, while some disagree with the details, the majority of people think it's reasonable for an individual or company to retain the commercial rights to creative properties for a significant amount of time.
Honestly, I don't see how society is creatively impoverished because a single individual or company CAN hold intellectual property rights, even indefinitely. Are you telling me that there is such a creative dearth that if an author retains the rights to the world that he or she has created for life that we're somehow poorer as a society? That others won't step up and create new and exiting competing content for people to use and enjoy? It just feels like a nonsensical argument to me. It always feels like it boils down to: "They've made a lot of money over the years on product x, and I'm not exactly rich, and I'd like to get it for free. Therefore, --insert grandiose-sounding argument about bettering society, etc--".
This brings up a good point. While attribution and copyright are lumped together they should not be.
You should have the right for your work to carry your name indefinitely, others shouldn't be allowed to claim your work as theirs.
Copying your work to give away for free or to sell should have a much much shorter leash, as should the privilege to restrict others from creating new things based on your work. 5 years seems more than enough to me in this digital age.
And if a company is so dependant on that one product, let them have the monopoly longer, have the state take a percentage cut out of that company's income and increase the tax over time.
That should get the creative juices flowing.
I'm currently developing my new company's first videogame, and I've drained many years of savings in order to spend two years of my life with zero income building it. I'm not expecting to get rich selling it (hoping to sell enough to just sustain future development), but I'd like to start building up a portfolio with a "long tail" of many products that will sustain me into eventual retirement. I'm creating this game entirely on my own, and taking a huge risk to my financial future to do so. It's easy to spout this sort of nonsense when you are thinking of giant commercial corporations and how to stick it to those "evil profitmongers" (keep in mind they employ a lot of people), but keep in mind that stuff like this would severely impact very small developers like me, and probably hurt them far worse.
Or maybe you just don't give a crap because you're not the one putting in the work to actually create these products. Let me tell you, yeah, it's fun to make videogames for a living, but don't kid yourself. It's also pretty fucking challenging work, and an incredibly risky and unstable industry already. We really don't need your help to put additional handicaps on us developers who are already facing lottery-like odds just trying to stay afloat.
How is Windows 8 "in the way" on a tablet? It's probably the best tablet OS out there right now.
Yep, at the expense of their desktop operating system unfortunately. I really like Windows 7, and can't see myself upgrading anytime soon unless they decide to reverse the insane decisions to smash together two completely incompatible user operating paradigms into a single OS. Metro is a fine interface for tablets, phones, and touchsceens, but it's just hideous for traditional desktop-oriented work.
Still, MS seems to be backpedaling on shoving Metro in our faces on the desktop, so maybe the next OS will be actually usable. We'll see.
The sooner we decriminalize drugs, the sooner this sort of idiotic "war on drugs" can end. It's one that the US law enforcement can never win, which is the perfect sort of war for a government agency, isn't it? I'm not saying there aren't well-meaning people in those agencies, or among those that advocate such policies, but it's those same well-meaning policies that also gave us the mob during the Prohibition era. Same dance, different partners.
BTW, we recently decriminalized weed here in Washington State, and now people are setting up shops to sell the stuff. I'm betting the world won't come to an end.
I don't want to wear my computer or put my fridge on line. OTOH, it will be really interesting when tomorrow's geeks are able to play with entire computers on a breadboard the way we played with resistors, transistors, etc. when I was a kid.
I keep picturing a little plastic baggy full of x86-based systems, $4.99/doz at RadioShack if they're still in business...
Systems on a chip have been around for decades. As far as I understand it (I could be wrong), this isn't really new in concept, but just in scale and scope. I remember using BASIC Stamp I/II computers as simple robotics controllers many years ago back in college. They were small processors that we programmed (in a form of BASIC, as the name suggested) via a serial cable and you could network them together, control things like stepper motors and various sensors, etc. A lot of fun.
Back then, when a 486 66MHz was the shiznits, I'm pretty sure I recall Intel embedded processors from 8088 all the way up to 386s being sold specifically for embedded programming. I'm not sure if these came standalone or on a system board of some sort though. Maybe someone more familiar with embedded programming knows if this is somehow fundamentally different, or just smaller and faster than what's been done before.
so what would i do with a computer in my fridge, toaster, oven, AC, on my clothing, etc? all wired into the internet and open to hacking? i still need to put the toast into the toaster to actually make the toast, although i'm sure some technofiends will put the toast in, walk away and use an app via wifi to start the toasting process
Your fridge likely already has a computer in it. "What does more computing power for appliances give us?" is the proper question. You can think of a lot of the mundane day to day things and figure that more computing power will make a lot of it work better, while it might be completely useless for other things.
Fridge - Precise digital control of overall temperature, and zone controls for individual areas with specialty products (for instance, bins with meat can be kept colder than bins with veggies/fruit). Potentially better power consumption and less food spoilage.
AC/Heating - Active monitoring determines which rooms are occupied and only heats and cools those areas. Long-term analysis predicts which areas of the house are likely or unlikely to be occupied at any given time and reduces energy use in those areas automatically. Again, some energy savings potential here. Monitors that detect someone's presence in a room can double as a security and home monitoring system.
Oven - I'd imagine it would be useful if the oven could automatically send you a quick notification when it's finished baking or cooking something in case you don't hear the timer ding. Fewer accidentally burnt meals. Same with a toaster. Also, improved computing power means the oven probably knows to shut itself off even if you forget to.
Clothes - I'd imagine a lot of parents would love to be able to embed small emergency tracking devices in their young children's clothes so they can quickly check up on where they are at any time without relying on an easily lost external device. Or a teenager might wish to wear a hidden cell phone in her jacket for her own protection.
Honestly, it's not all that hard to think of useful scenarios where embedded computing could improve many devices. Sure, there are plenty of things that don't need a computer in them, but it's silly to reject the possibility of improving these devices out of hand.
Still, the issue you bring up with security is very valid. We're hearing about instances of people being subjected to spying via their own hacked webcams, so we need to think about security-related issues very seriously before tossing them into situations where people's privacy can be easily violated. For instance, any sort of house monitor could easily be turned against the homeowner if the security is breached.
When it comes to something like biological pests the damage they can cause is so huge that it far outweighs the personal possessions or freedom of movement of any one individual. It's why movement of individuals can be restricted by medical authorities in cases of communicable diseases as well.
It's not a matter of IF. It's a matter of past events that have shown these precautions are absolutely necessary. Mad cow disease in England. Medfly infestations destroying citrus crops in CA and FL. FMD in Europe. Asian soybean rust, longhorned beetle, Dutch elm disease and emerald borer beetle in the US. These restrictions apply to humans as well. My wife had to pass a TB exam including X-Rays before she was allowed to immigrate to the US.
I'm not saying there isn't an opportunity to improve what is being done. But the idea that personal property rights can legitimately interfere with the rights of a community to protect itself from real dangers is wrong.
The big thing to realize is that with any human right there is no absolute. One of those cases is the right to property when that property represents a threat to the entire community.
Of course, I don't disagree with that assertion. That's why I talked about balance. We absolutely (as a society) need to protect against dangerous elements crossing our borders in any form. And yes, there are extreme cases when even individual rights must be trumped for the greater societal good. I'm just saying that any time that occurs, it should be done with the utmost care, and with proper safeguards.
From what I can infer, custom agents are allowed to destroy personal property they deem potentially dangerous with no contact with the owner of said property. All I'm suggesting is that this seems like a policy that needs changing. A plastic ziplock bag, a storage area, and a tag, followed up with a notice to this man that he violated customs rules and needs to talk to an agent before he can retrieve the item, or it will be destroyed in a week, say... that would have changed the picture completely. Yes, it would have been a hassle, but just a minor one, and more importantly, not an irrevocable one. Hell, I wouldn't have had a problem with fining the man some reasonable fee for the expenses incurred, since technically speaking, he's at fault for not declaring the items.
I just think it was unnecessary for the flutes to be destroyed without even talking to the man first. Am I being unreasonable here? Does the agency require the power to destroy items at will without an interview in order to safeguard our borders?
It isn't a case of human rights, illegal searches or ethnic profiling or anything like that.
As far as I'm concerned this is just another misplaced slashdot article.
I think that destruction of valuable personal property is sort of a big deal. Why does customs have the right to destroy personal property with no apparent recourse? Or do they?
It may sound strange, but I absolutely consider the sanctity of personal property as something of a human rights issue. When you destroy or steal someone's valuable property, you are in essence stealing someone's life. In the most abstract sense, this man had to exchange a portion of his life energy in exchange for that property, and by taking it from him, you're also robbing him of his sacrifice. Our lives are the most precious things we have, and if you look at monetary exchanges in terms of people exchanging portions of their lives in exchange for purchasing power, you can understand a little bit as to why personal property is more important that you might have previously thought.
It's very easy to say that one person's misfortune isn't a big deal when it's not YOUR misfortune. ANY personal loss isn't a big deal in the "big picture", because the world's big picture is pretty damn big. Let us know the next time something bad happens to you, and I hope I'm not nearly as callous as you sound right now.
The excuse of "but look what could happen if..." could be used to justify nearly any sort of human-rights abuses in the name of safety. We must always balance the issue of the greater societal good with the rights of the individual. In this case, the government clearly overreached its bounds in the name of what are undoubtedly valid concerns over agricultural protection issues. As such, we shouldn't be blaming the individual or shrugging our shoulders, but looking for ways to improve the system.
From my perspective as a Windows programmer/user who is trying to learn more about Linux development: Let me know if you disagree with this analysis.
CLI is mostly useful for programmers and power-users / sys admins, and *nix was built around the concept of lots of small, useful command-line utilities that can be chained together to get useful things done. Visual interfaces, if they exist at all, are often just pretty wrapping around the core functionality available via the CLI.
Windows (and the Mac preceding it) was built from the ground up with visual metaphors to make computing simpler for the masses. Command-lines are typically NOT the primary interface with the computer. Often, programs have built-in scripting to provide the power-user with equivalent CLI power on the *nix systems. Less importance is placed on command-line interoperability. Instead, interoperability is achieved through visual metaphors (drag and dropping files, for instance) or through OS services (OLE).
This is a cultural clash which explains why an OS like Linux will probably never innovate in regards to visual interfaces - I think perhaps its just not all that important to those that control the core feature sets of the operating systems. Essentially, Windows users tend to see the necessity of falling back to a command-line as a crutch for a system that isn't well designed or fully featured (as you indicated), while *nix users take the opposite view, with the command line as the natural place to work, and the visual interfaces as a crutch to assist those who are not as skilled or don't need the power of the CLI.
I just don't see that perspective changing anytime soon, and so I think UI innovation will tend to be driven by external forces in the *nix world, while the majority of the work still requires a command-line interface to access ALL the important options. BTW, Windows isn't perfect here either, of course. The equivalent in Windows starts with the phrase "Open regedit and search for the key...", but it just seems to happen far less often.
Seriously. How many times do people need to be beaten over the head with reality before they actually acquire the correct information.
We're a democratic republic.
We have democratic forms of selection for various public offices.
What we do NOT have is direct rule by the citizenry.
"Democracy" is colloquially used to generalize any form of representative government in which power is ultimately wielded by the people, whether directly or indirectly, which includes democratic republics like ours. Frankly, I'm not sure the distinction matters except in an academic sense, since there really aren't any "pure" democratic governments operating in the world anyhow - it's a largely theoretical and wholly unpractical form of government at any sort of significant scale, for obvious reasons. So, it's not like we're conflating two competing types of governments in actual use.
A democratic republic could also be classified as a "representative democracy", a specific type of democracy. In this line of thinking, I just don't see how it's inappropriate at all to call the US government a "democracy", as any such reference is obviously identifying the broad category and not the specific definition of a pure democracy. To read it otherwise is, I feel, to almost deliberately misread the obvious intent of the statement.
That was beautiful. I only wonder if we'll see the day when Snowden, Manning and Assange are granted freedom. And when the inmates at GITMO are allowed to tell their stories in complete detail, and we are allowed to hear them.
Please don't lump those two groups together.
Snoden exposed government lies and unconstitutional overreach, and I think he did a courageous thing which will ultimately be good for the country (in the same way that Firesheep was ultimately good for internet security).
Gitmo is full of really dangerous and nasty people who were most likely plotting to murder innocents for the cause of religious zealotry. I'd have a really hard time taking any of their stories at face value when those same people would have no qualms about sawing my head off in front of a videocamera for the world to see while shouting praises to Allah. I'm not sure why you'd have a hard time believing people like that exist when they've so willingly documented their own atrocities for the world to see.
I'm not saying we shouldn't question the government with a critical eye on stuff like this, but it's not exactly a stretch of the imagination to believe that there really are some very nasty sorts out there, such that the world is better off if they never see the light of day again.
So how do you plan to balance the game so that it's not too hard with gamepad aiming and not too easy with mouse aiming?
I'm still early in development, so this is something I'll need to tackle. It's likely that I'll introduce some sort of auto-aiming to help assist the controller user. It's not a FPS, though, so with my particular game, a mouse may not be as significant an advantage - an analog controller stick will certainly have more precise control for movement.
I agree in theory. But in practice, how would a startup indie developer afford what a good lawyer charges? Or to investigate who leaked your product to the warez scene?
If another company has started selling your copyrighted product, then perhaps it might actually be a matter for a district attorney, as it's a criminal matter, not a civil one. In that case, it might not cost you anything. But honestly, you're really veering into some pretty hypothetical territory here. There are about a million things that can go wrong when starting a small business, but I figure I'll never get anywhere in life by worrying myself to a standstill over hypothetical roadblocks. I'll tackle any of these sorts of challenges as they come up.
But which handheld platform supporting DRM-free games ships with a gamepad and not just a flat sheet of glass? And prior to SteamOS, which platform supporting DRM-free games was designed for use with a television as a monitor and gamepads (plural) as input devices? For several years, I've been reading comments from naysayers on Slashdot claiming that virtually nobody wants to buy a second PC to dedicate to the TV or to haul a PC back and forth between a TV and a desk, and virtually nobody wants to buy an external gamepad for a smartphone.
As far as handhelds or console-like devices, if you're absolutely dedicated to avoiding any sort of DRM on these types of devices, it won't be easy to find. Don't misunderstand me though... I'm not an anti-DRM zealot. It's just that DRM on the PC (where I'm first releasing my game) tends to be horribly intrusive/annoying for the consumer, and I don't want anyone that purchases my game on a PC to have to worry about that.
However, on mobile platforms or consoles, DRM really isn't so much an issue for consumers in my opinion since it's pretty seamless, being integrated right into the platform. For instance, on my Xbox, I've never downloaded an Xbox live game or put in a game disc and had to worry about whether the game's DRM would screw up my hardware or prevent me . Or, most Xbox games don't, for instance, require a constant connection to the internet to play the game, like some PC games are doing nowadays.
We gather a lot of anonymous user metrics in the last MMO I worked on, and it wasn't done for any sort of nefarious purpose, but to understand what people are interested in, what they're doing, and how to create better products, or improve the current ones. For instance, we have the obvious metrics of positional heatmaps (showing concentration of players at a given moment or over time), skill usage, class and race selection, even when they turned off their sfx or music. The game designers use a lot of these metrics to help fine-tune the game as well. In previous games, we also gathered hardware data (again, with no personally identifyable information). We used that data, for one example, to determine when it was appropriate to release new games on DVD-ROM instead of on multiple CD-ROMs (obviously, that one was a few years back).
You ask what the motivation is. Of course a publisher cares if a book is finished or not. That particular title may or may not make any more money, but surely if most people don't finish a book, they'll be unlikely to purchase it's sequel, right? Happy, satisfied customers are the *best* customers. Unhappy customers will flock to your competitors.
BTW, notice that they're not just talking about publishers. TFA was also talking about independent authors using this service to help to figure out what their customers really like.
Different platforms have different input devices, such as mouse and keyboard, gamepad, or touch screen input. How are you going to cope with the vast difference in capability among these?
You don't typically have to boil all those devices into a single abstraction. In my case, I'm only supporting keyboard, mouse, and gamepad, since it's a PC action title, and all those device types are already pretty well abstracted by the operating systems.
So what do you plan to do should you find another company cracking your game, changing the title screen, and selling it as its own game?
I'd call a lawyer. That's not a problem that DRM or any other technology solves. DRM is about protecting against illegal copying and sharing of digital goods. Unfortunately, it either doesn't work well, or it's so intrusive that it interferes with the legitimate consumer's enjoyment of the products, such as always-online requirements. I'm not naïve - there will be plenty of people who play my game without paying for it. I'm just not going to let them ruin the experience of the people who did pay for it.
And how do you plan to get onto platforms that require DRM for all games, such as the major consoles (PS4, XbOne, Wii U), major handhelds that have a gamepad (3DS, PS Vita), and phones that aren't Android?
When I say "No DRM", I mean that I'm not going to add my own DRM to the game. Obviously, there's nothing I can do about DRM that is part of the platform itself. If users want to get a DRM-free version of the game they just have to choose a DRM-free platform to play it on, right? I don't think that's unreasonable.
I can't speak for other indie devs, of course, but I'll definitely be targeting non-Windows platforms at some point. I've developed my own game engine (most commercial engines wouldn't work optimally for the type of game I'll be making), and I've taken great pains to ensure a clean separation between platform neutral and platform specific code, so as to make porting as painless as possible.
That being said, I'm staking my financial future on my first upcoming game, and so pragmatism dictates that I first ensure the game is deliverable for Windows, as it represents about 85% to 90% of the gaming market. My first porting job will be for the Mac, as that's the next largest segment. Linux comes in a pretty distant third at around 1-2%. (note: numbers are based on Steam hardware survey, which I'd guess are reasonable estimates) With any luck, the Steam-OS will help this grow, but I can't stake my future on that sort of gamble. Of course, the other hurdle is that I'm not experienced with the Mac or Linux platforms, and so in addition to porting my own engine, I have to learn how to develop for those platforms from the ground up.
So, for me, unfortunately, it's highly likely that a Linux port will come after the Windows and Mac versions. The good news is that once the engine port is done, I should be able to simultaneously release on all platforms in the future with minimal effort. It's just tricky to allocate so much development time up front for such a small market share when I also have to get the game released (or run out of money).
Oh, yeah, also, no DRM for my games either. Ever. Indie games don't have DRM use dictated by corporate types, so we don't have to inflict that sort of nonsense on our users.
Someone sees an iphone and all of a sudden it has to be the UI of the desktop? Gnome 3, Unity, Win 8 all caught the bug.
IMO, it was a desperation move to keep PC desktop software relevant in a "post PC world", where smartphones are the hot new shit, and "PCs are dying", etc. PCs are a saturated market, so of course they're not going to experience the explosive growth of the smartphone and tablet market, and this freaked out out of traditional desktop OS vendors. Bolting a ridiculous phone-like interface onto the desktop doesn't make a PC into a smartphone. It just makes it more annoying to use.
I'm longing for the day that the smartphone and tablet market becomes just a saturated as the PC market, and we can stop with the constant "The PC is dying" nonsense. PCs are just vastly overpowered for some computing uses, so better form factors are now filling those roles. But I see nothing about a smartphone or tablet that can replace the PC for any sort of computing task that requires significant data entry (i.e. "work").
Like you mentioned, Microsoft, by some indicators, may have realized what a bonehead misstep the metro UI was for desktop computing, and could introduce some major reversals on some of the more idiotic UI blunders they made.
Paper has its own issues. Talk to me about the durability of paper after you recover the books lost throughout time due to natural decay, burning (intentional or otherwise), floods, wars, and social forces (politics, religion, etc). Digital data can be easily copied and archived (when not behind a paywall, of course). It seems to me that redundancy is the best form of insurance against data loss. A solar mass is not going to wipe out every computer with a copy of important data on it, and all the relevant backups. And if it does, we're probably in a lot more trouble for reasons other than losing some scientific research.
Besides which, I sort of wonder if scientific data also follows the 80/20 rule. If so, how much are we really losing? I'm only half joking, of course, since it's difficult to ascertain the value of research immediately in some cases, but wouldn't it stand to reason that any important or groundbreaking research will naturally be widely disseminated, and thus protected against loss?
The obviousness test has failed us time and time and time again. To me, that's a simple reason for simply banning all software patents, as other countries have done without major mishap.
An issue with software engineers and programmers is that, at least in my experience, they tend to be rather smart people (if sometimes narrowly focused), and thus have a rather skewed view on what they consider to be "obvious". If we rely on non-experts to agree with us on obviousness, we're always going to be disappointed. And creating some clever process to determine obviousness is going to succeed no better than creating some magical process to solve any challenging and creative problem in the real world. No offense regarding your solution, but I'd guess you're probably looking at this problem through the lens of a programmer or mathematician - solving challenging problems with algorithms and processes is what we do. But it tends not to work as well in the real world, which is much messier and more complex than a computer simulation.
I'm afraid we simply just have to toss out the entire category. Patenting software just needs to be abolished. Copyright is plenty to legally protect the interests of development companies and/or individuals. Anything more than that just leads to overly anti-competitive behavior through sleazy legal maneuvers in the long run.
Read what you quoted again. He wasn't arguing technical superiority. He was indicating that DVD-type technology is cheap and ubiquitous, and therefore is still a dominant force in the market. It's like saying McDonalds is "kicking butt" because it's cheap, consistent and is of a reasonable quality, and thus is vastly popular. No one is arguing that they serve a superior meal to Ruth's Chris Steakhouse.
Well, Slashdot is not exactly the most friendly of communities, to be honest, and they're not really gaming-focused. I think you'd find a much more receptive attitude on indie and amateur-focused gaming web sites. Maybe gamedev.net?
After all, I've been in the game industry 15 years, and I just started my own company to make my own games. I figure if I can do it, so can others. However, these things don't just happen by themselves. You have to be willing to take some action to make it happen.
From what I've seen, there will likely be avenues open for indie developers on consoles. One thing to keep in mind that people tend to be much more enthusiastic about a product they can quickly grab and demo (like on a PC). So, I don't think it's ever a waste of time to get a game finished on the PC first before porting to other platforms. It's the platform with the least development friction, so it's a pretty good place to get started.
That aside, if your game doesn't fit your current development platform, you could always consider re-designing or re-imagining it. Consoles, PCs, and phones/tablets all require drastically different interfaces due to their strengths and weaknesses.
BTW, if Value starts selling SteamOS boxes, you'll probably see many more PCs hooked up to TVs. If you're actually selling a PC game to take advantage of this, it could be a great advantage in a niche market. Remember, if you're an indie developer, you don't have to sell millions of games to be successful.
Plus, PC gaming is being described as "dying" each and every console cycle. It never has. It may not have the size and scope of consoles, but unlike them, it endures beyond any overlord's whims.
Exactly. Tech reporters (who continuously fawn of the latest and greatest gizmos) notice that "sales of new PCs are falling rapidly", while "phone and tablet sales are growing each year", and thus conclude that PCs are "dying" and that smartphones are going to replace them. Smartphones will likely replace a PC for the type of user who just wants to check the occasional e-mail and browse the web a bit while waiting for the bus. In other words, they're great for people who will only *consume* light content.
Most everyone who wants a PC (or laptop) has one already, and they're so insanely powerful we can hang onto them for a good half-decade or so now before replacing them, unlike the 1 or 2 year upgrade cycle of a decade ago. PCs excel at *creating* content, so people who are writing, painting, coding, designing, etc will still be buying PCs for the foreseeable future.
Meanwhile, the smartphone and tablet markets are in a growth period while the market expands and the technology matures. And these new smartphone owners suddenly discover they can play games on these phones! Woo! Another growth market. What do we think will happen when the market for phones and tablets become saturated? Well, they'll drop off just like PC sales are now - essentially going into a "occasional new buyer and replacement" rate instead.
I had the same reaction when pundits and tech writers declared that we'd probably only see one more generation of console ever, because smartphones were the hot new bling, and everyone has one, so why would anyone need a console anymore? The answer is the same as why the PC will never die out: Because consoles and PCs can easily do specific things much better than a smartphone can. Consoles excel at *consuming entertainment content* - far better than any other platform. I don't see the entertainment market dying out anytime in the near future, so I suspect consoles will also be with us for a while.
PC: Type lots of text very quickly. PC: Precision input with mouse or pointer PC: Complex content creation of nearly any sort PC: Open development platforms and distribution / zero or low-cost development
Console: High-end visuals and audio for immersive gaming and entertainment experience Console: Grab and play gaming - few compatibility issues. Console: Great for party games or multi-user gaming Console: Standardized game-optimized input and accessories.
Smartphone: Ultimate in portability Smartphone: Simple usability with touch interface Smartphone: Location aware
PCs, consoles, smartphones and tablets will all likely be with us for some time to come, because they all have different strengths and weaknesses.
These developers you speak of are absolutely free to quit their secure jobs, go start a company, develop their own games
Provided Microsoft, Nintendo, and Sony will let them. It's especially hard for someone just breaking into the industry to go the startup route, as Robert Pelloni demonstrated with Bob's Game.
In my opinion, a developer just breaking into the industry probably shouldn't go the startup route, unless you're willing to complete the game first on your own time. That way, it's zero risk as you learn the ropes. You learn a lot of very valuable lessons on someone else's dime by working for an established company. I worked 15 years in the industry before striking out on my own last year, and all the lessons I've learned by working on very large projects have significantly improved how I develop my own very small projects.
Also, starting up a company nowadays has nothing to do with "if Microsoft, Nintendo, and Sony will let them." I don't recall asking any of those companies' permission before filing my LLC application. Still, I know what you meant, I think... You don't create a startup and immediately get published on the big three consoles - unless you've sold your rights, profits, and soul to a big publisher in exchange for a large wad of cash. But there are plenty of alternative distribution methods. PC is a hot market for indie games, with plenty of digital distribution options (despite the continuous "death of the PC matra"). You can make games for Facebook, or iOs/Android phones and tablets for very small investments as well.
Additionally, the big three consoles are demonstrating their willingness to embrace indie developers as well. If you have a moderately successful game already developed for PC or mobile, it works in your favor when trying to get the game ported to a console (less risk for all involved, and much easier for everyone to visualize the final product).
Slashdot Mirror
I've been a profession game developer for well over a decade
How much money did you have to save up in order to relocate to search for your first job in the industry? What did you have in your portfolio in order to qualify for an interview? And how has the entry-level environment changed since then?
I needed roughly $10K or so to move if I recall correctly, since it was just me and I didn't have to move an entire household. At the time, all I needed in terms of qualifications was some good demos and a phone interview. This was at a very small company. Keep in mind this was over fifteen years ago, though. It's hard for me to gauge accurately now though, since I've got much more experience and a solid enough resume that I now have a pretty good shot at being hired no matter where I apply. It was definitely a lot harder to get hired earlier in my career, but I guess that's to be expected.
I think that what hasn't changed is that having at least one demonstrable game-related product that you've either created on your own or contributed significantly is very helpful. No one wants to hire a rookie that is going to make all the mistakes that are bound to be made on your first big project, so you essentially want to get that first project out of the way as soon as possible. Also, having a finished product on your resume demonstrates that you can actually finish products that you start. When I was involved in the hiring process, this was always something I looked out for at least. In my case, I had some game demos and a non-game related product I was already selling on the side, so I could offer that up as a demonstration of my coding style and ability.
Of course, this assumes you can pass the technical portions of the interviews, where you have to demonstrate your coding and analytical competency. That's sort of a given as well, and I don't think that part of things has changed much at all.
So what are two guys in a garage supposed to make instead in order to get into the industry?
Just build a fun, entertaining, and highly polished game, price it realistically, and hope for the best. It's certainly still possible for "two guys in a garage" (actually, it's just me working on this game) to create games independently.
I've been a profession game developer for well over a decade, and worked on some of the industries biggest games, so I understand all too well the enormous volume of modern art, design, and programming assets that are poured into a modern title. I turned indie (started making my own game full time) over a year ago. My first game was deliberately chosen in a style that would allow a single developer to produce the code, design, and art assets within a reasonable timeframe. There are simply some games for which this wouldn't work, so you have to choose pretty carefully. In other words, don't choose a design that's meant to compete with the AAA titles out there. It's just not feasible.
In my case, I'm completely eschewing 3D, and sticking to 2D tile-based worlds, albeit with a game engine that supports modern hardware and effects. Even within this limited subset of game options, I also chose a specific game design that would work to my strengths instead of requiring a massive amount of art, something I just don't have the resources to produce myself.
There's nothing I can really do about a "race to the bottom" in terms of pricing, but I think indie games are well positioned here. It won't actually take a lot of game sales even at a low price point, relatively speaking, to support my next game's development, and since I've already got the engine and base game finished, I'll be able to get the sequel out the door a lot faster.
I just have to hope that people are still willing to actually pay for small, entertaining games instead of always looking for freemuim products, because I'd much rather that people have a "pure" gaming experience unencumbered by attempts to suck out more money. This does mean a purchase is required up front, though.
I guess we'll see in about a year's time. I'd really love to keep doing what I'm doing, but if all else fails, I guess it's back to the big game companies for me. I'm not complaining, of course, since even working for others, making videogames is pretty awesome as a career, but I really hope that the two years I've invested in this game pays off.
You cannot create anything in a vacuum. Your time and resources may be of your own but, your effort is build upon the effort of those who came before you. Asking for repayment of your time and resources is reasonable. Asking for indefinite repayment on all similar creations, while holding to the naive idea that all effort was yours alone, is disingenuous if not fraudulent. If you have enhanced society with your contributed effort then, society should reward you.
The only debate is the terms of that reward, nothing more, nothing less. The false notion that effort entitles one to complete dominion over similar effort is new, relatively speaking, and not universally agreed upon as being reasonable. I would argue that, monetary rewards be the only reward, and that false dominion is for those who are selfish and lack awareness.
An honest man borrows and stands on the shoulders of others. A dishonest man claims he alone is the progenitor. See original quote.
From your previous statements, it would seem you are dishonest, if not selfish ... or I'm reading into this too much.
I always hear this "but you get so much from society, so you can't hog your property forever" argument, but keep in mind that the author has invested just as much in the establishment and payment for those societal protections as anyone else (on average, of course). In fact, it's society (or our representative government, more precisely) that established these artificial constraints on "intellectual property rights" precisely in order to provide incentives for people and companies to generate and sell creative works, with the understanding that they will be able to profit by those works. I think that, while some disagree with the details, the majority of people think it's reasonable for an individual or company to retain the commercial rights to creative properties for a significant amount of time.
Honestly, I don't see how society is creatively impoverished because a single individual or company CAN hold intellectual property rights, even indefinitely. Are you telling me that there is such a creative dearth that if an author retains the rights to the world that he or she has created for life that we're somehow poorer as a society? That others won't step up and create new and exiting competing content for people to use and enjoy? It just feels like a nonsensical argument to me. It always feels like it boils down to: "They've made a lot of money over the years on product x, and I'm not exactly rich, and I'd like to get it for free. Therefore, --insert grandiose-sounding argument about bettering society, etc--".
This brings up a good point. While attribution and copyright are lumped together they should not be.
You should have the right for your work to carry your name indefinitely, others shouldn't be allowed to claim your work as theirs.
Copying your work to give away for free or to sell should have a much much shorter leash, as should the privilege to restrict others from creating new things based on your work. 5 years seems more than enough to me in this digital age.
And if a company is so dependant on that one product, let them have the monopoly longer, have the state take a percentage cut out of that company's income and increase the tax over time.
That should get the creative juices flowing.
I'm currently developing my new company's first videogame, and I've drained many years of savings in order to spend two years of my life with zero income building it. I'm not expecting to get rich selling it (hoping to sell enough to just sustain future development), but I'd like to start building up a portfolio with a "long tail" of many products that will sustain me into eventual retirement. I'm creating this game entirely on my own, and taking a huge risk to my financial future to do so. It's easy to spout this sort of nonsense when you are thinking of giant commercial corporations and how to stick it to those "evil profitmongers" (keep in mind they employ a lot of people), but keep in mind that stuff like this would severely impact very small developers like me, and probably hurt them far worse.
Or maybe you just don't give a crap because you're not the one putting in the work to actually create these products. Let me tell you, yeah, it's fun to make videogames for a living, but don't kid yourself. It's also pretty fucking challenging work, and an incredibly risky and unstable industry already. We really don't need your help to put additional handicaps on us developers who are already facing lottery-like odds just trying to stay afloat.
How is Windows 8 "in the way" on a tablet? It's probably the best tablet OS out there right now.
Yep, at the expense of their desktop operating system unfortunately. I really like Windows 7, and can't see myself upgrading anytime soon unless they decide to reverse the insane decisions to smash together two completely incompatible user operating paradigms into a single OS. Metro is a fine interface for tablets, phones, and touchsceens, but it's just hideous for traditional desktop-oriented work.
Still, MS seems to be backpedaling on shoving Metro in our faces on the desktop, so maybe the next OS will be actually usable. We'll see.
The sooner we decriminalize drugs, the sooner this sort of idiotic "war on drugs" can end. It's one that the US law enforcement can never win, which is the perfect sort of war for a government agency, isn't it? I'm not saying there aren't well-meaning people in those agencies, or among those that advocate such policies, but it's those same well-meaning policies that also gave us the mob during the Prohibition era. Same dance, different partners.
BTW, we recently decriminalized weed here in Washington State, and now people are setting up shops to sell the stuff. I'm betting the world won't come to an end.
I don't want to wear my computer or put my fridge on line. OTOH, it will be really interesting when tomorrow's geeks are able to play with entire computers on a breadboard the way we played with resistors, transistors, etc. when I was a kid.
I keep picturing a little plastic baggy full of x86-based systems, $4.99/doz at RadioShack if they're still in business...
Systems on a chip have been around for decades. As far as I understand it (I could be wrong), this isn't really new in concept, but just in scale and scope. I remember using BASIC Stamp I/II computers as simple robotics controllers many years ago back in college. They were small processors that we programmed (in a form of BASIC, as the name suggested) via a serial cable and you could network them together, control things like stepper motors and various sensors, etc. A lot of fun.
Back then, when a 486 66MHz was the shiznits, I'm pretty sure I recall Intel embedded processors from 8088 all the way up to 386s being sold specifically for embedded programming. I'm not sure if these came standalone or on a system board of some sort though. Maybe someone more familiar with embedded programming knows if this is somehow fundamentally different, or just smaller and faster than what's been done before.
so what would i do with a computer in my fridge, toaster, oven, AC, on my clothing, etc? all wired into the internet and open to hacking?
i still need to put the toast into the toaster to actually make the toast, although i'm sure some technofiends will put the toast in, walk away and use an app via wifi to start the toasting process
Your fridge likely already has a computer in it. "What does more computing power for appliances give us?" is the proper question. You can think of a lot of the mundane day to day things and figure that more computing power will make a lot of it work better, while it might be completely useless for other things.
Fridge - Precise digital control of overall temperature, and zone controls for individual areas with specialty products (for instance, bins with meat can be kept colder than bins with veggies/fruit). Potentially better power consumption and less food spoilage.
AC/Heating - Active monitoring determines which rooms are occupied and only heats and cools those areas. Long-term analysis predicts which areas of the house are likely or unlikely to be occupied at any given time and reduces energy use in those areas automatically. Again, some energy savings potential here. Monitors that detect someone's presence in a room can double as a security and home monitoring system.
Oven - I'd imagine it would be useful if the oven could automatically send you a quick notification when it's finished baking or cooking something in case you don't hear the timer ding. Fewer accidentally burnt meals. Same with a toaster. Also, improved computing power means the oven probably knows to shut itself off even if you forget to.
Clothes - I'd imagine a lot of parents would love to be able to embed small emergency tracking devices in their young children's clothes so they can quickly check up on where they are at any time without relying on an easily lost external device. Or a teenager might wish to wear a hidden cell phone in her jacket for her own protection.
Honestly, it's not all that hard to think of useful scenarios where embedded computing could improve many devices. Sure, there are plenty of things that don't need a computer in them, but it's silly to reject the possibility of improving these devices out of hand.
Still, the issue you bring up with security is very valid. We're hearing about instances of people being subjected to spying via their own hacked webcams, so we need to think about security-related issues very seriously before tossing them into situations where people's privacy can be easily violated. For instance, any sort of house monitor could easily be turned against the homeowner if the security is breached.
When it comes to something like biological pests the damage they can cause is so huge that it far outweighs the personal possessions or freedom of movement of any one individual. It's why movement of individuals can be restricted by medical authorities in cases of communicable diseases as well.
It's not a matter of IF. It's a matter of past events that have shown these precautions are absolutely necessary. Mad cow disease in England. Medfly infestations destroying citrus crops in CA and FL. FMD in Europe. Asian soybean rust, longhorned beetle, Dutch elm disease and emerald borer beetle in the US. These restrictions apply to humans as well. My wife had to pass a TB exam including X-Rays before she was allowed to immigrate to the US.
I'm not saying there isn't an opportunity to improve what is being done. But the idea that personal property rights can legitimately interfere with the rights of a community to protect itself from real dangers is wrong.
The big thing to realize is that with any human right there is no absolute. One of those cases is the right to property when that property represents a threat to the entire community.
Of course, I don't disagree with that assertion. That's why I talked about balance. We absolutely (as a society) need to protect against dangerous elements crossing our borders in any form. And yes, there are extreme cases when even individual rights must be trumped for the greater societal good. I'm just saying that any time that occurs, it should be done with the utmost care, and with proper safeguards.
From what I can infer, custom agents are allowed to destroy personal property they deem potentially dangerous with no contact with the owner of said property. All I'm suggesting is that this seems like a policy that needs changing. A plastic ziplock bag, a storage area, and a tag, followed up with a notice to this man that he violated customs rules and needs to talk to an agent before he can retrieve the item, or it will be destroyed in a week, say... that would have changed the picture completely. Yes, it would have been a hassle, but just a minor one, and more importantly, not an irrevocable one. Hell, I wouldn't have had a problem with fining the man some reasonable fee for the expenses incurred, since technically speaking, he's at fault for not declaring the items.
I just think it was unnecessary for the flutes to be destroyed without even talking to the man first. Am I being unreasonable here? Does the agency require the power to destroy items at will without an interview in order to safeguard our borders?
It isn't a case of human rights, illegal searches or ethnic profiling or anything like that.
As far as I'm concerned this is just another misplaced slashdot article.
I think that destruction of valuable personal property is sort of a big deal. Why does customs have the right to destroy personal property with no apparent recourse? Or do they?
It may sound strange, but I absolutely consider the sanctity of personal property as something of a human rights issue. When you destroy or steal someone's valuable property, you are in essence stealing someone's life. In the most abstract sense, this man had to exchange a portion of his life energy in exchange for that property, and by taking it from him, you're also robbing him of his sacrifice. Our lives are the most precious things we have, and if you look at monetary exchanges in terms of people exchanging portions of their lives in exchange for purchasing power, you can understand a little bit as to why personal property is more important that you might have previously thought.
It's very easy to say that one person's misfortune isn't a big deal when it's not YOUR misfortune. ANY personal loss isn't a big deal in the "big picture", because the world's big picture is pretty damn big. Let us know the next time something bad happens to you, and I hope I'm not nearly as callous as you sound right now.
The excuse of "but look what could happen if..." could be used to justify nearly any sort of human-rights abuses in the name of safety. We must always balance the issue of the greater societal good with the rights of the individual. In this case, the government clearly overreached its bounds in the name of what are undoubtedly valid concerns over agricultural protection issues. As such, we shouldn't be blaming the individual or shrugging our shoulders, but looking for ways to improve the system.
From my perspective as a Windows programmer/user who is trying to learn more about Linux development: Let me know if you disagree with this analysis.
CLI is mostly useful for programmers and power-users / sys admins, and *nix was built around the concept of lots of small, useful command-line utilities that can be chained together to get useful things done. Visual interfaces, if they exist at all, are often just pretty wrapping around the core functionality available via the CLI.
Windows (and the Mac preceding it) was built from the ground up with visual metaphors to make computing simpler for the masses. Command-lines are typically NOT the primary interface with the computer. Often, programs have built-in scripting to provide the power-user with equivalent CLI power on the *nix systems. Less importance is placed on command-line interoperability. Instead, interoperability is achieved through visual metaphors (drag and dropping files, for instance) or through OS services (OLE).
This is a cultural clash which explains why an OS like Linux will probably never innovate in regards to visual interfaces - I think perhaps its just not all that important to those that control the core feature sets of the operating systems. Essentially, Windows users tend to see the necessity of falling back to a command-line as a crutch for a system that isn't well designed or fully featured (as you indicated), while *nix users take the opposite view, with the command line as the natural place to work, and the visual interfaces as a crutch to assist those who are not as skilled or don't need the power of the CLI.
I just don't see that perspective changing anytime soon, and so I think UI innovation will tend to be driven by external forces in the *nix world, while the majority of the work still requires a command-line interface to access ALL the important options. BTW, Windows isn't perfect here either, of course. The equivalent in Windows starts with the phrase "Open regedit and search for the key...", but it just seems to happen far less often.
Seriously. How many times do people need to be beaten over the head with reality before they actually acquire the correct information.
We're a democratic republic.
We have democratic forms of selection for various public offices.
What we do NOT have is direct rule by the citizenry.
"Democracy" is colloquially used to generalize any form of representative government in which power is ultimately wielded by the people, whether directly or indirectly, which includes democratic republics like ours. Frankly, I'm not sure the distinction matters except in an academic sense, since there really aren't any "pure" democratic governments operating in the world anyhow - it's a largely theoretical and wholly unpractical form of government at any sort of significant scale, for obvious reasons. So, it's not like we're conflating two competing types of governments in actual use.
A democratic republic could also be classified as a "representative democracy", a specific type of democracy. In this line of thinking, I just don't see how it's inappropriate at all to call the US government a "democracy", as any such reference is obviously identifying the broad category and not the specific definition of a pure democracy. To read it otherwise is, I feel, to almost deliberately misread the obvious intent of the statement.
if you've got nothing to hid (sic) then you have nothing to fear.
There are two great responses to this oft-repeated mantra:
I've got nothing to hide from those I trust.
or
I'm not doing anything wrong in the bathroom, but that doesn't mean I want the world to see what I do in there.
The desire for privacy doesn't imply any sort of wrongdoing.
That was beautiful. I only wonder if we'll see the day when Snowden, Manning and Assange are granted freedom. And when the inmates at GITMO are allowed to tell their stories in complete detail, and we are allowed to hear them.
Please don't lump those two groups together.
Snoden exposed government lies and unconstitutional overreach, and I think he did a courageous thing which will ultimately be good for the country (in the same way that Firesheep was ultimately good for internet security).
Gitmo is full of really dangerous and nasty people who were most likely plotting to murder innocents for the cause of religious zealotry. I'd have a really hard time taking any of their stories at face value when those same people would have no qualms about sawing my head off in front of a videocamera for the world to see while shouting praises to Allah. I'm not sure why you'd have a hard time believing people like that exist when they've so willingly documented their own atrocities for the world to see.
I'm not saying we shouldn't question the government with a critical eye on stuff like this, but it's not exactly a stretch of the imagination to believe that there really are some very nasty sorts out there, such that the world is better off if they never see the light of day again.
So how do you plan to balance the game so that it's not too hard with gamepad aiming and not too easy with mouse aiming?
I'm still early in development, so this is something I'll need to tackle. It's likely that I'll introduce some sort of auto-aiming to help assist the controller user. It's not a FPS, though, so with my particular game, a mouse may not be as significant an advantage - an analog controller stick will certainly have more precise control for movement.
I agree in theory. But in practice, how would a startup indie developer afford what a good lawyer charges? Or to investigate who leaked your product to the warez scene?
If another company has started selling your copyrighted product, then perhaps it might actually be a matter for a district attorney, as it's a criminal matter, not a civil one. In that case, it might not cost you anything. But honestly, you're really veering into some pretty hypothetical territory here. There are about a million things that can go wrong when starting a small business, but I figure I'll never get anywhere in life by worrying myself to a standstill over hypothetical roadblocks. I'll tackle any of these sorts of challenges as they come up.
But which handheld platform supporting DRM-free games ships with a gamepad and not just a flat sheet of glass? And prior to SteamOS, which platform supporting DRM-free games was designed for use with a television as a monitor and gamepads (plural) as input devices? For several years, I've been reading comments from naysayers on Slashdot claiming that virtually nobody wants to buy a second PC to dedicate to the TV or to haul a PC back and forth between a TV and a desk, and virtually nobody wants to buy an external gamepad for a smartphone.
As far as handhelds or console-like devices, if you're absolutely dedicated to avoiding any sort of DRM on these types of devices, it won't be easy to find. Don't misunderstand me though... I'm not an anti-DRM zealot. It's just that DRM on the PC (where I'm first releasing my game) tends to be horribly intrusive/annoying for the consumer, and I don't want anyone that purchases my game on a PC to have to worry about that.
However, on mobile platforms or consoles, DRM really isn't so much an issue for consumers in my opinion since it's pretty seamless, being integrated right into the platform. For instance, on my Xbox, I've never downloaded an Xbox live game or put in a game disc and had to worry about whether the game's DRM would screw up my hardware or prevent me . Or, most Xbox games don't, for instance, require a constant connection to the internet to play the game, like some PC games are doing nowadays.
Aren't we just talking about user metrics here?
We gather a lot of anonymous user metrics in the last MMO I worked on, and it wasn't done for any sort of nefarious purpose, but to understand what people are interested in, what they're doing, and how to create better products, or improve the current ones. For instance, we have the obvious metrics of positional heatmaps (showing concentration of players at a given moment or over time), skill usage, class and race selection, even when they turned off their sfx or music. The game designers use a lot of these metrics to help fine-tune the game as well. In previous games, we also gathered hardware data (again, with no personally identifyable information). We used that data, for one example, to determine when it was appropriate to release new games on DVD-ROM instead of on multiple CD-ROMs (obviously, that one was a few years back).
You ask what the motivation is. Of course a publisher cares if a book is finished or not. That particular title may or may not make any more money, but surely if most people don't finish a book, they'll be unlikely to purchase it's sequel, right? Happy, satisfied customers are the *best* customers. Unhappy customers will flock to your competitors.
BTW, notice that they're not just talking about publishers. TFA was also talking about independent authors using this service to help to figure out what their customers really like.
Different platforms have different input devices, such as mouse and keyboard, gamepad, or touch screen input. How are you going to cope with the vast difference in capability among these?
You don't typically have to boil all those devices into a single abstraction. In my case, I'm only supporting keyboard, mouse, and gamepad, since it's a PC action title, and all those device types are already pretty well abstracted by the operating systems.
So what do you plan to do should you find another company cracking your game, changing the title screen, and selling it as its own game?
I'd call a lawyer. That's not a problem that DRM or any other technology solves. DRM is about protecting against illegal copying and sharing of digital goods. Unfortunately, it either doesn't work well, or it's so intrusive that it interferes with the legitimate consumer's enjoyment of the products, such as always-online requirements. I'm not naïve - there will be plenty of people who play my game without paying for it. I'm just not going to let them ruin the experience of the people who did pay for it.
And how do you plan to get onto platforms that require DRM for all games, such as the major consoles (PS4, XbOne, Wii U), major handhelds that have a gamepad (3DS, PS Vita), and phones that aren't Android?
When I say "No DRM", I mean that I'm not going to add my own DRM to the game. Obviously, there's nothing I can do about DRM that is part of the platform itself. If users want to get a DRM-free version of the game they just have to choose a DRM-free platform to play it on, right? I don't think that's unreasonable.
I can't speak for other indie devs, of course, but I'll definitely be targeting non-Windows platforms at some point. I've developed my own game engine (most commercial engines wouldn't work optimally for the type of game I'll be making), and I've taken great pains to ensure a clean separation between platform neutral and platform specific code, so as to make porting as painless as possible.
That being said, I'm staking my financial future on my first upcoming game, and so pragmatism dictates that I first ensure the game is deliverable for Windows, as it represents about 85% to 90% of the gaming market. My first porting job will be for the Mac, as that's the next largest segment. Linux comes in a pretty distant third at around 1-2%. (note: numbers are based on Steam hardware survey, which I'd guess are reasonable estimates) With any luck, the Steam-OS will help this grow, but I can't stake my future on that sort of gamble. Of course, the other hurdle is that I'm not experienced with the Mac or Linux platforms, and so in addition to porting my own engine, I have to learn how to develop for those platforms from the ground up.
So, for me, unfortunately, it's highly likely that a Linux port will come after the Windows and Mac versions. The good news is that once the engine port is done, I should be able to simultaneously release on all platforms in the future with minimal effort. It's just tricky to allocate so much development time up front for such a small market share when I also have to get the game released (or run out of money).
Oh, yeah, also, no DRM for my games either. Ever. Indie games don't have DRM use dictated by corporate types, so we don't have to inflict that sort of nonsense on our users.
Someone sees an iphone and all of a sudden it has to be the UI of the desktop? Gnome 3, Unity, Win 8 all caught the bug.
IMO, it was a desperation move to keep PC desktop software relevant in a "post PC world", where smartphones are the hot new shit, and "PCs are dying", etc. PCs are a saturated market, so of course they're not going to experience the explosive growth of the smartphone and tablet market, and this freaked out out of traditional desktop OS vendors. Bolting a ridiculous phone-like interface onto the desktop doesn't make a PC into a smartphone. It just makes it more annoying to use.
I'm longing for the day that the smartphone and tablet market becomes just a saturated as the PC market, and we can stop with the constant "The PC is dying" nonsense. PCs are just vastly overpowered for some computing uses, so better form factors are now filling those roles. But I see nothing about a smartphone or tablet that can replace the PC for any sort of computing task that requires significant data entry (i.e. "work").
Like you mentioned, Microsoft, by some indicators, may have realized what a bonehead misstep the metro UI was for desktop computing, and could introduce some major reversals on some of the more idiotic UI blunders they made.
Paper has its own issues. Talk to me about the durability of paper after you recover the books lost throughout time due to natural decay, burning (intentional or otherwise), floods, wars, and social forces (politics, religion, etc). Digital data can be easily copied and archived (when not behind a paywall, of course). It seems to me that redundancy is the best form of insurance against data loss. A solar mass is not going to wipe out every computer with a copy of important data on it, and all the relevant backups. And if it does, we're probably in a lot more trouble for reasons other than losing some scientific research.
Besides which, I sort of wonder if scientific data also follows the 80/20 rule. If so, how much are we really losing? I'm only half joking, of course, since it's difficult to ascertain the value of research immediately in some cases, but wouldn't it stand to reason that any important or groundbreaking research will naturally be widely disseminated, and thus protected against loss?
The obviousness test has failed us time and time and time again. To me, that's a simple reason for simply banning all software patents, as other countries have done without major mishap.
An issue with software engineers and programmers is that, at least in my experience, they tend to be rather smart people (if sometimes narrowly focused), and thus have a rather skewed view on what they consider to be "obvious". If we rely on non-experts to agree with us on obviousness, we're always going to be disappointed. And creating some clever process to determine obviousness is going to succeed no better than creating some magical process to solve any challenging and creative problem in the real world. No offense regarding your solution, but I'd guess you're probably looking at this problem through the lens of a programmer or mathematician - solving challenging problems with algorithms and processes is what we do. But it tends not to work as well in the real world, which is much messier and more complex than a computer simulation.
I'm afraid we simply just have to toss out the entire category. Patenting software just needs to be abolished. Copyright is plenty to legally protect the interests of development companies and/or individuals. Anything more than that just leads to overly anti-competitive behavior through sleazy legal maneuvers in the long run.
Read what you quoted again. He wasn't arguing technical superiority. He was indicating that DVD-type technology is cheap and ubiquitous, and therefore is still a dominant force in the market. It's like saying McDonalds is "kicking butt" because it's cheap, consistent and is of a reasonable quality, and thus is vastly popular. No one is arguing that they serve a superior meal to Ruth's Chris Steakhouse.
Well, Slashdot is not exactly the most friendly of communities, to be honest, and they're not really gaming-focused. I think you'd find a much more receptive attitude on indie and amateur-focused gaming web sites. Maybe gamedev.net?
After all, I've been in the game industry 15 years, and I just started my own company to make my own games. I figure if I can do it, so can others. However, these things don't just happen by themselves. You have to be willing to take some action to make it happen.
From what I've seen, there will likely be avenues open for indie developers on consoles. One thing to keep in mind that people tend to be much more enthusiastic about a product they can quickly grab and demo (like on a PC). So, I don't think it's ever a waste of time to get a game finished on the PC first before porting to other platforms. It's the platform with the least development friction, so it's a pretty good place to get started.
That aside, if your game doesn't fit your current development platform, you could always consider re-designing or re-imagining it. Consoles, PCs, and phones/tablets all require drastically different interfaces due to their strengths and weaknesses.
BTW, if Value starts selling SteamOS boxes, you'll probably see many more PCs hooked up to TVs. If you're actually selling a PC game to take advantage of this, it could be a great advantage in a niche market. Remember, if you're an indie developer, you don't have to sell millions of games to be successful.
Plus, PC gaming is being described as "dying" each and every console cycle. It never has. It may not have the size and scope of consoles, but unlike them, it endures beyond any overlord's whims.
Exactly. Tech reporters (who continuously fawn of the latest and greatest gizmos) notice that "sales of new PCs are falling rapidly", while "phone and tablet sales are growing each year", and thus conclude that PCs are "dying" and that smartphones are going to replace them. Smartphones will likely replace a PC for the type of user who just wants to check the occasional e-mail and browse the web a bit while waiting for the bus. In other words, they're great for people who will only *consume* light content.
Most everyone who wants a PC (or laptop) has one already, and they're so insanely powerful we can hang onto them for a good half-decade or so now before replacing them, unlike the 1 or 2 year upgrade cycle of a decade ago. PCs excel at *creating* content, so people who are writing, painting, coding, designing, etc will still be buying PCs for the foreseeable future.
Meanwhile, the smartphone and tablet markets are in a growth period while the market expands and the technology matures. And these new smartphone owners suddenly discover they can play games on these phones! Woo! Another growth market. What do we think will happen when the market for phones and tablets become saturated? Well, they'll drop off just like PC sales are now - essentially going into a "occasional new buyer and replacement" rate instead.
I had the same reaction when pundits and tech writers declared that we'd probably only see one more generation of console ever, because smartphones were the hot new bling, and everyone has one, so why would anyone need a console anymore? The answer is the same as why the PC will never die out: Because consoles and PCs can easily do specific things much better than a smartphone can. Consoles excel at *consuming entertainment content* - far better than any other platform. I don't see the entertainment market dying out anytime in the near future, so I suspect consoles will also be with us for a while.
PC: Type lots of text very quickly.
PC: Precision input with mouse or pointer
PC: Complex content creation of nearly any sort
PC: Open development platforms and distribution / zero or low-cost development
Console: High-end visuals and audio for immersive gaming and entertainment experience
Console: Grab and play gaming - few compatibility issues.
Console: Great for party games or multi-user gaming
Console: Standardized game-optimized input and accessories.
Smartphone: Ultimate in portability
Smartphone: Simple usability with touch interface
Smartphone: Location aware
PCs, consoles, smartphones and tablets will all likely be with us for some time to come, because they all have different strengths and weaknesses.
These developers you speak of are absolutely free to quit their secure jobs, go start a company, develop their own games
Provided Microsoft, Nintendo, and Sony will let them. It's especially hard for someone just breaking into the industry to go the startup route, as Robert Pelloni demonstrated with Bob's Game.
In my opinion, a developer just breaking into the industry probably shouldn't go the startup route, unless you're willing to complete the game first on your own time. That way, it's zero risk as you learn the ropes. You learn a lot of very valuable lessons on someone else's dime by working for an established company. I worked 15 years in the industry before striking out on my own last year, and all the lessons I've learned by working on very large projects have significantly improved how I develop my own very small projects.
Also, starting up a company nowadays has nothing to do with "if Microsoft, Nintendo, and Sony will let them." I don't recall asking any of those companies' permission before filing my LLC application. Still, I know what you meant, I think... You don't create a startup and immediately get published on the big three consoles - unless you've sold your rights, profits, and soul to a big publisher in exchange for a large wad of cash. But there are plenty of alternative distribution methods. PC is a hot market for indie games, with plenty of digital distribution options (despite the continuous "death of the PC matra"). You can make games for Facebook, or iOs/Android phones and tablets for very small investments as well.
Additionally, the big three consoles are demonstrating their willingness to embrace indie developers as well. If you have a moderately successful game already developed for PC or mobile, it works in your favor when trying to get the game ported to a console (less risk for all involved, and much easier for everyone to visualize the final product).