Yeah, it's not right to expect to be paid for some task or work that you perform or something you create. Inevitable post, but I'll bite.
Of course you should be paid for something you create. However, if what you create is a file on a computer, I'll simply create a duplicate, and take that. Since I created it, I can even sell it on! Obviously if this attitude was enforced, everything would fall apart. Well, with the exception (in the case of music) of live performances, merchandising, original silver CDs, original silver DVDs of concerts, and anything else they could think of. Oh, and of course the fact that digital media like MP3s simply can't compete with well priced physical alternatives, like an original CD with a nice insert with the lyrics. But let's ignore all that (not being sarcastic) for a minute. How would you prevent endless duplication of files and the destruction the industry? Surely there must be a way? Oh, yeah, licence the product. Now, if copying a copy file is illegal duplication, surely listening to a CD over and over again is too? You are, in a way, creating a copy of the song, as until you play it, it is just a few bumps on a disk. You must pay every time you hear the song. Something like this was tried http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DIVX.
So we have a choice: a world where inferior digital reproductions which cost nothing to create are distributed for... nothing, and the industry has to 'fight back' with things that can't be created by right-clicking and hitting 'Copy'. This will put them in a worse and worse position as compression gets better and average Internet connection speeds get higher, but they will always be the only ones who can mass produce original CDs. Or a world where everything is regulated by the companies. Which would probably eventually end up with DIVX being forcibly re-introduced, and a continuation of the 'war'. Adding some morality to the issue on the pirate side we have people forging disks and selling them as the real thing, which is bad for everyone but the pirates. P2P, well, that doesn't really hurt the industry much. On the company side we have them making life tough for legitimate customers to get their hands on the cash, and attacking anyone who gets in their way. And let's not forget suing little girls. Won't somebody think of the children!
How MANY polygons or how fast a framerate might be helped by better coding, but it's not as simplistic as you put it. I didn't mean to infer it was particularly simple; of course every console is going to have certain limitations, and largely the increases are in polygon count or framerate. But the biggest improvments are in individual game engines, as they start to use the hardware better. The best examples I can think of are the differences between Tomb Raider I and V, and the diffrences between Silent Hill 2 and 3. Tomb Raider showed how much better you could do with the same engine, just by refining it over time. I have no idea if they used the same engine in both SH's, but I don't think there was that much of an increase in polygon count, and yet they made design changes that made a huge difference to the graphics, and it ran just as well on the same hardware. It's not always about increasing measurable features, either. I've seen games on the Gamecube that are higher res (both screen-wise and texture-wise) and have higher polygon counts and yet don't look as good as the likes of SH3 on the PS2, because SH3 is simply designed better. The best designers figure out the best possible way of making the game convincing, and when they do it well, it makes console specs seem virtually irrelevant. Compare this to the PC world, where it really is all about higher framerates/polygon counts, and using new features of new graphics cards. If a new feature is added to an engine that is a great improvment, it's usually an implementation of a new DirectX feature.
If you think that the console designers don't have to really think hard about what to put in these things and how often to release consoles you are crazy. I don't think that. But if you compare two PC's, one with an inferior GPU/CPU, it's pretty obvious which one is going to give better graphics. But if you compare the weaker PS2 to it's much more powerful counterparts, you will sometimes see better graphics, because of better use of the available hardware. Not to mention the fact that there were no doubt huge sales of crap games with dismal graphics. All I'm saying is that releasing a slower console doesn't immediatly doom you.
Sony risks shipping hardware that is outdated at the day of launch. Where to start?
1. Computer hardware obsolescence does not apply to consoles. While PC developers simply demand newer hardware, console developers use existing hardware better. Hence Ico, GT4, GTA:SA and SH3 on a console with 300Mhz processing power and 32MB RAM.
2. Consoles only compete with each other. If you take the final specs of this generation of consoles and release one a year late, it is not obselete as it is in the correct generation. These consoles will be obseleted by the next generation, and I don't think Sony will delay quite that long.
3. Consoles differ in power anyway. Even if the PS3 were the weakest of the three consoles (I have no idea of the specs of the new generation), that would only put it in the same position as the PSX and PS2 were in when they were released. I can't quote figures, but I've got the impression they did ok despite being underpowered.
What could be a problem is that the process of the games getting better and better graphics wise might not start properly until the console was 'in the field'. But outdated hardware has nothing to do with anything in the console world.
This has been commented on briefly already, but due to my pathological hatred of 'blogs' [shudder], I must comment on this comment in excessive detail:
We may be able to get a fix on these underlying forces by triangulating from open source and blogging. As you've probably noticed, they have a lot in common.
Open-Source: A software project in which the source code is freely available. Talented people with an interest contribute. Less talented/interested people test. Less talented/interested people again, use. Blogging [shudder]: People who want to be known online, but are too stupid/lazy to even maintain a home page, and so have to use online blogging services to handle the oh-so-complicated HTML for them, while they (attempt to) regale the world with their incredibly intellectual opinions.
People in open-source and people who you-know-what are the exact opposites of each other. I know this is stating the obvious, but when you-know-whatting is mentioned I am compelled to respond. Thank you for your time.
If HL3 (or HL2, anything that uses Steam) was released on a console, wouldn't that be the first time crippleware was released for a console? It's not even that common on PC is it? Windows XP, Norton and HL2 are the only ones I know of personally. Could such activation even work on a console, they all have Internet access these days, but AFAIK HL2 requires mass downloading to unbreak on first use? Does the 360 have a HDD as standard?
The few people out there who will play PSX, PS2 and PS3 games on their PS3 will have to restart (probably*) PSX and PS2 games. However, they will not need a minimum of three memory cards; they'll only need the one (until it runs out of space). One of the problems with playing both PS2 and PSX games on a PS2 is the need for two types of memory card. A minor problem, but for anyone willing to start their games anew, this problem is gone with the PS3.
Of course, the possible return of fan noise (which neither of the previous consoles have now), the inability (probably*) to use the Glorious Dual Shock 2**, and the imperfect nature of emulation, will still all be problems.
*Third-party hardware unaccounted-for. **Assuming the new controller isn't better. A safe assumtion methinks.
I've head a great day today reading through the comments on this subject, I have an affinity for idiotic arguments, and they are not in short supply today.
I also have an affinity for pointing out the limited areas of such arguments I know to be fact:
(I started a new thread as the idiocy is quite widespread in the comments, there was no one comment to respond to. This is aimed squarely at anyone who thinks this guy deserved more than a slap on the wrist)
The AP is like a house, with talking doors and cookies to steal.
No. Your computer is the house, with cookies (files) to steal. Your computer's shares should be secured, but even if they aren't, as with houses, in many circumstances it would be considered immoral (possibly illegal) to wander around someone's unprotected file system without 'real' permission. The network is the medium by which houses are connected, which is to say air. If the air around your houses is blocked by a gate/moat/forcefield, I will probably not consider entering, but if you have no gate, I may consider walking through said air to your house and knocking on the door to see if I can come in (authenticating to view shares).
In adaptation for increased accuracy, this analogy starts sounding very strange.... but the point is that the house cannot be the network.
The AP is like a car with keys in it
Only in that the owner deserves whatever happens (well, to some extent anyway). Besides that, a distinctly puzzled 'huh?' sums this one up.
[Insert any analogy where the onus is on the connecting party to find a way in, inviting doorways and lack of 'keep out' signs etc.]
Transport-Layer and lower protocols (at least the ones in use on the Internet and on wireless networks) at most require the connecter to ask (to everyone, not anyone in particular) 'can someone give me an IP address/access to a network/a route to this host?'. Something on the network will then answer if they can offer this service. This is the basic model of networking. If it's available, it's there for you to use. This applies all the way up from ARP through DHCP and up to the level of a person with an AP. Computers (except in cracker's hands) do not search for ways into a system, they ask to be let in.
One comment puts an opposing view well: 'You can't take absence of dissent to imply consent.' But what must be kept in mind is that computers, by default, consent if they can, and if they can't, you know it. The fact that a real person doesn't consent every time is irrelevant. In the example of the above quote, the analogy of cookies with a note saying 'take one please' is compared to the analogy of cookies lacking a sign saying 'hands off' (followed by the aforementioned quote). But the lack of a sign isn't an open network: It's a lack of one. Computers either consent or don't, or they don't even hear the request, so your computer (AP in this case) says either 'take one' or 'hands off', but if it is on a network it has to say one or the other. No cookies for guessing which one unsecured routers say.
So, people do not find a way in, they ask to be let in, and are let in, just like in the misinformed doorman scenario, people you don't want may get let in, but it's your fault, and they didn't break in.
There are also some misconceptions about the nature of a few things: It has to be assumed that in a residential area that unsecured networks are unintentionally so
Wrong. Some people just don't mind sharing bandwidth with anyone who can connect. The idea being the free sharing of information (or access to information), whenever feasible, is a Good Thing. Such networks have already had some success.
Also, this is the assumption the Internet works on. While changing the assumption in law for wireless networks will not really affect the Internet a some people think, it would slow down the spawning of an ad-hoc wireless Internet in areas which would potentially support it, and would no longer be con
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, it's not right to expect to be paid for some task or work that you perform or something you create.
... nothing, and the industry has to 'fight back' with things that can't be created by right-clicking and hitting 'Copy'. This will put them in a worse and worse position as compression gets better and average Internet connection speeds get higher, but they will always be the only ones who can mass produce original CDs.
Inevitable post, but I'll bite.
Of course you should be paid for something you create. However, if what you create is a file on a computer, I'll simply create a duplicate, and take that. Since I created it, I can even sell it on!
Obviously if this attitude was enforced, everything would fall apart. Well, with the exception (in the case of music) of live performances, merchandising, original silver CDs, original silver DVDs of concerts, and anything else they could think of. Oh, and of course the fact that digital media like MP3s simply can't compete with well priced physical alternatives, like an original CD with a nice insert with the lyrics. But let's ignore all that (not being sarcastic) for a minute.
How would you prevent endless duplication of files and the destruction the industry? Surely there must be a way? Oh, yeah, licence the product. Now, if copying a copy file is illegal duplication, surely listening to a CD over and over again is too? You are, in a way, creating a copy of the song, as until you play it, it is just a few bumps on a disk. You must pay every time you hear the song. Something like this was tried http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DIVX.
So we have a choice: a world where inferior digital reproductions which cost nothing to create are distributed for
Or a world where everything is regulated by the companies. Which would probably eventually end up with DIVX being forcibly re-introduced, and a continuation of the 'war'.
Adding some morality to the issue on the pirate side we have people forging disks and selling them as the real thing, which is bad for everyone but the pirates. P2P, well, that doesn't really hurt the industry much. On the company side we have them making life tough for legitimate customers to get their hands on the cash, and attacking anyone who gets in their way. And let's not forget suing little girls. Won't somebody think of the children!
How MANY polygons or how fast a framerate might be helped by better coding, but it's not as simplistic as you put it.
I didn't mean to infer it was particularly simple; of course every console is going to have certain limitations, and largely the increases are in polygon count or framerate. But the biggest improvments are in individual game engines, as they start to use the hardware better. The best examples I can think of are the differences between Tomb Raider I and V, and the diffrences between Silent Hill 2 and 3. Tomb Raider showed how much better you could do with the same engine, just by refining it over time. I have no idea if they used the same engine in both SH's, but I don't think there was that much of an increase in polygon count, and yet they made design changes that made a huge difference to the graphics, and it ran just as well on the same hardware.
It's not always about increasing measurable features, either. I've seen games on the Gamecube that are higher res (both screen-wise and texture-wise) and have higher polygon counts and yet don't look as good as the likes of SH3 on the PS2, because SH3 is simply designed better. The best designers figure out the best possible way of making the game convincing, and when they do it well, it makes console specs seem virtually irrelevant.
Compare this to the PC world, where it really is all about higher framerates/polygon counts, and using new features of new graphics cards. If a new feature is added to an engine that is a great improvment, it's usually an implementation of a new DirectX feature.
If you think that the console designers don't have to really think hard about what to put in these things and how often to release consoles you are crazy.
I don't think that. But if you compare two PC's, one with an inferior GPU/CPU, it's pretty obvious which one is going to give better graphics. But if you compare the weaker PS2 to it's much more powerful counterparts, you will sometimes see better graphics, because of better use of the available hardware. Not to mention the fact that there were no doubt huge sales of crap games with dismal graphics. All I'm saying is that releasing a slower console doesn't immediatly doom you.
Sony risks shipping hardware that is outdated at the day of launch.
Where to start?
1. Computer hardware obsolescence does not apply to consoles. While PC developers simply demand newer hardware, console developers use existing hardware better. Hence Ico, GT4, GTA:SA and SH3 on a console with 300Mhz processing power and 32MB RAM.
2. Consoles only compete with each other. If you take the final specs of this generation of consoles and release one a year late, it is not obselete as it is in the correct generation. These consoles will be obseleted by the next generation, and I don't think Sony will delay quite that long.
3. Consoles differ in power anyway. Even if the PS3 were the weakest of the three consoles (I have no idea of the specs of the new generation), that would only put it in the same position as the PSX and PS2 were in when they were released. I can't quote figures, but I've got the impression they did ok despite being underpowered.
What could be a problem is that the process of the games getting better and better graphics wise might not start properly until the console was 'in the field'. But outdated hardware has nothing to do with anything in the console world.
I was only talking about games....
In America, violent content will eventually get you sued for making people shoot other people etc.
:-D
Companies are attacked by stupid legislation.
In China, such content is censored/regulated to prevent this from happening in the first place.
Consumers are attacked by stupid legislation.
Here in Europe, well, everything seems to be trundling along nicely.
This has been commented on briefly already, but due to my pathological hatred of 'blogs' [shudder], I must comment on this comment in excessive detail:
We may be able to get a fix on these underlying forces by triangulating from open source and blogging. As you've probably noticed, they have a lot in common.
Open-Source: A software project in which the source code is freely available. Talented people with an interest contribute. Less talented/interested people test. Less talented/interested people again, use.
Blogging [shudder]: People who want to be known online, but are too stupid/lazy to even maintain a home page, and so have to use online blogging services to handle the oh-so-complicated HTML for them, while they (attempt to) regale the world with their incredibly intellectual opinions.
People in open-source and people who you-know-what are the exact opposites of each other. I know this is stating the obvious, but when you-know-whatting is mentioned I am compelled to respond. Thank you for your time.
If HL3 (or HL2, anything that uses Steam) was released on a console, wouldn't that be the first time crippleware was released for a console? It's not even that common on PC is it? Windows XP, Norton and HL2 are the only ones I know of personally.
Could such activation even work on a console, they all have Internet access these days, but AFAIK HL2 requires mass downloading to unbreak on first use? Does the 360 have a HDD as standard?
The few people out there who will play PSX, PS2 and PS3 games on their PS3 will have to restart (probably*) PSX and PS2 games. However, they will not need a minimum of three memory cards; they'll only need the one (until it runs out of space).
One of the problems with playing both PS2 and PSX games on a PS2 is the need for two types of memory card. A minor problem, but for anyone willing to start their games anew, this problem is gone with the PS3.
Of course, the possible return of fan noise (which neither of the previous consoles have now), the inability (probably*) to use the Glorious Dual Shock 2**, and the imperfect nature of emulation, will still all be problems.
*Third-party hardware unaccounted-for.
**Assuming the new controller isn't better. A safe assumtion methinks.
If it plays PS2 games better than the PS3 (due to memory cards or other issues), and you wish to play PS2 games, it is not obselete.
I've head a great day today reading through the comments on this subject, I have an affinity for idiotic arguments, and they are not in short supply today.
.... but the point is that the house cannot be the network.
I also have an affinity for pointing out the limited areas of such arguments I know to be fact: (I started a new thread as the idiocy is quite widespread in the comments, there was no one comment to respond to. This is aimed squarely at anyone who thinks this guy deserved more than a slap on the wrist)
The AP is like a house, with talking doors and cookies to steal.
No. Your computer is the house, with cookies (files) to steal. Your computer's shares should be secured, but even if they aren't, as with houses, in many circumstances it would be considered immoral (possibly illegal) to wander around someone's unprotected file system without 'real' permission. The network is the medium by which houses are connected, which is to say air. If the air around your houses is blocked by a gate/moat/forcefield, I will probably not consider entering, but if you have no gate, I may consider walking through said air to your house and knocking on the door to see if I can come in (authenticating to view shares).
In adaptation for increased accuracy, this analogy starts sounding very strange
The AP is like a car with keys in it
Only in that the owner deserves whatever happens (well, to some extent anyway). Besides that, a distinctly puzzled 'huh?' sums this one up.
[Insert any analogy where the onus is on the connecting party to find a way in, inviting doorways and lack of 'keep out' signs etc.]
Transport-Layer and lower protocols (at least the ones in use on the Internet and on wireless networks) at most require the connecter to ask (to everyone, not anyone in particular) 'can someone give me an IP address/access to a network/a route to this host?'. Something on the network will then answer if they can offer this service. This is the basic model of networking. If it's available, it's there for you to use. This applies all the way up from ARP through DHCP and up to the level of a person with an AP. Computers (except in cracker's hands) do not search for ways into a system, they ask to be let in.
One comment puts an opposing view well: 'You can't take absence of dissent to imply consent.' But what must be kept in mind is that computers, by default, consent if they can, and if they can't, you know it. The fact that a real person doesn't consent every time is irrelevant. In the example of the above quote, the analogy of cookies with a note saying 'take one please' is compared to the analogy of cookies lacking a sign saying 'hands off' (followed by the aforementioned quote). But the lack of a sign isn't an open network: It's a lack of one. Computers either consent or don't, or they don't even hear the request, so your computer (AP in this case) says either 'take one' or 'hands off', but if it is on a network it has to say one or the other. No cookies for guessing which one unsecured routers say.
So, people do not find a way in, they ask to be let in, and are let in, just like in the misinformed doorman scenario, people you don't want may get let in, but it's your fault, and they didn't break in.
There are also some misconceptions about the nature of a few things:
It has to be assumed that in a residential area that unsecured networks are unintentionally so
Wrong. Some people just don't mind sharing bandwidth with anyone who can connect. The idea being the free sharing of information (or access to information), whenever feasible, is a Good Thing. Such networks have already had some success.
Also, this is the assumption the Internet works on. While changing the assumption in law for wireless networks will not really affect the Internet a some people think, it would slow down the spawning of an ad-hoc wireless Internet in areas which would potentially support it, and would no longer be con