Oh, and those who think that hatred against muslims is extreme right. Consider this. What do nazi's hate? Homosexuals, equal rights for women, jews, etc. What do muslims hate?
What do Christians hate?
(Before anyone else flames me, I believe that both the term 'muslims' and 'christians' describe so many people that I wouldn't be happy pronouncing what it is that either group of millions of people actually hates. I'm just making a point.)
You misinterpret my vagueness as being unable to answer your stated question. That is not the reason. Giving me more specific questions about the approval/development process of console games just makes me less likely to answer the questions, not more likely.
Console development usually involves very restrictive NDAs. Console manufacturers are very secretive - often ludicrously so.
For example, when talking to Sega about Dreamcast development a few years ago, we asked for some general tech info about the hardware - the question we asked first was, does the 3D hardware have a z-buffer? Fairly basic info, you would have thought. We were told we would need to sign a technical NDA to get information like that - we didn't bother asking any more questions.
To me, this seemed ridiculous. (Side note: this wasn't when the DC was new and shiny; this was when it was being totally outsold by PS2, and Sega were basically dead in the water, but they still wouldn't give developers useful info, or even try to be nice to us in any way. I'm not surprised at the fate of the DC, to be honest.)
Sega aren't alone in this behaviour. Why is it like this? I'm not really sure. I could offer some reasons, but like I said, I'd just end up saying something I'll regret. The only thing I'd feel safe saying is that I think some of it is down to a feeling of "Well, everyone else is really secretive, so we probably ought to be too, as that might be a key to success."
Developers sometimes aren't much better. I once went to an interview where I had signed an NDA, but they wouldn't tell me what project I was being interviewed for. As I have a limited threshold for bullshit, I told them what the project was:-). Clearly shocked, they asked me how I knew. I said I'd mentioned the interview to a few friends in the industry, and they'd all said "Oh yeah, that will be for <Game Title> on <platform>." The interviewers actually wanted to know the names of the people who had told me that. They didn't get that it was common knowledge.
A friend of mine went to another UK developer, notorious for their secrecy and paranoia, and basically had his interview conducted in reception because they didn't believe he was a genuine candidate, and they thought he'd come to spy on them.
In short, some companies take themselves way too seriously, but most people could do without the legal hassle of breaking the relevant NDAs, even if the nature of the information seems relatively mundane (e.g. 'What would cause Sony to reject a game design?', etc).
How detailed does a developer's first console game design have to be before a console maker will approve the developer and the game?
Sadly, that's a bit of a 'how long is a piece of string?' question. It varies between manufacturers, and even experienced console devs often don't know if their title design will be approved.
It could be anything from a 2 page Word document to a hastily kludged together game demo - or more usually, a technology demo. Such demos often include a lot of work that has to be thrown away/re-done, and sadly some games never make it past the tech demo stage simply because the developer gets messed about so much (or the developer does some messing about of their own, or some combination of the two).
For example, remember Malice on the Xbox? No, didn't think so. But it was the next big thing at one point. It did ship eventually at least - many games don't.
Anyway, I don't really trust myself to answer in any more detail without getting cross and saying something I'll regret.:-)
Well, it's bad enough if you drop a normal scalpel - imagine dropping a magic torch scalpel from the futar!
As for the girdle, dunno. The whole thing does tend to remind me of an article in Gama Sutra (by Toby Gard, I think) once about how to design a character. They showed an 'enhanced' version of Lara Croft. Basically she had too many accessories and gubbins, and just looked too 'busy'. The security uniform in particular reminds me of it. Those boots don't look very practical, for instance.
If he produced proof, then knowing most console manufacturers he'd probably be breaking an NDA. I think the truth lies somewhere between his high figures and the $2-4k figures. His high figures are not that outlandish though.
For instance, I 'hear' that the PS2 devkits were 30k euros originally. No, I'm not going to offer proof either.
As an aside, in addition to this financial outlay, another point is that you can't even buy a devkit until the console manufacturer has approved your game design (unless you're EA or a company of that size). It's not like going out and buying a PC.
To clarify: by 'devkit', I mean a debug devkit, not a test devkit - as the QA guy said, these are generally much cheaper, and a lot simpler. e.g. a PS2 'tool' devkit and a PS2 teststation are quite different beasts.
If my Nintendo DS had some internal memory, a general OS, and bigger screens it would be a perfect PDA/tablet PC.... 802.11G, WPA support... would be nice also.
Yes, plus a lot of people never use the address bar - their home page is Google, and they just type URLs directly into the Google search box. The first hit is usually the site they want, and so they get to where they want to go, so they've no real incentive to learn a different way of doing things.
Now I'm confused. Most of that post seems to be attacking things I didn't say, or non sequiturs. I just spent about 2 minutes checking that there isn't some post beneath my viewing threshold that you're actually replying to. That's how little sense it made.
For example:
As with recordings, there will be a loss of data in the transition. You just notice more in recordings.
Huh? When I copy data from disk to disk, there will be bitrot? How often does that happen?
At this point, I can recognize someone who doesn't make backups.
The data from my desktop and laptop are automatically backed up to a NAS device every night. My laptop system disk has been backed up with Ghost to the NAS. My desktop system disk is backed up every night with Ghost, also to the NAS. My parents' PCs operate on a mutual backup scheme for the data, and I have Ghost images of the system drives.
Your move.
You are basically betting that Apple's proprietary DRM laced format will be the standard for the rest of your life.
I can't work out if that's something you're saying, or something you think I said. If the latter, then I didn't. If the former, then I don't get it, because I don't use Apple DRM.
I'm not trying to teach you anything, other than you have some sort of personal disorder that causes you to attack a comment on an article you didn't write about a topic you don't have anything to add to.
I call shenanigans. I did have something to add, which was that your comment didn't make sense, and that you'd missed the point of Thomas' article. I didn't realise I needed permission to post on slashdot.
The majority of responses are "I just rip them", because the complaints are completely baseless there isn't much to add.
You make out that the article author is saying "Surprise!" and that it isn't a surprise at all. Well, I can pretty much guarantee you that the vast majority of people who buy music from iTMS don't realise the full ramifications of DRM that the author was pointing out. Slashdot posters are not a representative sample of the population. (And even burning the music to CD and ripping it again just seems dumb - why not buy the CD and make life easier, without the drop in quality?)
Most people who use computers don't understand most of this stuff. With your snide but incorrect comments about backups above, you'd think you realise this. The standard response to losing all the music you've ever bought from iTMS is "you should have backed it up". While I back up my data, most people don't. Thomas is talking about the average user of iTMS, not technically minded people.
My fans don't mind my grammar, they mind it when I post sober.
Rather than explain why you think this "issue" could possibly be signifigant in the long term, you just drop random insults in an attempt to sound overbearingly superior.
Sure, I'll explain as you're having trouble.
The article was about the problem of data that is linked to a particular manufacturer's support/DRM etc. This is a form of vendor lock-in, and the guy was pointing out that most people's music collections have a very long life - i.e. their lifetime, often as not.
You respond with an inappropriate analogy about hard drives. It was stupid and missed the point because nobody's data is locked to the hard drive. It just stores bits. You can copy that data to another hard drive as much as you like, or a USB drive, various flash memory technology, optical media, or whatever is invented in the future. There is competition in the storage market - your claim is basically that one day all manufacturers might stop manufacturing standard storage devices. Compared to the likelihood of Apple's DRM not being available on all commonly used OSs (and right now it isn't, and Apple threatens to sue anyone who tries to change this), the contingency seems remote.
You said "In 20 years nobody will be able to read them!", but it's the data that is important, and you will be able to read that data (because if it's important, you will have transferred it to the storage medium du jour). Of course, even though you have the data, that might not be any use to you if it's DRM locked, and e.g. you just decided to switch to Linux or some other OS not supported by Apple's DRM solution. That's the problem; not that technology evolves.
Your post misspelled
Sorry, I dropped an 's'. You dropped grammar though.
Mine's a Firewire iPod too - as you say, there may be some issue with the Windows version of iTunes. i doubt it's transfer speed anyway - the iTunesDB is about 4Mb - my own software that I wrote to show the tracks on my iPod (frustrated with iTunes? me?:-)) only takes a second or two to load and decode that. For a sync operation where nothing needs to be transferred, all you need is the iTunesDB file from the iPod.
Thanks for the playlist tip though - I might try that. If I ever install iTunes again:)
Slashdot Mirror
What do Christians hate?
(Before anyone else flames me, I believe that both the term 'muslims' and 'christians' describe so many people that I wouldn't be happy pronouncing what it is that either group of millions of people actually hates. I'm just making a point.)
PS. I love the 'etc' part of your list.
You misinterpret my vagueness as being unable to answer your stated question. That is not the reason. Giving me more specific questions about the approval/development process of console games just makes me less likely to answer the questions, not more likely.
Console development usually involves very restrictive NDAs. Console manufacturers are very secretive - often ludicrously so.
For example, when talking to Sega about Dreamcast development a few years ago, we asked for some general tech info about the hardware - the question we asked first was, does the 3D hardware have a z-buffer? Fairly basic info, you would have thought. We were told we would need to sign a technical NDA to get information like that - we didn't bother asking any more questions.
To me, this seemed ridiculous. (Side note: this wasn't when the DC was new and shiny; this was when it was being totally outsold by PS2, and Sega were basically dead in the water, but they still wouldn't give developers useful info, or even try to be nice to us in any way. I'm not surprised at the fate of the DC, to be honest.)
Sega aren't alone in this behaviour. Why is it like this? I'm not really sure. I could offer some reasons, but like I said, I'd just end up saying something I'll regret. The only thing I'd feel safe saying is that I think some of it is down to a feeling of "Well, everyone else is really secretive, so we probably ought to be too, as that might be a key to success."
Developers sometimes aren't much better. I once went to an interview where I had signed an NDA, but they wouldn't tell me what project I was being interviewed for. As I have a limited threshold for bullshit, I told them what the project was :-). Clearly shocked, they asked me how I knew. I said I'd mentioned the interview to a few friends in the industry, and they'd all said "Oh yeah, that will be for <Game Title> on <platform>." The interviewers actually wanted to know the names of the people who had told me that. They didn't get that it was common knowledge.
A friend of mine went to another UK developer, notorious for their secrecy and paranoia, and basically had his interview conducted in reception because they didn't believe he was a genuine candidate, and they thought he'd come to spy on them.
In short, some companies take themselves way too seriously, but most people could do without the legal hassle of breaking the relevant NDAs, even if the nature of the information seems relatively mundane (e.g. 'What would cause Sony to reject a game design?', etc).
Sadly, that's a bit of a 'how long is a piece of string?' question. It varies between manufacturers, and even experienced console devs often don't know if their title design will be approved.
It could be anything from a 2 page Word document to a hastily kludged together game demo - or more usually, a technology demo. Such demos often include a lot of work that has to be thrown away/re-done, and sadly some games never make it past the tech demo stage simply because the developer gets messed about so much (or the developer does some messing about of their own, or some combination of the two).
For example, remember Malice on the Xbox? No, didn't think so. But it was the next big thing at one point. It did ship eventually at least - many games don't.
Anyway, I don't really trust myself to answer in any more detail without getting cross and saying something I'll regret. :-)
I'll just let Old Man Murray do my talking.
Or just read this - I challenge you to make it past the first page.
As for the girdle, dunno. The whole thing does tend to remind me of an article in Gama Sutra (by Toby Gard, I think) once about how to design a character. They showed an 'enhanced' version of Lara Croft. Basically she had too many accessories and gubbins, and just looked too 'busy'. The security uniform in particular reminds me of it. Those boots don't look very practical, for instance.
For instance, I 'hear' that the PS2 devkits were 30k euros originally. No, I'm not going to offer proof either.
As an aside, in addition to this financial outlay, another point is that you can't even buy a devkit until the console manufacturer has approved your game design (unless you're EA or a company of that size). It's not like going out and buying a PC.
To clarify: by 'devkit', I mean a debug devkit, not a test devkit - as the QA guy said, these are generally much cheaper, and a lot simpler. e.g. a PS2 'tool' devkit and a PS2 teststation are quite different beasts.
Thanks, Professor! :-)
Absolutely. In fact, I think we should ban all products like this. Clearly no-one uses them.
Just run NT3.1 instead of XP.
Slow down with the logic there, Captain - this is slashdot.
Also, try using more car analogies.
I just looked up the word, and it said: "inspiring awe or admiration or wonder"
Basically the new features are "we added some new but scarcely amazing features but most importantly, still managed to get it in the same size box".
Then again, another definition was 'overused as a hyperbole for "good."'
Judging from the icons on that control panel, this is a WarioWare toilet? :)
Hey, they said they didn't care about IE :-)
/groupthink
So in other words, if it wasn't a Nintendo DS?
It's not working. Cut to the song.
Woah! Slow down there, egghead!
ADD TROLLING TO DUPES GIVING SLASHDOT
Yes, plus a lot of people never use the address bar - their home page is Google, and they just type URLs directly into the Google search box. The first hit is usually the site they want, and so they get to where they want to go, so they've no real incentive to learn a different way of doing things.
For example:
Huh? When I copy data from disk to disk, there will be bitrot? How often does that happen?
The data from my desktop and laptop are automatically backed up to a NAS device every night. My laptop system disk has been backed up with Ghost to the NAS. My desktop system disk is backed up every night with Ghost, also to the NAS. My parents' PCs operate on a mutual backup scheme for the data, and I have Ghost images of the system drives.
Your move.
I can't work out if that's something you're saying, or something you think I said. If the latter, then I didn't. If the former, then I don't get it, because I don't use Apple DRM.
I call shenanigans. I did have something to add, which was that your comment didn't make sense, and that you'd missed the point of Thomas' article. I didn't realise I needed permission to post on slashdot.
You make out that the article author is saying "Surprise!" and that it isn't a surprise at all. Well, I can pretty much guarantee you that the vast majority of people who buy music from iTMS don't realise the full ramifications of DRM that the author was pointing out. Slashdot posters are not a representative sample of the population. (And even burning the music to CD and ripping it again just seems dumb - why not buy the CD and make life easier, without the drop in quality?)
Most people who use computers don't understand most of this stuff. With your snide but incorrect comments about backups above, you'd think you realise this. The standard response to losing all the music you've ever bought from iTMS is "you should have backed it up". While I back up my data, most people don't. Thomas is talking about the average user of iTMS, not technically minded people.
Suddenly everything becomes clear.
Sure, I'll explain as you're having trouble.
The article was about the problem of data that is linked to a particular manufacturer's support/DRM etc. This is a form of vendor lock-in, and the guy was pointing out that most people's music collections have a very long life - i.e. their lifetime, often as not.
You respond with an inappropriate analogy about hard drives. It was stupid and missed the point because nobody's data is locked to the hard drive. It just stores bits. You can copy that data to another hard drive as much as you like, or a USB drive, various flash memory technology, optical media, or whatever is invented in the future. There is competition in the storage market - your claim is basically that one day all manufacturers might stop manufacturing standard storage devices. Compared to the likelihood of Apple's DRM not being available on all commonly used OSs (and right now it isn't, and Apple threatens to sue anyone who tries to change this), the contingency seems remote.
You said "In 20 years nobody will be able to read them!", but it's the data that is important, and you will be able to read that data (because if it's important, you will have transferred it to the storage medium du jour). Of course, even though you have the data, that might not be any use to you if it's DRM locked, and e.g. you just decided to switch to Linux or some other OS not supported by Apple's DRM solution. That's the problem; not that technology evolves.
Sorry, I dropped an 's'. You dropped grammar though.
Thanks for the playlist tip though - I might try that. If I ever install iTunes again :)
Yeah, but the advantage of doing it this way is that the 2nd transition (from risc back to risc) is really quick!
Because the math geeks won't pay for the fab plants.
Yes. You're the math geek - you do the math.
It's a fine attitude. And certainly why I bang nails in with my forehead.