Oh wait. They don't. I hate corporations as much as the next guy, but to fear corporations is silly. Their ads are very easily ignored, and their products too. I've watched Obama on youtube, and it was no big deal. I don't have to hide in fear.
Strawman argument. This has nothing to do with fear.
Its the principle of the thing. As a free society we should have the right and ability to directly access our government records from our government, without being subject to interference or terms of any sort whatsoever by 3rd party companies, no matter how benign the terms or how popular their website is.
If the government wants to outsource hosting to another company that's fine, but then its still on our terms of service. To submit to -their- terms is absurd. Eventually that will bite you in the ass.
Whether its because google becomes capital-E evil, or it simply goes bankrupt, the government shouldn't rely on a 'free service' for the retention and public distribution of its records.
As I said, I have no problem with the video being available on google, but if I don't want to patronize youtube to view my governments records/correspondance/etc I shouldn't have to.
Its essentially the same argument for why governments should use open formats for documents.
Saying, "The government should be forced to re-invent the wheel
They dont have to re-invent the wheel. They merely have to buy a copy of the wheel.
instead of using a popular free service" is silly. YouTube is perfectly acceptable in most respects.
Youtube isn't "free" in any sense except that the video watchers don't have to pay money directly to google.
The government should be providing access to its video content for "free" in a much broader sense. We are paying for through our taxes after all. We shouldn't be subject to corporate sponsorship, corporate data-mining/tracking etc.
If the government wants to release copies to youtube, fox news, hulu, netflix, xbox live, and whatever else that's fine, but they should also be hosting and providing copies themselves, directly and freely.
It's not a good idea to base a decision on irrelevant data. It unnecessarily limits your options.
What do you think going through a stack of resume's to make a shortlist for interviews is? Its a deliberate process of limiting your options until you have a manageable number.
If I've got 40 suitable resumes and want to interview 10 people, I have to eliminate 30 names. If google pulls up a hit of people in the area with one of them doing heroin, that's one down. 29 to go. If another is some fundy-nutbar denouncing gays... 28 to go. It doesn't really matter if its the right person... I need to knock 30 names of the list. And this is 'potentially relevant' data. It beats picking names at random.
When you've got too many options and you have narrow it down: using "potentially irrelevant data" is better than using "using no data at all".
There is this concept called considering the source.
Yes there is. Until the world at large does it, however, its not going to help.
If the poster is anonymous and makes claims without backing them up, then a person would have to be an idiot to ascribe any weight to them.
So everyone on the planet (except you and me of course) are idiots. That's not going to help much though, since all the idiots around us make tons of decisions that directly affect us.
Case closed.
Not until we get rid of the idiots. I wouldn't hold my breath.
My question is, how can you be sure that the information that Google provides is actually about the person you searched for?
And the answer to your question is, you can't, but it doesn't matter.
Have you ever blown an interview? where you were the best candidate for the job, but just screwed up or maybe life happened that day? Maybe that's the day have a car accident on the way in that makes you late or you get news that a close relative has died and your shaken up? And it ruins your 'first impression'. Whether you show up or call to reschedule either way you've already tainted your first impression and they may pass on you... sure maybe you are really a very conscientious individual... or maybe your 'that guy who's always late with outlandish excuses and drama'. They can't be bothered to find out... the impression was made, and the candidates are lined up out the door. Next please. Its simpler and less risky.
Same thing with the internet. If they find negative information about someone who shares your name, will they bother to see if its 'really you' or not? Its not worth the hassle if candidates are lined up out the door. They'll shortlist the ones that meet the requirements that make a good impression and that include not being potentially linked to some internet fiasco.
I don't care if you actively want this. I don't care if you simply don't care. But I don't want this.
All 3 of us can be satisfied: make it explicitly opt-in and enforce it.
Then: Then I don't have to be in it. People who don't care can flip a coin. People who actively want it can run around stuffing their own information into any portal that will accept it.
Why are you being hostile to the ones that don't want it?
Time-limited, nagging antivirus. My poor grandmother did not know what to do with this. Time-limited office trial. Solution: install open office. Voila, no more complaints.
And what has that got to do with Vista? If she had XP it would be the same situation.
Loads of 3rd party crap, nagging about updates and registration on every startup. This is not MSs fault, but it would not have been a problem with Ubuntu or similar
Again this has nothing to do with Vista. You would have experienced the same with XP. This is what you get for buying consumer crap from an OEM like Dell.
If you'd ordered the PC from a local vendor, they'd have install Vista and nothing else or whatever you wanted, and you would have paid about the same.
Missing codecs. Solution: installing CCCP. This is not actually any more difficult in windows, if you know that you ought to get CCCP. Just hunting on the 'net for windows codecs is a good way to pick up virii. There is less risk of picking up virus if you hunt for a Ubuntu repo with codecs and decss (not illegal here, btw).
1) Actually, Vista Home Premium and Ultimate both include DVD decoding codecs.
2) Vista Home Basic, and Vista Business do not, and if you try to play a DVD you should end up directed to the microsoft.com page
where you can buy either the Roxio or Cyberlink codecs (either for $15.00) Granted its not free, but odds are you have home premium with your new home PC, and it IS a proprietary operating system, and those codecs...so what do you expect?
In any case this is where grandma should have ended up...not on the slummy side of the net googling for free codec packs amongst the malware sites.
-------
Bottom line your grandmother didn't have any Vista related issues. She would have been just as 'tripped up' if she could have bought an XP PC from the same OEM.
And if Linux ever becomes 'mainstream' on the desktop, and 3rd party vendors make Linux versions of their crud, you can bet that Dell will ship it full of it too.
Your negative windows vista experience really had nothing to do with windows. The trialware/nagware was the fault of your OEM not MS, and not Vista. Hell, even the DVD codec issue is sort of wonky. If the OEM sold you a PC they thought you would play DVDs on they should have liceneced and preinstalled codec for you, or at least sold you home premium.
Just grab the sticker off an old, dead laptop. I've never had trouble using those licenses for VMs.
Yes, it works, and I've done it too, but its not within the terms of the EULA.
(Note I'm not saying its illegal, nor am I defending the validity of the EULA, I'm just pointing out that its not within the terms of the EULA.)
Besides, that approach applies to Mac's also. You can buy an old dead Apple G4/G5 tower with fried guts for next to nothing too. It came with OSX so your good to go. And when you stick your hackintosh guts into it you can claim you are running your legally obtained copy of OSX on an "Apple-Labeled System" so you aren't even in technical violation of the EULA.
Therefor Apple won't let me develop for the iPhone.
Your refusal to buy the readily available and very inexpensive tools you need is not apple's refusal to let you develop.
What's next? Refusing to buy a philips screwdriver when you already have a flathead represents Fisher Prices refusal to let you change the batteries in your toy robot.
Buy a used G4 tower or Mac Mini for a couple hundred bucks and you are good to go. Get over yourself.
If you think Apple requiring you to supply yourself with a mac running OSX is being 'hostile' you've NEVER seen 'hostile'. Go get a PS3 dev kit. It was $20,500 for the first couple years, and is still some 10k+ today.
Or look at the hoops you needed to jump through to develop for the SNES or N64. You didn't buy a kit, you 'applied for a license to be a developer to give you the priviledge of being allowed to buy a kit', and that application wasn't a formality... you pretty much had to have a working prototype of a game idea Nintendo liked and a proven track record of being able to successfully develop and find publishers. Meaning, if you wanted a license, you had to have already established your COMPANY* as a successful games development house. Then you signed an NDA where you weren't allowed to say squat without Nintendo's approval, and you agreed to a shopping list of pretty draconian conditions.
(individuals were right out of the question, and if your 'company' is 2 guys in a rec-room office... forget it. You needed genuine commercial space and staff.)
And the price? If you have to ask you can't afford it.
This whole apple is hostile to iphone developers theory is ridiculous.
And I take it you're assuming NOA doesn't trust NOE and NCL any more than NOE trusts NCL.
Its not a question of trust.
You don't consult a Japanese lawyer in Japan on the Japanese Bar to give legal advice on something in the US. He would rightfully tell you to get an American lawyer.
Each division has to do its own work for its own region.
I would imagine that translation from Parisian to Quebecois or from Peninsular to Mexican would be cheaper than from Japanese to Parisian, Japanese to Peninsular, and Japanese to the Queen's English.
Cheaper sure but it still has to be done.
My question remains: why can't game publishers be more up front about these?
That's actually a new question that you haven't asked before.
The answer? Its off message. Legal... they don't ever want to comment publicly on things... it might jeopardize negotiations or lawsuits or agreements or settlements or expose the company to liability in some other way. And besides all public communication goes through PR which doesn't want to talk about that kind of stuff ever... they only want to talk about what is out now or coming soon...stay on message, build the hype, get people talking about the new release.
Between them, frank honest disclosure of why business decisions are made behind the scenes are rare, in any industry.
If walmart drops a brand because the margin on the next brand is a nickle more, or the supplier doesn't want to deal with walmart, or the supplier is suing walmart, or walmart is suing the supplier, etc... the public statement is always the same... "The new brand we're carrying is a superior quality product and represents a better value for our valued customers." or some such gibberish.
Or did you mean, if I spend several hundreds of dollars I can get a Windows license bundled (and per the EULA tied to that specific bundled hardware) for $10 more than the same machine with no OS... (although that doesn't factor in the shovelware 3rd parties pay to have pre-installed on the windows licenced hardware (effectively partially subsidizing it).
Its you that are having a fantasy. A copy of windows at full retail that isn't crippled or eula restricted to not being run in a VM or moved to new hardware... runs $300 to $400.
I have converted 3 people to *nix since October. All three came from the 'used Xp just fine, but what is this?' crowd, right after getting a new PC with Vista pre-installed. All three have commented on how easy their computers are to use now, and wished they had heard of this *nix thing years ago.
What exactly did these people find so hard about Vista? Seriously?
I mean if they could 'easily' handle switching Office programs, switching email programs, switching browsers, switching to any of linuxes file explorers, switching to Gnome or KDE windowing conventions, using amarok instead of itunes or windows media player, learning the new terminology, figuring out Kopete or Pidgin instead of MSN, got their wifi going, set up their own printers, figured out how to get their all in one scanner to ocr something, shared some files over the network with Samba...
but what... you expect me to beleive they were hopelessly befuddled by Vista's "Network and Sharing Center" or that that "Add/Remove Programs" is now "Programs and Features"... or that when they install something they have to click 'Allow'.
Give me a break.
The only rational explanation I can think of is one of expectations. They expected Vista to be identical so the slightest change is reported as 'confusing and hard' and they expected Linux to be incomprehensibly different so the slightest familiarity is 'surprisingly easy and welcome'.
But in 'absolute' terms anyone willing to take the effort to poke around in a Linux distro to figure things out will cope just fine in Vista with the same mindset.
Uh, you do realize that you can install Debian on it, and install the SDK on Debian, and consequently do all the development you'd like right from your phone, right?:)
Touche. Not that I'd ever want to do development right on the phone.:)
Sure, it isn't COMPLETELY perfect, but I'm not aware of any other phone-like device that comes close to this level of flexibility.
Oh I agree. The Android stuff is way more open and flexible than anything else out there. I just don't think its justified to call the iphone 'developer hostile'. Less open than the G1 for sure... but not 'developer hostile'.
I could find examples all day of games released in Europe but not North America, even on GameCube and Wii. Do you want me to paste the list now?
The reasons will be the same for all of them localization/local distribution costs or licensing to be higher than what is required to make it worthwhile. It's never a case "We don't want you to have it."
That's $4,000, and Nintendo could have made that back with (comparatively) few sales.
Total costs for localization, will easily run 50k to 100k and beyond if any changes are required to the game in response to ESRB, legal, or licensing issues. Remember, just having the legal team for NOA go through it screen by screen to ASSESS what issues there MIGHT be will cost far more than 4k.
To be released in France you need French manuals; and I think Nintendo releases the manuals in Spanish too in Spain.
France french and Quebec french are more different than UK and US english. Same is probably true for Spain vs Mexican/American Spanish.
Which would differ from the UK/France box how?
Well it would need the ESRB rating on it for starters, and probably different wording for the legal disclaimers and trademarks used etc. They have to confirm or obtain the rights to distribute the artwork in North America, etc.
So why did projected sales in Europe justify the costs of rating and localization, yet projected sales in Europe justify the costs of rating and reprinting the already localized title?
Good question. I don't know. Maybe there was a licensing issue.
But you already do own a computer Or you wouldn't be posting here in the first place.
I post from my Android G1 you insensitive clod. My Android G1 that I'd like to develop for but its 'developer hostile' because I have to buy an expensive PC to do it.:)
Even with Windows Mobile, I could just run Windows in a VM on my Linux or OS X desktop. No need for new hardware.
You have an OSX desktop? Then what are you complaining about. You don't need to buy anything.
There's absolutely no technical reason Apple couldn't release a multiplatform devel kit, even if it were just OS X in a VM.
Sure and if they did that they'd charge $600 for it.
You -are- getting a license of OSX with more rights than a regular copy of OSX, after all. 1) it runs in a VM. You need OSX server for that normally. 2) it runs on non-Macs. retail boxes of OSX require that it run on a Mac, meaning its really just an upgrade price because any mac you already have came with a previous version of the OS. 3) it will be supported on a wide array of hardware and software that Apple normally doesn't touch with a 10 foot pole.
I'm sure they'll have no trouble at all justifying the extra $400 in value over the regular retail OSX 'upgrade' boxes they sell. Its also the same price as a Mac mini.
Really? I'm still using XP and still haven't run into any issues with security or viruses. My mother, on the other hand, got a new computer with Vista and promptly filled it with keyloggers and adware.
You point?
Your mom would fill OSX, Linux, and OpenBSD with keyloggers and adware too if I sent her emails with suitable malware attached and promised her free crap; even if she didn't know the root password she would at least compromise her user profile, with keyloggers, adware popups, and expose all her documents.
The user is the ultimate security weakness in any system.
Vista is however, much more secure than XP. Higher priv processes and memory are better protected from lower priv stuff.
You aren't running as administrator by default. In XP, you have to choose to do that, and if you do, tons of stuff doesn't work. Vista by forcing the issue, means Vista compatible software works within this limitation.
Requiring driver signing can block a host of rootkits and other malware from installing. (XP again can require driver signing, but again Vista's pushed the issue, and its something most of us can actually turn on with Vista. Turn it on in XP and half your hardware doesn't have certified drivers.
Etc, etc, etc...
To make a Three Little Pigs reference... XP is a house made of straw, Vista (and Linux and OSX) is a house made of bricks. Any will let the wolf in if the occupants open the front door, but at least Vista doesn't blow apart when you sneeze on it.
If they can manage to use it. I can't tell you how often my coworkers have been telling me they just can't figure out their home computer because of Vista. I've converted more people to Linux that way.
They couldn't figure out Vista, but made the switch to linux without a hitch. Not likely.
Assuming what you said is true then I have to conclude they have a linux advocate (probably you) assisting them over the bumps, pointing them where they need to go, giving them the basics, etc. I'm sure if someone spent the same or less effort to just show them how to use Vista they would have coped just as well.
For all that, I think its great that you've converted them to Linux. But I've converted a few people linux myself and if they are the type of people who can't figure out Vista coming from XP, then they'll need at least as much help figuring out Linux, and probably more. The only way someone could find the switch to linux easier is if someone is willing to give them that help with Linux but not Vista.
You made a point about Earthbound, but what about Kuru Kuru Kururin? That game ended up released in Ireland and the UK, but not the US and Canada.
From wikipedia:
"Kuru Kuru Kururin was released in Japan and Europe but not in North America. However, as the GBA has no region lockout, a North American GBA unit can be used to play either the Japanese or European version."
You hardly need to pirate it, or even mod your device to play it, just find a company that will ship internationally and order a copy.
As to why it didn't get properly released in NA, that probably falls into my first criteria. Localization costs. (Granted it was english, but UK english is not automatically the same as US english) then then it needs to go through the ESRB for a rating. To be released in Canada you need French manuals; and I think Nintendo releases the manuals in Spanish too in North America. Then you need to design the 'North American' box.
And who knows, there may have been some wonky licensing issue with music or something. Where they got the rights in Europe but not in the US. It happens. A lot.
And its a bit of an odd game, so maybe projected sales in NA simply didn't justify the costs.
The Android devel kit will run on whatever hardware you already have. They don't force you to buy anything new.
So if I don't own a computer but want to do G1 development... oh wait I have to buy a computer.
Look, I concede that the G1 dev kit runs on any computer vs the iPhone dev kit which only runs on OSX or the Windows Mobile dev kit which runs on Windows... and yes that makes the G1 dev kit a little more attractive.
But it is absurd to call the iPhone 'developer hostile' simply because you need a computer that runs OSX to run tools that run on OSX to ultimately develop software for a platform that runs OSX.
That is not hostile, no more than requiring a Windows PC to develop Xbox live apps is hostile. (And XBLA is considered one of the most developer -friendly- things going.)
The G1 may be unusually open, but it still requires you buy 'a computer', and it certainly doesn't make the alternatives 'hostile'.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh wait. They don't. I hate corporations as much as the next guy, but to fear corporations is silly. Their ads are very easily ignored, and their products too. I've watched Obama on youtube, and it was no big deal. I don't have to hide in fear.
Strawman argument. This has nothing to do with fear.
Its the principle of the thing. As a free society we should have the right and ability to directly access our government records from our government, without being subject to interference or terms of any sort whatsoever by 3rd party companies, no matter how benign the terms or how popular their website is.
If the government wants to outsource hosting to another company that's fine, but then its still on our terms of service. To submit to -their- terms is absurd. Eventually that will bite you in the ass.
Whether its because google becomes capital-E evil, or it simply goes bankrupt, the government shouldn't rely on a 'free service' for the retention and public distribution of its records.
As I said, I have no problem with the video being available on google, but if I don't want to patronize youtube to view my governments records/correspondance/etc I shouldn't have to.
Its essentially the same argument for why governments should use open formats for documents.
Saying, "The government should be forced to re-invent the wheel
They dont have to re-invent the wheel. They merely have to buy a copy of the wheel.
instead of using a popular free service" is silly. YouTube is perfectly acceptable in most respects.
Youtube isn't "free" in any sense except that the video watchers don't have to pay money directly to google.
The government should be providing access to its video content for "free" in a much broader sense. We are paying for through our taxes after all. We shouldn't be subject to corporate sponsorship, corporate data-mining/tracking etc.
If the government wants to release copies to youtube, fox news, hulu, netflix, xbox live, and whatever else that's fine, but they should also be hosting and providing copies themselves, directly and freely.
None of the other smartphone platforms require superfluous hardware purchases
The fact that they require you to supply a Mac is not 'hostile to developers'.
You could just throw 30 resumes away. That way you won't hire unlucky people.... :)
I suppose. It worked for a certain Ringworld expedition...
It's not a good idea to base a decision on irrelevant data. It unnecessarily limits your options.
What do you think going through a stack of resume's to make a shortlist for interviews is? Its a deliberate process of limiting your options until you have a manageable number.
If I've got 40 suitable resumes and want to interview 10 people, I have to eliminate 30 names. If google pulls up a hit of people in the area with one of them doing heroin, that's one down. 29 to go. If another is some fundy-nutbar denouncing gays... 28 to go. It doesn't really matter if its the right person... I need to knock 30 names of the list. And this is 'potentially relevant' data. It beats picking names at random.
When you've got too many options and you have narrow it down: using "potentially irrelevant data" is better than using "using no data at all".
There is this concept called considering the source.
Yes there is. Until the world at large does it, however, its not going to help.
If the poster is anonymous and makes claims without backing them up, then a person would have to be an idiot to ascribe any weight to them.
So everyone on the planet (except you and me of course) are idiots. That's not going to help much though, since all the idiots around us make tons of decisions that directly affect us.
Case closed.
Not until we get rid of the idiots. I wouldn't hold my breath.
My question is, how can you be sure that the information that Google provides is actually about the person you searched for?
And the answer to your question is, you can't, but it doesn't matter.
Have you ever blown an interview? where you were the best candidate for the job, but just screwed up or maybe life happened that day? Maybe that's the day have a car accident on the way in that makes you late or you get news that a close relative has died and your shaken up? And it ruins your 'first impression'. Whether you show up or call to reschedule either way you've already tainted your first impression and they may pass on you... sure maybe you are really a very conscientious individual... or maybe your 'that guy who's always late with outlandish excuses and drama'. They can't be bothered to find out... the impression was made, and the candidates are lined up out the door. Next please. Its simpler and less risky.
Same thing with the internet. If they find negative information about someone who shares your name, will they bother to see if its 'really you' or not? Its not worth the hassle if candidates are lined up out the door. They'll shortlist the ones that meet the requirements that make a good impression and that include not being potentially linked to some internet fiasco.
Unwanted to whom?
Unwanted to me.
I don't care if you actively want this.
I don't care if you simply don't care.
But I don't want this.
All 3 of us can be satisfied: make it explicitly opt-in and enforce it.
Then:
Then I don't have to be in it.
People who don't care can flip a coin.
People who actively want it can run around stuffing their own information into any portal that will accept it.
Why are you being hostile to the ones that don't want it?
"The RIAA has announced a new severance package . . ."
I think its dubbed "Head and Shoulders"... er no that's a shampoo... "Head from Shoulders"!
Time-limited, nagging antivirus. My poor grandmother did not know what to do with this.
Time-limited office trial. Solution: install open office. Voila, no more complaints.
And what has that got to do with Vista? If she had XP it would be the same situation.
Loads of 3rd party crap, nagging about updates and registration on every startup. This is not MSs fault, but it would not have been a problem with Ubuntu or similar
Again this has nothing to do with Vista. You would have experienced the same with XP. This is what you get for buying consumer crap from an OEM like Dell.
If you'd ordered the PC from a local vendor, they'd have install Vista and nothing else or whatever you wanted, and you would have paid about the same.
Missing codecs. Solution: installing CCCP. This is not actually any more difficult in windows, if you know that you ought to get CCCP. Just hunting on the 'net for windows codecs is a good way to pick up virii. There is less risk of picking up virus if you hunt for a Ubuntu repo with codecs and decss (not illegal here, btw).
1) Actually, Vista Home Premium and Ultimate both include DVD decoding codecs.
2) Vista Home Basic, and Vista Business do not, and if you try to play a DVD you should end up directed to the microsoft.com page
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowsmedia/player/plugins.aspx#DVDDecoder
where you can buy either the Roxio or Cyberlink codecs (either for $15.00) Granted its not free, but odds are you have home premium with your new home PC, and it IS a proprietary operating system, and those codecs...so what do you expect?
In any case this is where grandma should have ended up...not on the slummy side of the net googling for free codec packs amongst the malware sites.
-------
Bottom line your grandmother didn't have any Vista related issues. She would have been just as 'tripped up' if she could have bought an XP PC from the same OEM.
And if Linux ever becomes 'mainstream' on the desktop, and 3rd party vendors make Linux versions of their crud, you can bet that Dell will ship it full of it too.
Your negative windows vista experience really had nothing to do with windows. The trialware/nagware was the fault of your OEM not MS, and not Vista. Hell, even the DVD codec issue is sort of wonky. If the OEM sold you a PC they thought you would play DVDs on they should have liceneced and preinstalled codec for you, or at least sold you home premium.
I don't know if you're right or not. I don't care, and I doubt Microsoft does either.
Apple does care, and they're definitely hostile to hackintoshes.
Neither goes after home users over it.
I'd bet both would call either invalid if they ever audited your licenses 'BSA style'.
Just grab the sticker off an old, dead laptop. I've never had trouble using those licenses for VMs.
Yes, it works, and I've done it too, but its not within the terms of the EULA.
(Note I'm not saying its illegal, nor am I defending the validity of the EULA, I'm just pointing out that its not within the terms of the EULA.)
Besides, that approach applies to Mac's also. You can buy an old dead Apple G4/G5 tower with fried guts for next to nothing too. It came with OSX so your good to go. And when you stick your hackintosh guts into it you can claim you are running your legally obtained copy of OSX on an "Apple-Labeled System" so you aren't even in technical violation of the EULA.
Right? Yeah. Right. :)
Therefor Apple won't let me develop for the iPhone.
Your refusal to buy the readily available and very inexpensive tools you need is not apple's refusal to let you develop.
What's next? Refusing to buy a philips screwdriver when you already have a flathead represents Fisher Prices refusal to let you change the batteries in your toy robot.
Buy a used G4 tower or Mac Mini for a couple hundred bucks and you are good to go. Get over yourself.
If you think Apple requiring you to supply yourself with a mac running OSX is being 'hostile' you've NEVER seen 'hostile'. Go get a PS3 dev kit. It was $20,500 for the first couple years, and is still some 10k+ today.
Or look at the hoops you needed to jump through to develop for the SNES or N64. You didn't buy a kit, you 'applied for a license to be a developer to give you the priviledge of being allowed to buy a kit', and that application wasn't a formality... you pretty much had to have a working prototype of a game idea Nintendo liked and a proven track record of being able to successfully develop and find publishers. Meaning, if you wanted a license, you had to have already established your COMPANY* as a successful games development house. Then you signed an NDA where you weren't allowed to say squat without Nintendo's approval, and you agreed to a shopping list of pretty draconian conditions.
(individuals were right out of the question, and if your 'company' is 2 guys in a rec-room office... forget it. You needed genuine commercial space and staff.)
And the price? If you have to ask you can't afford it.
This whole apple is hostile to iphone developers theory is ridiculous.
And I take it you're assuming NOA doesn't trust NOE and NCL any more than NOE trusts NCL.
Its not a question of trust.
You don't consult a Japanese lawyer in Japan on the Japanese Bar to give legal advice on something in the US. He would rightfully tell you to get an American lawyer.
Each division has to do its own work for its own region.
I would imagine that translation from Parisian to Quebecois or from Peninsular to Mexican would be cheaper than from Japanese to Parisian, Japanese to Peninsular, and Japanese to the Queen's English.
Cheaper sure but it still has to be done.
My question remains: why can't game publishers be more up front about these?
That's actually a new question that you haven't asked before.
The answer? Its off message. Legal... they don't ever want to comment publicly on things... it might jeopardize negotiations or lawsuits or agreements or settlements or expose the company to liability in some other way. And besides all public communication goes through PR which doesn't want to talk about that kind of stuff ever... they only want to talk about what is out now or coming soon...stay on message, build the hype, get people talking about the new release.
Between them, frank honest disclosure of why business decisions are made behind the scenes are rare, in any industry.
If walmart drops a brand because the margin on the next brand is a nickle more, or the supplier doesn't want to deal with walmart, or the supplier is suing walmart, or walmart is suing the supplier, etc... the public statement is always the same... "The new brand we're carrying is a superior quality product and represents a better value for our valued customers." or some such gibberish.
$10 Windows license vs $600 fantasy OS X licence?
Where can I get a $10 windows license in the US?
Or did you mean, if I spend several hundreds of dollars I can get a Windows license bundled (and per the EULA tied to that specific bundled hardware) for $10 more than the same machine with no OS... (although that doesn't factor in the shovelware 3rd parties pay to have pre-installed on the windows licenced hardware (effectively partially subsidizing it).
Its you that are having a fantasy. A copy of windows at full retail that isn't crippled or eula restricted to not being run in a VM or moved to new hardware... runs $300 to $400.
And make sure you follow your $500 Ethernet cable's directional markings to allow for optimal signal transfer!
Bah, its not even snagless.
I have converted 3 people to *nix since October. All three came from the 'used Xp just fine, but what is this?' crowd, right after getting a new PC with Vista pre-installed. All three have commented on how easy their computers are to use now, and wished they had heard of this *nix thing years ago.
What exactly did these people find so hard about Vista? Seriously?
I mean if they could 'easily' handle switching Office programs, switching email programs, switching browsers, switching to any of linuxes file explorers, switching to Gnome or KDE windowing conventions, using amarok instead of itunes or windows media player, learning the new terminology, figuring out Kopete or Pidgin instead of MSN, got their wifi going, set up their own printers, figured out how to get their all in one scanner to ocr something, shared some files over the network with Samba...
but what... you expect me to beleive they were hopelessly befuddled by Vista's "Network and Sharing Center" or that that "Add/Remove Programs" is now "Programs and Features"... or that when they install something they have to click 'Allow'.
Give me a break.
The only rational explanation I can think of is one of expectations. They expected Vista to be identical so the slightest change is reported as 'confusing and hard' and they expected Linux to be incomprehensibly different so the slightest familiarity is 'surprisingly easy and welcome'.
But in 'absolute' terms anyone willing to take the effort to poke around in a Linux distro to figure things out will cope just fine in Vista with the same mindset.
Uh, you do realize that you can install Debian on it, and install the SDK on Debian, and consequently do all the development you'd like right from your phone, right? :)
Touche. Not that I'd ever want to do development right on the phone. :)
Sure, it isn't COMPLETELY perfect, but I'm not aware of any other phone-like device that comes close to this level of flexibility.
Oh I agree. The Android stuff is way more open and flexible than anything else out there. I just don't think its justified to call the iphone 'developer hostile'. Less open than the G1 for sure... but not 'developer hostile'.
I could find examples all day of games released in Europe but not North America, even on GameCube and Wii. Do you want me to paste the list now?
The reasons will be the same for all of them localization/local distribution costs or licensing to be higher than what is required to make it worthwhile. It's never a case "We don't want you to have it."
That's $4,000, and Nintendo could have made that back with (comparatively) few sales.
Total costs for localization, will easily run 50k to 100k and beyond if any changes are required to the game in response to ESRB, legal, or licensing issues. Remember, just having the legal team for NOA go through it screen by screen to ASSESS what issues there MIGHT be will cost far more than 4k.
To be released in France you need French manuals; and I think Nintendo releases the manuals in Spanish too in Spain.
France french and Quebec french are more different than UK and US english. Same is probably true for Spain vs Mexican/American Spanish.
Which would differ from the UK/France box how?
Well it would need the ESRB rating on it for starters, and probably different wording for the legal disclaimers and trademarks used etc. They have to confirm or obtain the rights to distribute the artwork in North America, etc.
So why did projected sales in Europe justify the costs of rating and localization, yet projected sales in Europe justify the costs of rating and reprinting the already localized title?
Good question. I don't know. Maybe there was a licensing issue.
But you already do own a computer Or you wouldn't be posting here in the first place.
I post from my Android G1 you insensitive clod. My Android G1 that I'd like to develop for but its 'developer hostile' because I have to buy an expensive PC to do it. :)
Even with Windows Mobile, I could just run Windows in a VM on my Linux or OS X desktop. No need for new hardware.
You have an OSX desktop? Then what are you complaining about. You don't need to buy anything.
There's absolutely no technical reason Apple couldn't release a multiplatform devel kit, even if it were just OS X in a VM.
Sure and if they did that they'd charge $600 for it.
You -are- getting a license of OSX with more rights than a regular copy of OSX, after all.
1) it runs in a VM. You need OSX server for that normally.
2) it runs on non-Macs. retail boxes of OSX require that it run on a Mac, meaning its really just an upgrade price because any mac you already have came with a previous version of the OS.
3) it will be supported on a wide array of hardware and software that Apple normally doesn't touch with a 10 foot pole.
I'm sure they'll have no trouble at all justifying the extra $400 in value over the regular retail OSX 'upgrade' boxes they sell. Its also the same price as a Mac mini.
Really? I'm still using XP and still haven't run into any issues with security or viruses. My mother, on the other hand, got a new computer with Vista and promptly filled it with keyloggers and adware.
You point?
Your mom would fill OSX, Linux, and OpenBSD with keyloggers and adware too if I sent her emails with suitable malware attached and promised her free crap; even if she didn't know the root password she would at least compromise her user profile, with keyloggers, adware popups, and expose all her documents.
The user is the ultimate security weakness in any system.
Vista is however, much more secure than XP. Higher priv processes and memory are better protected from lower priv stuff.
You aren't running as administrator by default. In XP, you have to choose to do that, and if you do, tons of stuff doesn't work. Vista by forcing the issue, means Vista compatible software works within this limitation.
Requiring driver signing can block a host of rootkits and other malware from installing. (XP again can require driver signing, but again Vista's pushed the issue, and its something most of us can actually turn on with Vista. Turn it on in XP and half your hardware doesn't have certified drivers.
Etc, etc, etc ...
To make a Three Little Pigs reference... XP is a house made of straw, Vista (and Linux and OSX) is a house made of bricks. Any will let the wolf in if the occupants open the front door, but at least Vista doesn't blow apart when you sneeze on it.
If they can manage to use it. I can't tell you how often my coworkers have been telling me they just can't figure out their home computer because of Vista. I've converted more people to Linux that way.
They couldn't figure out Vista, but made the switch to linux without a hitch. Not likely.
Assuming what you said is true then I have to conclude they have a linux advocate (probably you) assisting them over the bumps, pointing them where they need to go, giving them the basics, etc. I'm sure if someone spent the same or less effort to just show them how to use Vista they would have coped just as well.
For all that, I think its great that you've converted them to Linux. But I've converted a few people linux myself and if they are the type of people who can't figure out Vista coming from XP, then they'll need at least as much help figuring out Linux, and probably more. The only way someone could find the switch to linux easier is if someone is willing to give them that help with Linux but not Vista.
You made a point about Earthbound, but what about Kuru Kuru Kururin? That game ended up released in Ireland and the UK, but not the US and Canada.
From wikipedia:
"Kuru Kuru Kururin was released in Japan and Europe but not in North America. However, as the GBA has no region lockout, a North American GBA unit can be used to play either the Japanese or European version."
You hardly need to pirate it, or even mod your device to play it, just find a company that will ship internationally and order a copy.
As to why it didn't get properly released in NA, that probably falls into my first criteria. Localization costs. (Granted it was english, but UK english is not automatically the same as US english) then then it needs to go through the ESRB for a rating. To be released in Canada you need French manuals; and I think Nintendo releases the manuals in Spanish too in North America. Then you need to design the 'North American' box.
And who knows, there may have been some wonky licensing issue with music or something. Where they got the rights in Europe but not in the US. It happens. A lot.
And its a bit of an odd game, so maybe projected sales in NA simply didn't justify the costs.
The Android devel kit will run on whatever hardware you already have. They don't force you to buy anything new.
So if I don't own a computer but want to do G1 development... oh wait I have to buy a computer.
Look, I concede that the G1 dev kit runs on any computer vs the iPhone dev kit which only runs on OSX or the Windows Mobile dev kit which runs on Windows... and yes that makes the G1 dev kit a little more attractive.
But it is absurd to call the iPhone 'developer hostile' simply because you need a computer that runs OSX to run tools that run on OSX to ultimately develop software for a platform that runs OSX.
That is not hostile, no more than requiring a Windows PC to develop Xbox live apps is hostile. (And XBLA is considered one of the most developer -friendly- things going.)
The G1 may be unusually open, but it still requires you buy 'a computer', and it certainly doesn't make the alternatives 'hostile'.
Is 7 better than XP for Home users?
Yes. The security improvements in Vista are real.