How is this, WHATSOEVER, related to ID stuff? I don't personally believe in ID as being presented (although I do believe in God), but this has nothing whatsoever to do with this topic. I don't know how this got modded +5, unless it was as Offtopic?
I hear ya, and I know that was half tongue-in-cheek, but I would still think that the publishers/developers would rather have a chance to own player-made content to use in future versions/other games/etc. and would risk the legal stuff.
What I would see as most likely, is again, in the EULA, some form of legal verbage that stated that you could not create illegal, copyrighted, or whatever. That way you avoid lightsabers in Everquest IX, or Elminster as an NPC in a SWG game.:)
THEN, the companies would own the content AND have the legal right to refer the FBI/RIAA/MPAA/gun-toting maniacs to the players doorsteps while avoiding legal action themselves.
It's really just a matter of good wording in an EULA. (and no, I'm not making a Sony joke. ^-^)
With a well-worded and specific EULA, players will be bound to the idea that what they create for this world (or anything that goes over the servers) is therefore owned by the development company or the publishing company, and no longer you. You can take credit for it somehow (the proper way, IMHO), but you'd give up rights by releasing it into the game world.
You couldn't run the mod without using their software (so you prevent people just making mods and then creating "new games" based on it), and you can't run it in their world without it crossing their servers, and therefore it becomes their IP.
I actually think it's very reasonable, and very workable.
Actually, this is entirely different from what SWG did. It's diametrically opposite. They solicited opinions, and blatantly ignored them. What this article is talking about is player-created-content.
Meaning, if you want it in the game, you can make it in the game.
SWG limited the player-created-content, not expanded it. That's why there was such an uproar.
If they would have implemented this instead, I believe you would see many more players at SWG, because the players would have ownership in the game, and could make it what they wanted it to be.
What you say, you say in anger, but the truth is that more often than not, they're acting with their pocketbooks, rather than actual desire to produce banal product.
The truth is that it's costly to develop a revolutionary idea in gaming, especially when this idea must be implemented in a MMORPG or something. Therefore, player-created-content is extremely valuable to a publisher, as this gets the more radical ideas/quests/items/etc. out there, without having to waste developer time on ideas that would not be successful.
Not to mention, if you put some "special license" info in the EULA of the game, players would know that any content created within the context of the game would become property of the publisher, and therefore releaseable in further versions as standard (much like many objects in "The Sims").
This allows for expansion packs or downright upgrades to be made at literally zero cost to developers (excepting testing, perhaps).
Point being, they can see what works in a very realistic sandbox environment, without investing much, if any, capital for that research. It's brilliant, really.
While it doesn't excuse companies from making generic content, it ushers in a new era of "open-source" gaming that while is indeed more work for players who want to create: it finally gives you the freedom to make that game or scenario you always wanted to see, or play, but that you know the developers/publishers would NEVER risk putting out. I think it's cool. And if it works with Blogs (You mean I have to write my OWN news and commentary?) and other Web 2.0 stuff, you can definitely believe that people will be excited about bringing that level of depth and involvement to their own emotionally-invested gaming experience.
While not exactly the intended topic, this is also related to Alternate Reality Gaming which is quite often financed by large corporations with the intent of pushing a specific product, or increasing general the general "buzzworthiness" of their corporate image.
These games are constantly producing high-quality entertainment, without sacrificing immersion. Yet, the product/company behind the project is always in the player's mind.
It's a quite unique and persistent form of advertising in gaming that's starting just now, to really grab the notice of ad agencies and companies.
For examples, check out this new agency that did that www.ilovebees.com thing for Halo 2, or This one that recently did a game called "Art of the Heist" for Audi last year.
This is exactly why I wonder why Apple has not become more of an "exclusive provider" for most of that stuff. Mind you, I like the idea of being able to buy a comparable-quality item on the cheap, but still... It's very unlike Apple to give away that kind of market share.
This is very similar (more than standard MMOG fare) to Alternate Reality Games. There was actually just a great article at ARGN in relation to the new television show by the guy behind "Survivor", making a MMOG tied into a television show, "Gold Rush" where you need both TV clues and online "research" to succeed in tracking down treasures of gold hidden across the US.
Anyway, it's a very interesting idea, to say the least. I think we're going to continue to see the lines between entertainment and advertising, as well as television and internet continue to blur until they're considered one all-inclusive item.
See, now that would be cool, but you'd have to (at least initially) bundle the handheld with the 360 console. That way, people would be all about downloading the content. I'd TOTALLY buy a handheld that could play geometry wars or gauntlet and all the mini-games stuff that live is shilling. Seriously, that would be a good idea, and I would buy it.
It would be very much in line with their "commitment to making Live an example" in the industry. I say go for it, Gates!
By this reasoning, not only would Google News be illegal, but so would the news sites themselves. See, while they own the rights to the copyrighted materials, they are posting the copyrighted materials, allowing me to copy and paste the material into my website, thus promoting illegal distribution of copyrighted news stories.
I guess we have to revert to nonverbal communication. Much less, public reading of books (my poor toddler won't get any readings of "Goodnight Moon"! Who knows if that little tyke might decide to tell someone else the story someday. Then, I could be liable for making copyrighted materials available for distribution, and therefore I'm operating that book illegally, when I just put it into words that others can hear.
Also, what about bookstores! They're just leaving copies of books lying around for ANYONE to see! Man, I'm starting to see the epidemic! AAAARGH!!!!
I agree with this comment. The truth is, unless specifically mentioned in the EULA (which is still up to debate, in court) that the situation is EXACTLY that of selling a used CD. If the CD was paid for up front legally, then what right does the company have in your reselling the item. (The only argument that could plausibly make sense is if he did NOT delete the originals, and therefore would have made illegal copies. In this case, he's not retaining any rights to the music, and therefore, sold his share of it.)
I was thinking this as well. How often (or more accurately, how many more years) can they do this, before they lose a majority share of the company...
Or for all you conspiracy theorists out there... is this an intentional move to eventually sell stocks until the company is bought out by someone, after they've rolled out Google MP3 Illegal Trader (Beta), where they get sued, the stock tanks, and then they buy it back up, claim that their absence caused the great "evilness", the market gets faith in the company again, and the stock they bought back at pennies again gains immensely. Ad Infinitum. Amen.:)
Keep in mind that during Intel's entire history they've released one desktop processor that had a bug sufficient to require a recall.
And really, even that recall was more media-flared than an actual serious issue. It really only affected mission-critical heavy computing. The normal user (even the normal advanced user) would probably not notice any issues with performance in the recalled chips.
I agree wholeheartedly. I mean, it's so easy for me to Brickify my car when I use it in the non-intended way as well. So that must mean my car is ill designed too!
I know I could probably brickify my relationships as well, if I start doing things I shouldn't be... So my interpersonal relationships are faulty too.
In fact, I believe that I must be the only well designed thing in the whole universe...
Google will. That's the real thing here. It's obviously that Google doesn't want to pay anything, but more importantly, if customers had to pay on a "per-service" scenario, there would not be people rallying against Bell South.
They'd see that they want to see Google. Then they'd have to pay to do so. So who do they rail against? Google.
This is exactly why this scheme will fail, because with any serious amount of thought, the service companies will see this, and all of them will refuse to participate.
Honestly, I'm getting quite sick of old-school companies like telcos, radio and television, trying to nose their way into the emerging technology matters.
Radio wants more freedom, so they can compete with XM and Sirius.
Television wants to delay the all-digital switch, not to mention the strict regulation on digital service costs, because their costs go down, as service becomes increasingly easier to manage with new tech, and they don't want to lose potential profits.
And now, telcos want to regulate the internet's portals like stingy tollbooth collectors, for every mile or so of internet real estate. It's disgusting.
Adapt or die. But don't expect the revolution to change to your schedule.
I'm not an attorney, so I can't say for sure, but what this tells me as an everyman, is that I now have legal precendent to get away with something like this.
Everyone is talking about "How 16 year olds get hunted down" (and that's the truth) but now, those 16 year olds have an actual legal defense. Pay a fine, and you're done. SONY did it. Why not me? Because I'm a person, and they're a company? You'll have a hard time defeating that argument with a jury of rational people, now that SONY is getting away with it.
They've established a large-scale distribution model of a rootkit. The next person to do the EXACT same thing, on their own, now has legal backup they didn't have before.
I honestly don't know how I feel about that, but I think it's intriguing enough to merit discussion.
The entire cast of Friends declared their undying support for Linux.
Really, sure, it's cool, but does is this really worthy of calling "news?" There are many people using Firefox. It's growing, especially with the new marketing campaign as well as the new version out. It's a great browser. But I saw the headline and really thought "who cares?"
If there's an "insensitivity" mod, feel free to mod me down for it.:)
Wait! This is a Consumer Electronics Show. That means Sony HAD to be there. You've gotta speak their language... as in:
"I'm sure only the most wonderful, coolest, slickest $sys$crappy stuff we'll be shown at this $sys$non event with $sys$marketingdollars free $sys$marketingdollars chow $sys$marketingdollars and $sys$marketingdollars drinks $sys$marketingdollars."
$sys$stealyourstuff.exe I'm sure that is what you meant, though.
Not trying to flamebait, really, but anyone who uses a blog entry from almost a year and a half ago to make ANY kind of point, especially in terms of speculatory vaporware... well.. I don't understand it. Your point is lessened IMHO, instead of bolstered.
Now, if you were trying to be funny, then, why support it with an out of date link?
Honest, I'm not trying to rip on you, as much as the odd choices in your post.
Slashdot Mirror
How is this, WHATSOEVER, related to ID stuff? I don't personally believe in ID as being presented (although I do believe in God), but this has nothing whatsoever to do with this topic. I don't know how this got modded +5, unless it was as Offtopic?
I hear ya, and I know that was half tongue-in-cheek, but I would still think that the publishers/developers would rather have a chance to own player-made content to use in future versions/other games/etc. and would risk the legal stuff.
:)
What I would see as most likely, is again, in the EULA, some form of legal verbage that stated that you could not create illegal, copyrighted, or whatever. That way you avoid lightsabers in Everquest IX, or Elminster as an NPC in a SWG game.
THEN, the companies would own the content AND have the legal right to refer the FBI/RIAA/MPAA/gun-toting maniacs to the players doorsteps while avoiding legal action themselves.
You think so?
It's really just a matter of good wording in an EULA. (and no, I'm not making a Sony joke. ^-^)
With a well-worded and specific EULA, players will be bound to the idea that what they create for this world (or anything that goes over the servers) is therefore owned by the development company or the publishing company, and no longer you. You can take credit for it somehow (the proper way, IMHO), but you'd give up rights by releasing it into the game world.
You couldn't run the mod without using their software (so you prevent people just making mods and then creating "new games" based on it), and you can't run it in their world without it crossing their servers, and therefore it becomes their IP.
I actually think it's very reasonable, and very workable.
Actually, this is entirely different from what SWG did. It's diametrically opposite. They solicited opinions, and blatantly ignored them. What this article is talking about is player-created-content.
Meaning, if you want it in the game, you can make it in the game.
SWG limited the player-created-content, not expanded it. That's why there was such an uproar.
If they would have implemented this instead, I believe you would see many more players at SWG, because the players would have ownership in the game, and could make it what they wanted it to be.
What you say, you say in anger, but the truth is that more often than not, they're acting with their pocketbooks, rather than actual desire to produce banal product.
The truth is that it's costly to develop a revolutionary idea in gaming, especially when this idea must be implemented in a MMORPG or something. Therefore, player-created-content is extremely valuable to a publisher, as this gets the more radical ideas/quests/items/etc. out there, without having to waste developer time on ideas that would not be successful.
Not to mention, if you put some "special license" info in the EULA of the game, players would know that any content created within the context of the game would become property of the publisher, and therefore releaseable in further versions as standard (much like many objects in "The Sims").
This allows for expansion packs or downright upgrades to be made at literally zero cost to developers (excepting testing, perhaps).
Point being, they can see what works in a very realistic sandbox environment, without investing much, if any, capital for that research. It's brilliant, really.
While it doesn't excuse companies from making generic content, it ushers in a new era of "open-source" gaming that while is indeed more work for players who want to create: it finally gives you the freedom to make that game or scenario you always wanted to see, or play, but that you know the developers/publishers would NEVER risk putting out. I think it's cool. And if it works with Blogs (You mean I have to write my OWN news and commentary?) and other Web 2.0 stuff, you can definitely believe that people will be excited about bringing that level of depth and involvement to their own emotionally-invested gaming experience.
While not exactly the intended topic, this is also related to Alternate Reality Gaming which is quite often financed by large corporations with the intent of pushing a specific product, or increasing general the general "buzzworthiness" of their corporate image.
These games are constantly producing high-quality entertainment, without sacrificing immersion. Yet, the product/company behind the project is always in the player's mind.
It's a quite unique and persistent form of advertising in gaming that's starting just now, to really grab the notice of ad agencies and companies.
For examples, check out this new agency that did that www.ilovebees.com thing for Halo 2, or This one that recently did a game called "Art of the Heist" for Audi last year.
This is exactly why I wonder why Apple has not become more of an "exclusive provider" for most of that stuff. Mind you, I like the idea of being able to buy a comparable-quality item on the cheap, but still... It's very unlike Apple to give away that kind of market share.
This is very similar (more than standard MMOG fare) to Alternate Reality Games. There was actually just a great article at ARGN in relation to the new television show by the guy behind "Survivor", making a MMOG tied into a television show, "Gold Rush" where you need both TV clues and online "research" to succeed in tracking down treasures of gold hidden across the US.
Anyway, it's a very interesting idea, to say the least. I think we're going to continue to see the lines between entertainment and advertising, as well as television and internet continue to blur until they're considered one all-inclusive item.
Is it possible that Sony could create a network the size and scale of Xbox Live in such a short time.
Is it possible that the author could create a one paragraph topic without missing grammar in such a short time?
See, now that would be cool, but you'd have to (at least initially) bundle the handheld with the 360 console. That way, people would be all about downloading the content. I'd TOTALLY buy a handheld that could play geometry wars or gauntlet and all the mini-games stuff that live is shilling. Seriously, that would be a good idea, and I would buy it. It would be very much in line with their "commitment to making Live an example" in the industry. I say go for it, Gates!
Can we finally give up the "MD" format too? That would be nice. No one uses MD. Ever.
By this reasoning, not only would Google News be illegal, but so would the news sites themselves. See, while they own the rights to the copyrighted materials, they are posting the copyrighted materials, allowing me to copy and paste the material into my website, thus promoting illegal distribution of copyrighted news stories.
I guess we have to revert to nonverbal communication. Much less, public reading of books (my poor toddler won't get any readings of "Goodnight Moon"! Who knows if that little tyke might decide to tell someone else the story someday. Then, I could be liable for making copyrighted materials available for distribution, and therefore I'm operating that book illegally, when I just put it into words that others can hear.
Also, what about bookstores! They're just leaving copies of books lying around for ANYONE to see! Man, I'm starting to see the epidemic! AAAARGH!!!!
I agree with this comment. The truth is, unless specifically mentioned in the EULA (which is still up to debate, in court) that the situation is EXACTLY that of selling a used CD. If the CD was paid for up front legally, then what right does the company have in your reselling the item. (The only argument that could plausibly make sense is if he did NOT delete the originals, and therefore would have made illegal copies. In this case, he's not retaining any rights to the music, and therefore, sold his share of it.)
But IANAL. So YMMV.
I was thinking this as well. How often (or more accurately, how many more years) can they do this, before they lose a majority share of the company... :)
Or for all you conspiracy theorists out there... is this an intentional move to eventually sell stocks until the company is bought out by someone, after they've rolled out Google MP3 Illegal Trader (Beta), where they get sued, the stock tanks, and then they buy it back up, claim that their absence caused the great "evilness", the market gets faith in the company again, and the stock they bought back at pennies again gains immensely. Ad Infinitum. Amen.
The problem is that they really get hurt by taxes... they're only taking home $0.75 a year. It sucks to be a Google Exec. ^-^
Keep in mind that during Intel's entire history they've released one desktop processor that had a bug sufficient to require a recall.
And really, even that recall was more media-flared than an actual serious issue. It really only affected mission-critical heavy computing. The normal user (even the normal advanced user) would probably not notice any issues with performance in the recalled chips.
I agree wholeheartedly. I mean, it's so easy for me to Brickify my car when I use it in the non-intended way as well. So that must mean my car is ill designed too!
I know I could probably brickify my relationships as well, if I start doing things I shouldn't be... So my interpersonal relationships are faulty too.
In fact, I believe that I must be the only well designed thing in the whole universe...
Yay for solipsism!
THIS is the Mothra of Toaster Ovens. aaaaaand, THIS is the King Ghidorah of filing cabinets. /me bows.
Google will. That's the real thing here. It's obviously that Google doesn't want to pay anything, but more importantly, if customers had to pay on a "per-service" scenario, there would not be people rallying against Bell South.
They'd see that they want to see Google. Then they'd have to pay to do so. So who do they rail against? Google.
This is exactly why this scheme will fail, because with any serious amount of thought, the service companies will see this, and all of them will refuse to participate.
Honestly, I'm getting quite sick of old-school companies like telcos, radio and television, trying to nose their way into the emerging technology matters.
Radio wants more freedom, so they can compete with XM and Sirius.
Television wants to delay the all-digital switch, not to mention the strict regulation on digital service costs, because their costs go down, as service becomes increasingly easier to manage with new tech, and they don't want to lose potential profits.
And now, telcos want to regulate the internet's portals like stingy tollbooth collectors, for every mile or so of internet real estate. It's disgusting.
Adapt or die. But don't expect the revolution to change to your schedule.
I'm not an attorney, so I can't say for sure, but what this tells me as an everyman, is that I now have legal precendent to get away with something like this.
Everyone is talking about "How 16 year olds get hunted down" (and that's the truth) but now, those 16 year olds have an actual legal defense. Pay a fine, and you're done. SONY did it. Why not me? Because I'm a person, and they're a company? You'll have a hard time defeating that argument with a jury of rational people, now that SONY is getting away with it.
They've established a large-scale distribution model of a rootkit. The next person to do the EXACT same thing, on their own, now has legal backup they didn't have before.
I honestly don't know how I feel about that, but I think it's intriguing enough to merit discussion.
Any attorneys out there to comment?
The entire cast of Friends declared their undying support for Linux.
:)
Really, sure, it's cool, but does is this really worthy of calling "news?" There are many people using Firefox. It's growing, especially with the new marketing campaign as well as the new version out. It's a great browser. But I saw the headline and really thought "who cares?"
If there's an "insensitivity" mod, feel free to mod me down for it.
Wait! This is a Consumer Electronics Show. That means Sony HAD to be there. You've gotta speak their language... as in:
"I'm sure only the most wonderful, coolest, slickest $sys$crappy stuff we'll be shown at this $sys$non event with $sys$marketingdollars free $sys$marketingdollars chow $sys$marketingdollars and $sys$marketingdollars drinks $sys$marketingdollars." $sys$stealyourstuff.exe I'm sure that is what you meant, though.
Not trying to flamebait, really, but anyone who uses a blog entry from almost a year and a half ago to make ANY kind of point, especially in terms of speculatory vaporware... well.. I don't understand it. Your point is lessened IMHO, instead of bolstered. Now, if you were trying to be funny, then, why support it with an out of date link? Honest, I'm not trying to rip on you, as much as the odd choices in your post.
A virtual casio would be pretty cool...
Yeah, you could play all sorts of crappy synth music, and then there's that demo song... ^-^