I get what you are saying, but I'm explaining it the way a business sees it. If I don't like the way a game is being offered, then I don't buy it and I don't play it. Simply not liking the product being offered does not give me a right to take the product as I see fit. People JUSTIFY taking it because they don't like the terms of the deal, but it's a false justification. They are capable of taking it so they do. Perhaps they wouldn't be willing to spend the full cost, but they are not giving anything for the game that they attribute some amount of value to since they are taking a copy to play without paying for it.
If DRM is the issue, I have absolutely no problem with people who buy a game and then use the cracked version to avoid problems associated with the DRM. I have done this (legally even) before to bypass outdated DRM systems that are no longer functional or maintained. I also believe the law should be altered to permit the removal of DRM for any otherwise authorized use.
Maybe in part, though I think that is more because of the SAAS direction of the tech industry as a whole. The notion of purchasing copies of software is becoming unpopular with software vendors who would rather have a subscription service that gives continuous income. This is a very scary trend as it threatens to make computing a controlled and limited experience. I'm not saying SAAS is bad, however having it replace software as a tangible product seems dangerous at best to the freedom that technology has brought us. I also agree that rampant piracy contributes (though is not the only factor) to this trend.
I would hazard that as long as you either a) stop playing it after deciding not to purchase or b) buy the game after deciding to purchase, then the above poster likely would have no issue with your justification. I think it is more just a rant against the prevalence of individuals who take a "holier than thou" attitude to piracy for piracy's sake to "stick it to the man" without actually abstaining from the content (which would be the truly praise worthy behavior). For people like me, who do at least occasionally actually refrain from buying content because of the company that makes it or because we feel the price is unreasonable, it is very frustrating to see someone be the jackass that is used to keep the companies in denial and harm the very cause they claim to support.
It's easy for a company to not change their behavior when they see people are still consuming their product and simply not paying for it. Clearly this shows people want what they are making, but they are simply taking it because they can. The (apparent) solution to this is to simply make it more difficult to do so, which hurts everyone. When nobody consumes it at all, it shows that something is wrong with the model all together and demonstrates that something needs to fundamentally change for the company to be successful. The problem is, my choice to suffer through not consuming something is rendered useless by some selfish, deluded individual who lacks the self control to not consume and the default assumption becomes that all "lost sales" are a result of piracy, not an active purchasing decision.
But who will compete with them? For Windows 8 to fail, people must reject the notion of wanting their PC to behave like their tablet. If people reject that, then what other alternative do people have? Windows 7 is the only game in town unless everyone was to dump their money for a Mac (not gonna happen at Apple price points). If people embrace it, then Windows 8 will be the most powerful mobile styled OS to date and should be successful. There is very little risk to MS unless someone else comes around to cause trouble on the desktop scene, but at the moment, everyone is focused on the mobile market.
That assumes they are the same market. They aren't. I can't word process or even super easily browse the web from my phone, even on my Galaxy Nexus. There are even things I can't do on my Asus Transformer that are simply easier to do on my desktop or laptop. That isn't to say that either of the devices isn't great in its purpose, but once the glamor wears off and people go back to looking at what is practical, having a tablet and certainly a smartphone doesn't mean you don't still need a full blown computer. This exact fact is what makes what MS is doing so stupid. They are giving up everything that makes a PC usable for these tasks we can't do easily with a smartphone or tablet in order to try to make desktops and laptops LESS functional.
Microsoft Research comes up with some pretty awesome concepts. Not all of them ever see the light of day, but they are one of the best R&D shops around in the tech world.
Yeah, I'm not challenging that prices have actually dropped proportional to inflation, just pointing out that they won't still be $60 in 2038 or whatever. I didn't feel like looking up the inflation rate to determine if it had actually gone up or down in relation to the valuation of the dollar as it didn't change the point that the cost of games is anything but constant.
Sorry, let me clarify I didn't mean to imply that Angry Birds doesn't have staying power, but rather that there is more depth to the characters of a game like HL2. People who are Half Life fans are fans because of the story. People who are angry birds fans are fans because they hit the right balance of a simple mechanic with a likeable enough character that caught on culturally (in the same way giga-pets did). It will still be well remembered in the future, but how many people really wish for more gigapets now? Compare that to wishing for another game like X-wing Vs Tie Fighter (as a percentage of the niche they filled).
Nice theory, but in the days of Pacman, people COULD and DID envision a future with things like HL2. More realism was always and has always been the goal. The problem is now that we are getting to a point that many people consider to be "good enough," there is a lot of questioning as to what the future will hold. Most likely, the answer is a combination of incremental upgrades of realism coupled with increased focus on either a) marketing for big titles or b)different ways of thinking of gameplay, though even that concept doesn't really leave a whole lot of room. Most games are simply adding "with a computer" or "on the internet" to things that people have always wanted to do. The ideas of FPS for example are no different from the concepts of any action movie ever made, it just seeks to make the experience more immersive. As the tools mature, costs will become lower to implement and more focus can be put on quality story telling.
At the end of the day, that is what separates a game like HL2 or Mass Effect from a game like Angry Birds. You can make a great game in two ways. One is make something that is simply psychologically addictive and mind numbing that is good for mindless amusement or the other is to tell a great story in an immersive way. The most memorable games tend to be the ones with a great story that pulls you in. Saying that the direction of games will change drastically is like saying the direction of books will change drastically. They've been the same for thousands of years. Why? Because they work. They are immersive and tell a story people want to experience. Games are no different. Technology makes the media look different (e-books for example), but what makes them work doesn't change because people don't change.
What is this about games not having changed in cost since the 1980s?? AAA games used to be $50, not $60. The $60 game trend started relatively recently (like within the last 10 years) with the advent of heavily subsidized gaming consoles and then stayed there when they realized the kind of licensing fees they could get away with for developing for their hardware. I'd expect one more jump by then (though in fairness, it will more or less be cost equivalent when you factor in inflation.)
Re:That's why I like the basic Kindle
on
The eBook Backlash
·
· Score: 3, Informative
Yes, I believe this article belongs in the "No Shit" category. Tablets are back lit devices that are not well suited for lengthy reading to begin with, let alone the fact that such a multifunction device is distracting to use. That said, I think they are fantastic for research reading, where having quick access to a variety of sources of information is ideal. For casual or relaxed reading however, e-ink is the go to technology if you are looking to lose the paperback.
Let me clarify it another way. I was simply stating that I was not personally harmed by the removal of other os, however as a matter of principal, I dislike it when a company says they will provide something and then recants. It was perhaps not that grand of an issue, and thus doesn't merit all that strong of a response, but I altered my buying habits out of principal regardless of my personally being impacted. I would rather do business with a company that I can trust than one I can't and my response is proportional to how they have broken trust in the past. I don't see how that is either not principled or posturing, though it seems that my language may not have been clear since a number of people reacted similarly.
The original point I was responding to was someone claiming that not enough people were impacted for it to matter. I was simply pointing out that more than just those who were impacted directly may have altered their behavior as a result of the about face and bad PR surrounding it.
Why should I sacrifice to hurt them if I don't have to? When did I even say hurting them was my goal? My statement was that I minimized my business with them as a result of their actions. I didn't judge anyone who still does business with them. I drew no line in the sand. I'm willing to stand corrected that I screwed up my math on the 4%. It is actually 8%. The math, if you must know, is an average of 2 game purchases per month over 2 years since the patch. That is what my previous buying pattern was. Since that time, I've bought 2 games in 2 years. That is 1/12th of the number of games I would normally have purchased, or around 8%. The entire point of my post was saying that where as I used to PREFER to do business with Sony, I now avoid it whenever I can conveniently do so. I would hazard I am not the only one who has similarly altered my buying patterns as I was not even directly impacted.
Also, buying a console does not give the producer of the console much money at all and frequently costs them money, but I guess maybe that is just a distraction from what I originally meant when I was talking about principals. Your last line I think shows where the disconnect is. I was responding to an original post of "You seriously believe people who wanted to use Linux on the PS3 are a significant market for Sony. And that they really care about what you have to say about that. How adorable." My response was that it isn't just the people who were impacted by using Linux on the PS3, but rather there are people who simply don't like the principal of a company removing a feature they said they would provide. I was not personally impacted, but because I value honesty in business, I altered my buying patterns because the next thing they do might burn me. It is really a fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice shame on me kind of thing. Since I don't know that I can trust Sony, I avoid business with them unless there is a compelling case to do business with them. I hope that makes more sense in context.
I'm not naive, I don't think they legally broke any contracts or I'd be suing them. That doesn't mean it isn't dishonest to advertise a feature as a selling point of a piece of hardware to a group and then later decide to force them to choose between removing that feature or removing all the other features of a multipurpose device. It isn't breaking a contract, but that doesn't mean it isn't being dishonest. This is no different than the app in one of the mobile stores that recently sold a version of a game, then after a while made an update to make it a free version of the game which actually reduced the functionality and required people to pay again if they wanted to continue to have what they had paid for. They are both dishonest but perfectly legal business practices.
I'm assuming you are trolling, however on the off chance you aren't, what about it is weak willed. They lost a major percentage of the revenue. I also only buy quality exclusives (I've only bought Resistance 3 and Killzone 3 since the Other OS fiasco.) Both were quality games that were not available for any other platform, nor will they be any time soon, if ever. Notice that I never advocated a full boycott, just that there is reasons beyond them hurting someone directly why someone might decide to change their buying patterns. I used to buy every game I got for PS3 unless it wasn't available on it. That worked out to about one or two games per month. Since that time, which was several years ago, I have bought 2 games for it. That is a substantial financial loss if everyone was to do the same. They wouldn't be able to afford to keep making consoles if everyone that got one only purchased 5 or 6 games over the lifetime of the console.
The console itself is still decent kit at a good price and is useful for plenty of purposes that Sony doesn't see a dime of. Also, picking up games used would not give them any more funds, at least not directly (though resale value of games indirectly could lead to others buying more games). Maybe I'm just too weak willed, but I don't see giving Sony 4% of the money I would normally have given them and taking hardware off their hands at their loss is not hurting them while not hurting me. My original point wasn't to say "boycott" Sony, but simply to say that people not directly impacted by the Other OS removal still altered buying habits in a way that negatively impacts Sony.
Oh sorry, about the console itself. I am not one to nay say a platform until I see it. If they make a compelling enough deal, and if they are selling at a loss, then I would not be opposed to purchasing one to tinker with. Most of their profits come from games and if I don't buy games on their platform, they don't make much money. I'm a technologist. I get technology to toy with it and see what it can do, even if I don't get games for it as my platform of choice.
The principle is that in so far as I can avoid it without hurting others I do. I want to support a game studio that makes a quality game, the fact it is only on a platform that I don't like the maker of is secondary to supporting the quality work of an innocent third party. It used to be my platform of choice that I purchased all my games on, but I have switched to PC where available or XBox 360 when not. I'd say that is the best I can do in terms of sticking it to Sony's Playstation group while not hurting those who made the poor choice of developing only on that platform.
XBox 360 was DirectX based. It was/is basically a PC with fixed spec's that hooked up to a TV, so the same stuff they'd been using for PCs for a long time was the stuff they used for XBox 360.
Because developing for PC is even harder than Cell. Cell still has a known platform, where as PC opens up a whole new can of crazy. That said, I wish they would.
It is more a matter of principal. Personally I only briefly used Linux on the PS3, but the fact they removed the option after promising people it would be there as a selling point is just dishonest business. I don't like doing business with dishonest people. The only games I have bought for PS3 since then are the console exclusives. I don't know yet if I will bother with a PS4, but if I don't, it will be solely because of the Linux thing even though I didn't use it.
I'm just imagining this thing in a special ops context. How useful would it be to be able to remotely confused the ability of a group of guards to speak to each other without losing focus on the battle at hand?
Slashdot Mirror
I get what you are saying, but I'm explaining it the way a business sees it. If I don't like the way a game is being offered, then I don't buy it and I don't play it. Simply not liking the product being offered does not give me a right to take the product as I see fit. People JUSTIFY taking it because they don't like the terms of the deal, but it's a false justification. They are capable of taking it so they do. Perhaps they wouldn't be willing to spend the full cost, but they are not giving anything for the game that they attribute some amount of value to since they are taking a copy to play without paying for it.
If DRM is the issue, I have absolutely no problem with people who buy a game and then use the cracked version to avoid problems associated with the DRM. I have done this (legally even) before to bypass outdated DRM systems that are no longer functional or maintained. I also believe the law should be altered to permit the removal of DRM for any otherwise authorized use.
Maybe in part, though I think that is more because of the SAAS direction of the tech industry as a whole. The notion of purchasing copies of software is becoming unpopular with software vendors who would rather have a subscription service that gives continuous income. This is a very scary trend as it threatens to make computing a controlled and limited experience. I'm not saying SAAS is bad, however having it replace software as a tangible product seems dangerous at best to the freedom that technology has brought us. I also agree that rampant piracy contributes (though is not the only factor) to this trend.
More at Eleven...
I would hazard that as long as you either a) stop playing it after deciding not to purchase or b) buy the game after deciding to purchase, then the above poster likely would have no issue with your justification. I think it is more just a rant against the prevalence of individuals who take a "holier than thou" attitude to piracy for piracy's sake to "stick it to the man" without actually abstaining from the content (which would be the truly praise worthy behavior). For people like me, who do at least occasionally actually refrain from buying content because of the company that makes it or because we feel the price is unreasonable, it is very frustrating to see someone be the jackass that is used to keep the companies in denial and harm the very cause they claim to support.
It's easy for a company to not change their behavior when they see people are still consuming their product and simply not paying for it. Clearly this shows people want what they are making, but they are simply taking it because they can. The (apparent) solution to this is to simply make it more difficult to do so, which hurts everyone. When nobody consumes it at all, it shows that something is wrong with the model all together and demonstrates that something needs to fundamentally change for the company to be successful. The problem is, my choice to suffer through not consuming something is rendered useless by some selfish, deluded individual who lacks the self control to not consume and the default assumption becomes that all "lost sales" are a result of piracy, not an active purchasing decision.
Ah, the video must be blocked at work. I don't see any video when I look at it.
Did we really just have an article posted where the only link points to another Slashdot article?
But who will compete with them? For Windows 8 to fail, people must reject the notion of wanting their PC to behave like their tablet. If people reject that, then what other alternative do people have? Windows 7 is the only game in town unless everyone was to dump their money for a Mac (not gonna happen at Apple price points). If people embrace it, then Windows 8 will be the most powerful mobile styled OS to date and should be successful. There is very little risk to MS unless someone else comes around to cause trouble on the desktop scene, but at the moment, everyone is focused on the mobile market.
That assumes they are the same market. They aren't. I can't word process or even super easily browse the web from my phone, even on my Galaxy Nexus. There are even things I can't do on my Asus Transformer that are simply easier to do on my desktop or laptop. That isn't to say that either of the devices isn't great in its purpose, but once the glamor wears off and people go back to looking at what is practical, having a tablet and certainly a smartphone doesn't mean you don't still need a full blown computer. This exact fact is what makes what MS is doing so stupid. They are giving up everything that makes a PC usable for these tasks we can't do easily with a smartphone or tablet in order to try to make desktops and laptops LESS functional.
Microsoft Research comes up with some pretty awesome concepts. Not all of them ever see the light of day, but they are one of the best R&D shops around in the tech world.
Yeah, I'm not challenging that prices have actually dropped proportional to inflation, just pointing out that they won't still be $60 in 2038 or whatever. I didn't feel like looking up the inflation rate to determine if it had actually gone up or down in relation to the valuation of the dollar as it didn't change the point that the cost of games is anything but constant.
Sorry, let me clarify I didn't mean to imply that Angry Birds doesn't have staying power, but rather that there is more depth to the characters of a game like HL2. People who are Half Life fans are fans because of the story. People who are angry birds fans are fans because they hit the right balance of a simple mechanic with a likeable enough character that caught on culturally (in the same way giga-pets did). It will still be well remembered in the future, but how many people really wish for more gigapets now? Compare that to wishing for another game like X-wing Vs Tie Fighter (as a percentage of the niche they filled).
Nice theory, but in the days of Pacman, people COULD and DID envision a future with things like HL2. More realism was always and has always been the goal. The problem is now that we are getting to a point that many people consider to be "good enough," there is a lot of questioning as to what the future will hold. Most likely, the answer is a combination of incremental upgrades of realism coupled with increased focus on either a) marketing for big titles or b)different ways of thinking of gameplay, though even that concept doesn't really leave a whole lot of room. Most games are simply adding "with a computer" or "on the internet" to things that people have always wanted to do. The ideas of FPS for example are no different from the concepts of any action movie ever made, it just seeks to make the experience more immersive. As the tools mature, costs will become lower to implement and more focus can be put on quality story telling.
At the end of the day, that is what separates a game like HL2 or Mass Effect from a game like Angry Birds. You can make a great game in two ways. One is make something that is simply psychologically addictive and mind numbing that is good for mindless amusement or the other is to tell a great story in an immersive way. The most memorable games tend to be the ones with a great story that pulls you in. Saying that the direction of games will change drastically is like saying the direction of books will change drastically. They've been the same for thousands of years. Why? Because they work. They are immersive and tell a story people want to experience. Games are no different. Technology makes the media look different (e-books for example), but what makes them work doesn't change because people don't change.
What is this about games not having changed in cost since the 1980s?? AAA games used to be $50, not $60. The $60 game trend started relatively recently (like within the last 10 years) with the advent of heavily subsidized gaming consoles and then stayed there when they realized the kind of licensing fees they could get away with for developing for their hardware. I'd expect one more jump by then (though in fairness, it will more or less be cost equivalent when you factor in inflation.)
Yes, I believe this article belongs in the "No Shit" category. Tablets are back lit devices that are not well suited for lengthy reading to begin with, let alone the fact that such a multifunction device is distracting to use. That said, I think they are fantastic for research reading, where having quick access to a variety of sources of information is ideal. For casual or relaxed reading however, e-ink is the go to technology if you are looking to lose the paperback.
Let me clarify it another way. I was simply stating that I was not personally harmed by the removal of other os, however as a matter of principal, I dislike it when a company says they will provide something and then recants. It was perhaps not that grand of an issue, and thus doesn't merit all that strong of a response, but I altered my buying habits out of principal regardless of my personally being impacted. I would rather do business with a company that I can trust than one I can't and my response is proportional to how they have broken trust in the past. I don't see how that is either not principled or posturing, though it seems that my language may not have been clear since a number of people reacted similarly.
The original point I was responding to was someone claiming that not enough people were impacted for it to matter. I was simply pointing out that more than just those who were impacted directly may have altered their behavior as a result of the about face and bad PR surrounding it.
Why should I sacrifice to hurt them if I don't have to? When did I even say hurting them was my goal? My statement was that I minimized my business with them as a result of their actions. I didn't judge anyone who still does business with them. I drew no line in the sand. I'm willing to stand corrected that I screwed up my math on the 4%. It is actually 8%. The math, if you must know, is an average of 2 game purchases per month over 2 years since the patch. That is what my previous buying pattern was. Since that time, I've bought 2 games in 2 years. That is 1/12th of the number of games I would normally have purchased, or around 8%. The entire point of my post was saying that where as I used to PREFER to do business with Sony, I now avoid it whenever I can conveniently do so. I would hazard I am not the only one who has similarly altered my buying patterns as I was not even directly impacted.
Also, buying a console does not give the producer of the console much money at all and frequently costs them money, but I guess maybe that is just a distraction from what I originally meant when I was talking about principals. Your last line I think shows where the disconnect is. I was responding to an original post of "You seriously believe people who wanted to use Linux on the PS3 are a significant market for Sony. And that they really care about what you have to say about that. How adorable." My response was that it isn't just the people who were impacted by using Linux on the PS3, but rather there are people who simply don't like the principal of a company removing a feature they said they would provide. I was not personally impacted, but because I value honesty in business, I altered my buying patterns because the next thing they do might burn me. It is really a fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice shame on me kind of thing. Since I don't know that I can trust Sony, I avoid business with them unless there is a compelling case to do business with them. I hope that makes more sense in context.
I'm not naive, I don't think they legally broke any contracts or I'd be suing them. That doesn't mean it isn't dishonest to advertise a feature as a selling point of a piece of hardware to a group and then later decide to force them to choose between removing that feature or removing all the other features of a multipurpose device. It isn't breaking a contract, but that doesn't mean it isn't being dishonest. This is no different than the app in one of the mobile stores that recently sold a version of a game, then after a while made an update to make it a free version of the game which actually reduced the functionality and required people to pay again if they wanted to continue to have what they had paid for. They are both dishonest but perfectly legal business practices.
I'm assuming you are trolling, however on the off chance you aren't, what about it is weak willed. They lost a major percentage of the revenue. I also only buy quality exclusives (I've only bought Resistance 3 and Killzone 3 since the Other OS fiasco.) Both were quality games that were not available for any other platform, nor will they be any time soon, if ever. Notice that I never advocated a full boycott, just that there is reasons beyond them hurting someone directly why someone might decide to change their buying patterns. I used to buy every game I got for PS3 unless it wasn't available on it. That worked out to about one or two games per month. Since that time, which was several years ago, I have bought 2 games for it. That is a substantial financial loss if everyone was to do the same. They wouldn't be able to afford to keep making consoles if everyone that got one only purchased 5 or 6 games over the lifetime of the console.
The console itself is still decent kit at a good price and is useful for plenty of purposes that Sony doesn't see a dime of. Also, picking up games used would not give them any more funds, at least not directly (though resale value of games indirectly could lead to others buying more games). Maybe I'm just too weak willed, but I don't see giving Sony 4% of the money I would normally have given them and taking hardware off their hands at their loss is not hurting them while not hurting me. My original point wasn't to say "boycott" Sony, but simply to say that people not directly impacted by the Other OS removal still altered buying habits in a way that negatively impacts Sony.
Oh sorry, about the console itself. I am not one to nay say a platform until I see it. If they make a compelling enough deal, and if they are selling at a loss, then I would not be opposed to purchasing one to tinker with. Most of their profits come from games and if I don't buy games on their platform, they don't make much money. I'm a technologist. I get technology to toy with it and see what it can do, even if I don't get games for it as my platform of choice.
The principle is that in so far as I can avoid it without hurting others I do. I want to support a game studio that makes a quality game, the fact it is only on a platform that I don't like the maker of is secondary to supporting the quality work of an innocent third party. It used to be my platform of choice that I purchased all my games on, but I have switched to PC where available or XBox 360 when not. I'd say that is the best I can do in terms of sticking it to Sony's Playstation group while not hurting those who made the poor choice of developing only on that platform.
Thank you.
XBox 360 was DirectX based. It was/is basically a PC with fixed spec's that hooked up to a TV, so the same stuff they'd been using for PCs for a long time was the stuff they used for XBox 360.
Because developing for PC is even harder than Cell. Cell still has a known platform, where as PC opens up a whole new can of crazy. That said, I wish they would.
It is more a matter of principal. Personally I only briefly used Linux on the PS3, but the fact they removed the option after promising people it would be there as a selling point is just dishonest business. I don't like doing business with dishonest people. The only games I have bought for PS3 since then are the console exclusives. I don't know yet if I will bother with a PS4, but if I don't, it will be solely because of the Linux thing even though I didn't use it.
I'm just imagining this thing in a special ops context. How useful would it be to be able to remotely confused the ability of a group of guards to speak to each other without losing focus on the battle at hand?