Finding information about is pretty trivial. But since I made the claim, I'll back it up with a source. Link. Search for the names in the link on google, and you'll find a near-endless stream of information on it.
This event was the catalyst in bringing to light the corruption in commercial gaming journalism. It all spun out from there.
...The articles had drawn the ire of the self-described "Gater" movement, a grass-roots campaign to discredit prominent female games journalists....
The GamerGate movement had nothing to do with that at all, nor has it been about feminism. It actually started when a male Kotaku journalist published an article about a female game developer that he was sleeping with without disclosure, an act that is generally intolerable in any credible journalistic circle. From there, the mainstream gaming media outlets started with "defending it" to "attacking 'gamers'". It was almost funny how coordinated it was, because on August 28th almost every one of the gaming sites posted a "Gaming is Dead" article in unison (http://gamergate.giz.moe/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/1409546711940__large.jpg) when they were unable to squash it.
This article is a perfect example of the problem. It's near impossible to get a truthful story, because it turns out that most of the big names in games journalism have similar skeletons in the closet.
False. Completely false. Why do you persist in this nonsense? Women, in the same career field as a man, almost always makes less....
I've heard this a lot, and have seen a lot of statistics that show both ways, depending on the data view and metrics considered. But there seems to be a stronger opinion for the side that you mention in the quote above, at least in the public eye. So, and I really do want to know: If this was true, why don't multinational or traded companies only hire women? If a woman can preform as well or better than a man, and almost always makes less, then it would be folly for any board not to hire only women. Reducing the labor expense by 10-20%+ while maintaining the same productivity would put any large company way out in front competitively.
It's this simple question that makes me think that it's actually more complex than that, and that the versions of the reports showing it are ignoring non-gender factors. (hours worked in a week, time off for children, etc)
Ridiculous summary with regards to the $500 million dollar figure. It includes the development AND MARKETING budgets!
Basically this. Destiny spent an estimate $360 million in Marketing and $140 million in Development, which is over a 2:1 ratio. CoD2:Modern Warfare 2 has a respective $150:$50 million or 3:1 split (Source). When game companies are spending a small relative fraction on the actual development, there's a problem.
While I applaud the idea, it's as unrealistic as "Getting Misogyny, Racism and Homophobia out of the Internet" or "Getting Misogyny, Racism and Homophobia out of books".
Games are not like TV Shows, in that there is not a single channel in which consumers get it (like TV Stations). A single person can make a game that becomes popular with tens or hundreds of thousands of people. Combine this with the fact that one group can find content as offensive (She's has a character flaw... misogyny!) while another of the same group can find the alternative equally offensive (All the females in this game are one-dimensional... misogyny!).
I also don't see how creativity will flow if all content needs to be impossibly 'appropriate' for all people. For big companies, it's self-correcting anyway: If it's offensive to too many people, the game won't be successful... so at least big companies have interest to make games that sell on the mass market.
Actual 1080p isn't even here yet for a lot of media. Most games and TV stations still only use 720p, and there are quite a few movies in that mode as well. It's no surprise that no major content provider is considering 4K at this point.
I'm seeing a huge inconsistency between data 'theft' or 'stealing' and 'pirating' here on Slashdot. I read the article and didn't see any reference to the original data being deleted. Was it just copied or "pirated", or was it actually taken off the machine with the original data removed?
Seriously, why would anyone play games on a console anymore? You can do so much more to your games on the PC.
That wasn't directed at me, but here are my reasons: 1) I don't want to have to dual boot so that I can play AAA games. It saves me a Windows license, the hard drive space, the annoyance of multi-booting, etc. 2) Being able to just sit down on the couch with a beer, pop in a game, and play it lounging back without having a keyboard/mouse spread is relaxing. I do love playing PC games as well, but sometimes I just want to be sprawled. If I played competitively, I'd probably only play on PC. 3) I'm growing older and don't have the time or energy to upgrade my hardware in bits. I'd rather buy a new console for a few hundred dollars every 5-7 years instead of component upgrades every 0.5-1 years.
It also helps that my gaming isn't mostly twitch-shooters. If it was, that would also change how I probably played games.
Let's face it, there's no shortage of places that have some, part or all of your personal information these days; Steam is just one of many.
People or companies doing stupid or restrictive things en mass does not somehow make it right.
Purchasing a single-player game and having to tether it to a registration system is idiotic for the reason in the main article here. This continuing push to centralize all data in these private hubs is starting to show the flaws.
We’ve all lived the nightmare. A new developer shows up at work, and you try to be welcoming, but he1 can’t seem to get up to speed; the questions he asks reveal basic ignorance; and his work, when it finally emerges, is so kludgey that it ultimately must be rewritten from scratch by more competent people. And yet his interviewers—and/or the HR department, if your company has been infested by that bureaucratic parasite—swear that they only hire above-average/A-level/top-1% people.....
1 - Yes, I am being deliberately sexist here, because in my experience those women who write code are consistently good at it.
I know it's socially cool to be anti-male, but come on.
I kind of regret using a Blu-ray player at times, because I'm nagged to be online to "Experience all the content" any time I want to watch a friggen movie.
Purely conjecture, but I believe it's less to do with "checking off a feature" and more to do with the following: - Save time & money on content generation, since people who play multiplayer will use the same map over and over. - Form of DRM / Piracy Protection, if there is 'server validation' then there's an indirect 'purchase validation'
Personally, I don't buy a game for multiplayer unless it's split screen, and those are few and far between. I'd play an older game like Goldeneye 64 with 3 buds long before playing any shooter over xbox live.
Perhaps it's an age or regional thing then. The last fansub circle I was in was in the mid-20's to mid-30's demographic which had a pretty stout "Buy it when it comes out in the states" stance.
Which largely amounts to nothing. The number of fansub viewers so wildly outweighs the number of buyers it's ridiculous and shows keep getting distributed no matter what.
Really? Source? That's almost shocking to hear, as my experiences have been so drastically different. I'd be interested to see that survey or study. Additionally, it would go pretty counter to the article above as well.
Why is this trash marked "Informative". It's clear that the parent has no idea who "Mr. Reeves" is.
This man gives most of his money to Charity / the staff that helps during the movie shoots / or to other actors. He's given 90%~ of his salary so that another actor could join the set that he felt 'fit the role' on more than one occasion. He lives like a real person (takes the bus, eats at local shops)..
He is one of the very few actors that actually does it because he loves it.
I'm confused, so you do care and are interested in piracy? Or do you mean "I couldn't care less".
To the GP, game publishers only look at / care about the piracy angle. Even if no one admitted that they wanted to pirate, these companies have a vested interest in keeping the game system 'locked down' and will see any openness on it as a threat.
Live is a portal that provides the following: - Targeted Advertising, which makes Microsoft money - Media purchasing avenue (Games, Videos, Add-ons, etc), which makes Microsoft money - Multiplayer functionality around games which make Microsoft Money - Subscription Fee, which makes Microsoft money
Only cost that has no/little return is from people who play multilayer constantly and somehow avoids seeing any of the advertisements.
This is really just a profit grab. I can't really blame them since they don't have to compete with anyone for their existing install base, but it does irk me.
Perhaps I'm understanding this wrong, but wouldn't "One Eight the Size" make a lot more sense? Having something 'times smaller' would suggest a difference in size being multiplied, and not fixed size.
Tell me about it. "I couldn't care less" and "I could care less" is a perfect example of this. It sounds simply moronic to use "I could care less" at the times that people do, but people do so often and don't even realize what's wrong.
How is the OP insightful? Content copying has never been anything like today, in either scale or accuracy.
There's simply no comparison between the triviality of copying&distribution of media with pre- and post- internet era. Millions of people can download an unauthorized song, movie, video game (etc) within the first 24 hours of release and suffer a zero quality loss. In very old times, there was simply no method to create exact replications-- and until [relative] recently, there has not been a distribution method anything like the internet.
... Now, if you can't be bothered to write a novel because you won't get megabucks for it, then clearly you neither love writing, nor do you feel any particular drive to do it. So why should I care if you never write your novel?
While there may be a few people who are demanding millions for their independently generated music, artists themselves are generally looking for enough money to pay for their life + support a family. Just because someone doesn't write their novel because they have to get a job to feed their child does not mean they don't have passion. This whole thinking of "Everything of passion should be for free" is absurd when survival in any modern civilization requires a job that pays the bills.
And no, the current top-50 RIAA propped artists are not a true reflection of creative people in the world.
Slashdot Mirror
Finding information about is pretty trivial. But since I made the claim, I'll back it up with a source. Link. Search for the names in the link on google, and you'll find a near-endless stream of information on it.
This event was the catalyst in bringing to light the corruption in commercial gaming journalism. It all spun out from there.
...The articles had drawn the ire of the self-described "Gater" movement, a grass-roots campaign to discredit prominent female games journalists....
The GamerGate movement had nothing to do with that at all, nor has it been about feminism. It actually started when a male Kotaku journalist published an article about a female game developer that he was sleeping with without disclosure, an act that is generally intolerable in any credible journalistic circle. From there, the mainstream gaming media outlets started with "defending it" to "attacking 'gamers'". It was almost funny how coordinated it was, because on August 28th almost every one of the gaming sites posted a "Gaming is Dead" article in unison (http://gamergate.giz.moe/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/1409546711940__large.jpg) when they were unable to squash it.
This article is a perfect example of the problem. It's near impossible to get a truthful story, because it turns out that most of the big names in games journalism have similar skeletons in the closet.
False. Completely false. Why do you persist in this nonsense?
Women, in the same career field as a man, almost always makes less....
I've heard this a lot, and have seen a lot of statistics that show both ways, depending on the data view and metrics considered. But there seems to be a stronger opinion for the side that you mention in the quote above, at least in the public eye. So, and I really do want to know: If this was true, why don't multinational or traded companies only hire women? If a woman can preform as well or better than a man, and almost always makes less, then it would be folly for any board not to hire only women. Reducing the labor expense by 10-20%+ while maintaining the same productivity would put any large company way out in front competitively.
It's this simple question that makes me think that it's actually more complex than that, and that the versions of the reports showing it are ignoring non-gender factors. (hours worked in a week, time off for children, etc)
Ridiculous summary with regards to the $500 million dollar figure. It includes the development AND MARKETING budgets!
Basically this. Destiny spent an estimate $360 million in Marketing and $140 million in Development, which is over a 2:1 ratio. CoD2:Modern Warfare 2 has a respective $150:$50 million or 3:1 split (Source). When game companies are spending a small relative fraction on the actual development, there's a problem.
You want private enterprise to own celestial objects? Because that's what would happen.
"Welcome to Mars, brought to you by AT&T"
While I applaud the idea, it's as unrealistic as "Getting Misogyny, Racism and Homophobia out of the Internet" or "Getting Misogyny, Racism and Homophobia out of books".
Games are not like TV Shows, in that there is not a single channel in which consumers get it (like TV Stations). A single person can make a game that becomes popular with tens or hundreds of thousands of people. Combine this with the fact that one group can find content as offensive (She's has a character flaw... misogyny!) while another of the same group can find the alternative equally offensive (All the females in this game are one-dimensional... misogyny!).
I also don't see how creativity will flow if all content needs to be impossibly 'appropriate' for all people. For big companies, it's self-correcting anyway: If it's offensive to too many people, the game won't be successful... so at least big companies have interest to make games that sell on the mass market.
Actual 1080p isn't even here yet for a lot of media. Most games and TV stations still only use 720p, and there are quite a few movies in that mode as well. It's no surprise that no major content provider is considering 4K at this point.
One of the more interesting changes is the license switch from LGPL to zlib.
I suspect this was done due to the rise of SFML (Simple and Fast Multimedia Library).
I'm seeing a huge inconsistency between data 'theft' or 'stealing' and 'pirating' here on Slashdot. I read the article and didn't see any reference to the original data being deleted. Was it just copied or "pirated", or was it actually taken off the machine with the original data removed?
Seriously, why would anyone play games on a console anymore? You can do so much more to your games on the PC.
That wasn't directed at me, but here are my reasons:
1) I don't want to have to dual boot so that I can play AAA games. It saves me a Windows license, the hard drive space, the annoyance of multi-booting, etc.
2) Being able to just sit down on the couch with a beer, pop in a game, and play it lounging back without having a keyboard/mouse spread is relaxing. I do love playing PC games as well, but sometimes I just want to be sprawled. If I played competitively, I'd probably only play on PC.
3) I'm growing older and don't have the time or energy to upgrade my hardware in bits. I'd rather buy a new console for a few hundred dollars every 5-7 years instead of component upgrades every 0.5-1 years.
It also helps that my gaming isn't mostly twitch-shooters. If it was, that would also change how I probably played games.
Let's face it, there's no shortage of places that have some, part or all of your personal information these days; Steam is just one of many.
People or companies doing stupid or restrictive things en mass does not somehow make it right.
Purchasing a single-player game and having to tether it to a registration system is idiotic for the reason in the main article here. This continuing push to centralize all data in these private hubs is starting to show the flaws.
FTFA
We’ve all lived the nightmare. A new developer shows up at work, and you try to be welcoming, but he1 can’t seem to get up to speed; the questions he asks reveal basic ignorance; and his work, when it finally emerges, is so kludgey that it ultimately must be rewritten from scratch by more competent people. And yet his interviewers—and/or the HR department, if your company has been infested by that bureaucratic parasite—swear that they only hire above-average/A-level/top-1% people. ....
1 - Yes, I am being deliberately sexist here, because in my experience those women who write code are consistently good at it.
I know it's socially cool to be anti-male, but come on.
I kind of regret using a Blu-ray player at times, because I'm nagged to be online to "Experience all the content" any time I want to watch a friggen movie.
Purely conjecture, but I believe it's less to do with "checking off a feature" and more to do with the following:
- Save time & money on content generation, since people who play multiplayer will use the same map over and over.
- Form of DRM / Piracy Protection, if there is 'server validation' then there's an indirect 'purchase validation'
Personally, I don't buy a game for multiplayer unless it's split screen, and those are few and far between. I'd play an older game like Goldeneye 64 with 3 buds long before playing any shooter over xbox live.
Perhaps it's an age or regional thing then. The last fansub circle I was in was in the mid-20's to mid-30's demographic which had a pretty stout "Buy it when it comes out in the states" stance.
Which largely amounts to nothing. The number of fansub viewers so wildly outweighs the number of buyers it's ridiculous and shows keep getting distributed no matter what.
Really? Source? That's almost shocking to hear, as my experiences have been so drastically different. I'd be interested to see that survey or study. Additionally, it would go pretty counter to the article above as well.
Why is this trash marked "Informative". It's clear that the parent has no idea who "Mr. Reeves" is.
This man gives most of his money to Charity / the staff that helps during the movie shoots / or to other actors. He's given 90%~ of his salary so that another actor could join the set that he felt 'fit the role' on more than one occasion. He lives like a real person (takes the bus, eats at local shops)..
He is one of the very few actors that actually does it because he loves it.
Yup, I could really care less about the games.
I'm confused, so you do care and are interested in piracy? Or do you mean "I couldn't care less".
To the GP, game publishers only look at / care about the piracy angle. Even if no one admitted that they wanted to pirate, these companies have a vested interest in keeping the game system 'locked down' and will see any openness on it as a threat.
The difference in this example is that you're not paying for the enforcement of my parenting.
Then 72% of US Adults shouldn't buy the games for their children.
Live is a portal that provides the following:
- Targeted Advertising, which makes Microsoft money
- Media purchasing avenue (Games, Videos, Add-ons, etc), which makes Microsoft money
- Multiplayer functionality around games which make Microsoft Money
- Subscription Fee, which makes Microsoft money
Only cost that has no/little return is from people who play multilayer constantly and somehow avoids seeing any of the advertisements.
This is really just a profit grab. I can't really blame them since they don't have to compete with anyone for their existing install base, but it does irk me.
Perhaps I'm understanding this wrong, but wouldn't "One Eight the Size" make a lot more sense? Having something 'times smaller' would suggest a difference in size being multiplied, and not fixed size.
Tell me about it. "I couldn't care less" and "I could care less" is a perfect example of this. It sounds simply moronic to use "I could care less" at the times that people do, but people do so often and don't even realize what's wrong.
Funny... I was just hearing from George Lucas that the server shot first.
How is the OP insightful? Content copying has never been anything like today, in either scale or accuracy.
There's simply no comparison between the triviality of copying&distribution of media with pre- and post- internet era. Millions of people can download an unauthorized song, movie, video game (etc) within the first 24 hours of release and suffer a zero quality loss. In very old times, there was simply no method to create exact replications-- and until [relative] recently, there has not been a distribution method anything like the internet.
... Now, if you can't be bothered to write a novel because you won't get megabucks for it, then clearly you neither love writing, nor do you feel any particular drive to do it. So why should I care if you never write your novel?
While there may be a few people who are demanding millions for their independently generated music, artists themselves are generally looking for enough money to pay for their life + support a family. Just because someone doesn't write their novel because they have to get a job to feed their child does not mean they don't have passion. This whole thinking of "Everything of passion should be for free" is absurd when survival in any modern civilization requires a job that pays the bills.
And no, the current top-50 RIAA propped artists are not a true reflection of creative people in the world.