People keep saying this, but would you really have been happy if they had stuck to the 400k project and kept the rest of the money on their bank account?
Obviously, the increased budget has allowed them to expand the project. This is a good thing, it means the money people put in is actually used on the game. More money = more game.
So unfortunately, the bigger game they are making now has gone over budget. It's really no big deal, as they have found a good solution, which is to release part of the game early in order to generate income to finish the rest of the game. They're not asking for more money, they are simply adjusting the release schedule.
Projects going over budget are a fact of life. These things happen all the time. The only reason we're hearing about it at all is because it's a crowdfunded project and the crowd has a right to know what is happening with their money. But don't think other games you are playing were finished on time and within the projected budget, because they're not.
Northern Ireland encompasses a large part of the Irish province of Ulster. I'm not sure about the details, but I do believe the provinces of Ireland were once separate nations, each with their own king. But that certainly was a really long time ago.
Daily reboots with Windows 2000? I think it might be your system which had hardware issues if that truly were the case. Windows 2000 was super stable, probably the best of version of Windows ever released by Microsoft to date.
Yeah, that's why I'm still using my iMac from 2007. It's got a fairly fast Core 2 Duo chip and 6 GB RAM and basically the only thing I need is a browser and text editor. A newer/faster machine is simply not worth the investment.
You say it like Microsoft is a victim of the circumstances. But some people in the industry are saying PC sales and IT spending is down because of Windows 8.
Probably both. People are holding on to a machine that works because of the economic situation and a lot of people still prefer XP to anything else and install it on brand new systems. I guess it will be until 2014 when support is dropped that the numbers will show some real drops, although it will be mainly from businesses as they are the ones who care about support in the first place. I doubt home users will think a lack of updates is a bad thing.
Yet Vista never managed to get more than a mere 26%, and that's the best number I could find. Some research indicates Vista's market share actually maxed at about 19%.
A lack of support might push a few businesses to adopt a newer version of Windows, but I doubt people at home will care. Actually, a lack of updates might be seen as a feature (no reboots!) by those who are still holding on to a 12+ year old operating system.
And mind you: it's not passing Vista's market share as it was in October 2007 (equally 10 months after launch as Windows 8 is now). It's just passed Vista's *current* market share.
No consumer-oriented version of Windows has ever seen such a slow adoption as Windows 8 is showing now.
Single threaded is not a problem for web services as long as the threads aren't blocking. Once you have threads waiting for something (I/O typically), then you are delaying the system. But that's not really necessary with Javascript. Just finish as quickly as possible and fire an event when something you have to wait on is finished. Another thread will pick it up and resume later, and the system will process other requests in the meantime.
It means both both server and client. Traditionally, Javascript has been used only as a client language, running in your browser. With Javascript moving to the server with node.js and MongoDB, it enables a developer to write a complete server/client web application entirely in Javascript and share code between the two.
A full-stack Javascript web app will have the ability to predict behavior in the client without having to ask the server first. This means you can present a user with something meaningful which is probably right, meanwhile check on the server with the data present there and update the client if needed afterwards. This could be a huge usability improvement for many applications and games.
And it isn't really running in the browser anyway. It's running in the Flash player. One can embed the Flash player on a website, but it's by no means required and the application running inside the Flash player doesn't really have any interaction with the browser at all.
Of course past marketshare matters. Do you think the Playstation 2 would have been the same success if there hadn't been a Playstation 1? Same goes for the every console. It's called building a fan base.
So what? As long as there is enough money to keep the company afloat (and clearly both Sony and Microsoft have this kind of money), what's the problem with investing in your own products?
Slashdot Mirror
People keep saying this, but would you really have been happy if they had stuck to the 400k project and kept the rest of the money on their bank account?
Obviously, the increased budget has allowed them to expand the project. This is a good thing, it means the money people put in is actually used on the game. More money = more game.
So unfortunately, the bigger game they are making now has gone over budget. It's really no big deal, as they have found a good solution, which is to release part of the game early in order to generate income to finish the rest of the game. They're not asking for more money, they are simply adjusting the release schedule.
Projects going over budget are a fact of life. These things happen all the time. The only reason we're hearing about it at all is because it's a crowdfunded project and the crowd has a right to know what is happening with their money. But don't think other games you are playing were finished on time and within the projected budget, because they're not.
Northern Ireland encompasses a large part of the Irish province of Ulster. I'm not sure about the details, but I do believe the provinces of Ireland were once separate nations, each with their own king. But that certainly was a really long time ago.
northern Ireland was an occupied territory
What do you mean "was"?
Daily reboots with Windows 2000? I think it might be your system which had hardware issues if that truly were the case. Windows 2000 was super stable, probably the best of version of Windows ever released by Microsoft to date.
I don't think my iMac from 2007 is such a power hog. All of the internals are basically laptop hardware.
Yeah, that's why I'm still using my iMac from 2007. It's got a fairly fast Core 2 Duo chip and 6 GB RAM and basically the only thing I need is a browser and text editor. A newer/faster machine is simply not worth the investment.
You say it like Microsoft is a victim of the circumstances. But some people in the industry are saying PC sales and IT spending is down because of Windows 8.
Probably both. People are holding on to a machine that works because of the economic situation and a lot of people still prefer XP to anything else and install it on brand new systems. I guess it will be until 2014 when support is dropped that the numbers will show some real drops, although it will be mainly from businesses as they are the ones who care about support in the first place. I doubt home users will think a lack of updates is a bad thing.
Yet Vista never managed to get more than a mere 26%, and that's the best number I could find. Some research indicates Vista's market share actually maxed at about 19%.
Windows Me was in between. And of course "Windows 98 Second Edition", which might win the "silliest name of a Windows version ever" award.
A lack of support might push a few businesses to adopt a newer version of Windows, but I doubt people at home will care. Actually, a lack of updates might be seen as a feature (no reboots!) by those who are still holding on to a 12+ year old operating system.
That completely depends on the release date of Windows 9. Windows 7 for example was released before Vista could surpass XP's market share.
And mind you: it's not passing Vista's market share as it was in October 2007 (equally 10 months after launch as Windows 8 is now). It's just passed Vista's *current* market share.
No consumer-oriented version of Windows has ever seen such a slow adoption as Windows 8 is showing now.
What does unit testing have to do with validating user input?
Yeah, because that was such a huge success.
Single threaded is not a problem for web services as long as the threads aren't blocking. Once you have threads waiting for something (I/O typically), then you are delaying the system. But that's not really necessary with Javascript. Just finish as quickly as possible and fire an event when something you have to wait on is finished. Another thread will pick it up and resume later, and the system will process other requests in the meantime.
This one won't beat the Turing test yet, but keep trying!
Sharing a single code base between client and server is a huge benefit for any application. Nobody likes to write things twice.
It means both both server and client. Traditionally, Javascript has been used only as a client language, running in your browser. With Javascript moving to the server with node.js and MongoDB, it enables a developer to write a complete server/client web application entirely in Javascript and share code between the two.
A full-stack Javascript web app will have the ability to predict behavior in the client without having to ask the server first. This means you can present a user with something meaningful which is probably right, meanwhile check on the server with the data present there and update the client if needed afterwards. This could be a huge usability improvement for many applications and games.
You know your working conditions are bad when the robots are committing suicide.
And it isn't really running in the browser anyway. It's running in the Flash player. One can embed the Flash player on a website, but it's by no means required and the application running inside the Flash player doesn't really have any interaction with the browser at all.
Who reads Slashdot but can't install a video editor?
Of course past marketshare matters. Do you think the Playstation 2 would have been the same success if there hadn't been a Playstation 1? Same goes for the every console. It's called building a fan base.
So what? As long as there is enough money to keep the company afloat (and clearly both Sony and Microsoft have this kind of money), what's the problem with investing in your own products?