That's all very well if you have good parents, but you'll be completely screwed over if your parents are too indifferent, fucked-up or poor to provide you with an education. You may not have thought much of your schooling, but at least you've been given the basic start in life. Take away public schooling and some will be left without any chance of improving themselves in life at all.
Surely that's part of the 'American Dream'; that anyone can make it, irrespective of the humbleness of their beginnings. If you deny the most disadvantaged even a basic education, what chance will they have?
I don't see how the '99% who aren't dicks' are being inconvenienced; If they're not dicks they'll turn off their phones anyway, so they aren't affected. Pretty much by definition it's only the dicks who will get inconvenienced.
It looks like we'll have to agree to disagree here. I still think that you're unlikely to make back the cost of Testing and QA alone for a Linux port, but you're quite right; I don't have any numbers to back it up!
Listen, every damn games developer writes an engine that abstracts much of the lower-level details of the system. In most of these engines it will be possible to replace the basic rendering backend with another and get something up and running. As I said before, game devlopers aren't stupid. However, you'll still find that most Windows games target DirectX, if only because you don't then have to target a different set of OpenGL extensions for different graphics cards, and the chances of the end user having a working driver is higher for DirectX. Contrary to your assertions, whether you use DirectX or not in your game makes no difference to its modularity.
Also, I take issue with your recipe for calculating the number of OpenGL-based games. The only games using OpenGL are Windows, Linux and OSX games. All the consoles us proprietary rendering systems (although some, like the Gamecubes, are quite OpenGL-like). The only recent major games I can think of that have had OpenGL-only rendering have been based on the Doom3 engine - the other ones that support OpenGL generally have it as an optional rendering module that you can use instead of the DirectX rendering module if you please. The majority of games however, just use DirectX. It's not due to developer inexperience or being in Microsoft's pocket or anything like that; it's just that in most cases unless you specifically need an OSX or Linux port, it makes more sense to choose DirectX.
It's all very well saying that you were simplifying your argument for simpletons like me, but you've quite plainly stated that you think that many game developers are stupid, when you don't seem to have demonstrated having any experience of the field yourself. And I'm sorry - telling us that game devs should be using a modular engine is like telling Web developers that it might be an idea to use CSS. No shit, Sherlock!
But it all comes down to my simple assertion that you seem bent to ignore, which is that adding an extra platform is always a lot of work. There is no such thing as a free lunch or a free port, and that's why so few games get ported to minor platforms like OSX and Linux.
I don't think that America can necessarily win any conventional war against any foe. Sure, they defeated the Taliban and the Iraqi army, but that tells you very little. Taking on China, Russia, India or perhaps some combined European force would be a very different matter.
There's no doubt that the US has the most powerful armed forces in the world. Whether or not that is enough to beat anyone is quite a different thing.
Of course, it's all pretty much academic. I can't forsee any likely circumstances under which the US would attack any large power.
Well, as a software engineer currently employed in the games industry, I also feel qualified to make fairly accurate statements on the subject matter. I have written games on Windows, Dreamcast, PSP and am now working on a PS3 title. I also spent several years working on Linux at a Post Production facility.
Writing a cross-platform game isn't necessarily difficult; most game devs do, as you suggest, abstract out much of the lower level stuff into a more general engine upon which they build the game. However, the amount of time you have to spend on the per-platform stuff is actually pretty high, so adding a new platform is always an expensive operation.
You also have to consider that Testing and Quality Assurance take up a large chunk of game development costs, and every new platform will add to that.
Contrary to your assertions, it's not that game devs are stupid; it's that supporting minor platforms like Linux rarely makes any financial sense.
Actually, it is neither. Most big development houses do exactly what he said they should. Look at the top games of the last few years. They fall into 3 basic categories:
* OpenGL as described
* DirectX - made by someone MS owns
* DirectX - the company's first and only really successful game
Care to back any of that up? I'm aware of very few recent OpenGL games.
Also, I think you mischaracterise DirectX as 'quick and dirty'; How is using DirectX 'cutting corners'?
I have no idea why coding houses are so dumb, but the math is easy to rationalize [and] it just makes good business sense.
Has it occurred to you that perhaps it's not that developers are dumb, but instead it's that it's not quite as straightforward as you make out?
Developers are always striving for better development practices, and this includes things like reducing coupling which leads to more portable code. However, I think you underestimate the amount of code that ends up getting written by game developers that is affected by platform or API specifics. The reason why developers don't normally write a Linux or Mac version simultaneously is that it's actually a lot of work. And unless you can justify the extra time and money that you'll need to put in to doing it, it just doesn't make sense.
Because it costs a lot more to do that than you might think. At a conservative estimate I'd guess that targeting Linux would take at the very least 10% more time. If the development budget for the whole game is $5,000,000, then you'd need to expect that you could make back at least half a million dollars from Linux purchases just to make it break even, let alone worthwhile.
This is my borough, so I'll have to keep a look out, although I didn't realise there was any particular problem around here with antisocial behaviour. There's some other interesting bits in that Police news link though. Apparently there's some 'airport-style arches' (presumably metal detectors) and automated number plate recognition going on as well. I think I might mail them and ask them how long they store their numberplate information for...
There... done. It'll be interesting to read their reply.
I want to know how on Earth you get 11 million customer records on to a single laptop in the first place.
There's no evidence that there were 11 million customer records on the laptop. That's just a 'fact' made up by the submitter and swallowed hook, line and sinker by the editors.
Yes, Nationwide has 11 million customers. There's nothing to suggest that the laptop had information about all of them on it.
The page on Nationwide's site simply says that "The laptop contained some customer information to be used mainly for marketing purposes".
I work in the games industry, and whether I buy new or used depends a lot on how much I want the game and how highly I value it. I consider many new games as overpriced and will very rarely buy a game for more than £30; up until recently that meant that I rarely bought new console games, but as the PS2 and Xbox games now tend to be £29.95 new, I'm more likely to buy new.
Certainly so-called 'ethics' doesn't come into it; I have no objection at all to people buying and selling secondhand copies of my games - that's just the market - there's no use railing against it.
Besides, people often sell their old games to help them buy new ones. I think it's all good.
Slashdot Mirror
And without some form of eduction, how do you expect them to learn how to read or use a computer?
That's all very well if you have good parents, but you'll be completely screwed over if your parents are too indifferent, fucked-up or poor to provide you with an education. You may not have thought much of your schooling, but at least you've been given the basic start in life. Take away public schooling and some will be left without any chance of improving themselves in life at all.
Surely that's part of the 'American Dream'; that anyone can make it, irrespective of the humbleness of their beginnings. If you deny the most disadvantaged even a basic education, what chance will they have?
I don't see how the '99% who aren't dicks' are being inconvenienced; If they're not dicks they'll turn off their phones anyway, so they aren't affected. Pretty much by definition it's only the dicks who will get inconvenienced.
Could you not just get the babysitter to phone the Cinema directly? They would then be able to send an usher in to get you. It's not difficult.
Only is they try active jamming. If they turn the theatre into a massive Faraday cage, they've done nothing wrong.
Well done, 'editors'...
My apologies; I wrongly attributed a comment of GooberToo's (who wrote the original post) to you.
It looks like we'll have to agree to disagree here. I still think that you're unlikely to make back the cost of Testing and QA alone for a Linux port, but you're quite right; I don't have any numbers to back it up!
Listen, every damn games developer writes an engine that abstracts much of the lower-level details of the system. In most of these engines it will be possible to replace the basic rendering backend with another and get something up and running. As I said before, game devlopers aren't stupid. However, you'll still find that most Windows games target DirectX, if only because you don't then have to target a different set of OpenGL extensions for different graphics cards, and the chances of the end user having a working driver is higher for DirectX. Contrary to your assertions, whether you use DirectX or not in your game makes no difference to its modularity.
Also, I take issue with your recipe for calculating the number of OpenGL-based games. The only games using OpenGL are Windows, Linux and OSX games. All the consoles us proprietary rendering systems (although some, like the Gamecubes, are quite OpenGL-like). The only recent major games I can think of that have had OpenGL-only rendering have been based on the Doom3 engine - the other ones that support OpenGL generally have it as an optional rendering module that you can use instead of the DirectX rendering module if you please. The majority of games however, just use DirectX. It's not due to developer inexperience or being in Microsoft's pocket or anything like that; it's just that in most cases unless you specifically need an OSX or Linux port, it makes more sense to choose DirectX.
It's all very well saying that you were simplifying your argument for simpletons like me, but you've quite plainly stated that you think that many game developers are stupid, when you don't seem to have demonstrated having any experience of the field yourself. And I'm sorry - telling us that game devs should be using a modular engine is like telling Web developers that it might be an idea to use CSS. No shit, Sherlock!
But it all comes down to my simple assertion that you seem bent to ignore, which is that adding an extra platform is always a lot of work. There is no such thing as a free lunch or a free port, and that's why so few games get ported to minor platforms like OSX and Linux.
I don't think that America can necessarily win any conventional war against any foe. Sure, they defeated the Taliban and the Iraqi army, but that tells you very little. Taking on China, Russia, India or perhaps some combined European force would be a very different matter.
There's no doubt that the US has the most powerful armed forces in the world. Whether or not that is enough to beat anyone is quite a different thing.
Of course, it's all pretty much academic. I can't forsee any likely circumstances under which the US would attack any large power.
Well, as a software engineer currently employed in the games industry, I also feel qualified to make fairly accurate statements on the subject matter. I have written games on Windows, Dreamcast, PSP and am now working on a PS3 title. I also spent several years working on Linux at a Post Production facility.
Writing a cross-platform game isn't necessarily difficult; most game devs do, as you suggest, abstract out much of the lower level stuff into a more general engine upon which they build the game. However, the amount of time you have to spend on the per-platform stuff is actually pretty high, so adding a new platform is always an expensive operation.
You also have to consider that Testing and Quality Assurance take up a large chunk of game development costs, and every new platform will add to that.
Contrary to your assertions, it's not that game devs are stupid; it's that supporting minor platforms like Linux rarely makes any financial sense.
Actually, it is neither. Most big development houses do exactly what he said they should. Look at the top games of the last few years. They fall into 3 basic categories:
* OpenGL as described
* DirectX - made by someone MS owns
* DirectX - the company's first and only really successful game
Care to back any of that up? I'm aware of very few recent OpenGL games.
Also, I think you mischaracterise DirectX as 'quick and dirty'; How is using DirectX 'cutting corners'?
I have no idea why coding houses are so dumb, but the math is easy to rationalize [and] it just makes good business sense.
Has it occurred to you that perhaps it's not that developers are dumb, but instead it's that it's not quite as straightforward as you make out?
Developers are always striving for better development practices, and this includes things like reducing coupling which leads to more portable code. However, I think you underestimate the amount of code that ends up getting written by game developers that is affected by platform or API specifics. The reason why developers don't normally write a Linux or Mac version simultaneously is that it's actually a lot of work. And unless you can justify the extra time and money that you'll need to put in to doing it, it just doesn't make sense.
Why not code cross-platform from the start?
Because it costs a lot more to do that than you might think. At a conservative estimate I'd guess that targeting Linux would take at the very least 10% more time. If the development budget for the whole game is $5,000,000, then you'd need to expect that you could make back at least half a million dollars from Linux purchases just to make it break even, let alone worthwhile.
Whinge Whinge Whinge
Bitch Bitch Bitch
This is my borough, so I'll have to keep a look out, although I didn't realise there was any particular problem around here with antisocial behaviour. There's some other interesting bits in that Police news link though. Apparently there's some 'airport-style arches' (presumably metal detectors) and automated number plate recognition going on as well. I think I might mail them and ask them how long they store their numberplate information for...
There... done. It'll be interesting to read their reply.
It's a shame that th parent post got modded up, as it's almost completely incorrect.
I want to know how on Earth you get 11 million customer records on to a single laptop in the first place.
There's no evidence that there were 11 million customer records on the laptop. That's just a 'fact' made up by the submitter and swallowed hook, line and sinker by the editors.
Yes, Nationwide has 11 million customers. There's nothing to suggest that the laptop had information about all of them on it.
The page on Nationwide's site simply says that "The laptop contained some customer information to be used mainly for marketing purposes".
I love their reaction when they first get a view of the massive heatsink and fan...
Do you hate your family?
Yes! fuck Sony and their litigious ways!
Let us embrace the beloved Nintendo, who would never stoop so low as to sue Lik-Sang!
Actually, I'm talking about the U.K.
The wholesale price for video games is roughly half of the RRP. The margins aren't thin at all.
I work in the games industry, and whether I buy new or used depends a lot on how much I want the game and how highly I value it. I consider many new games as overpriced and will very rarely buy a game for more than £30; up until recently that meant that I rarely bought new console games, but as the PS2 and Xbox games now tend to be £29.95 new, I'm more likely to buy new.
Certainly so-called 'ethics' doesn't come into it; I have no objection at all to people buying and selling secondhand copies of my games - that's just the market - there's no use railing against it.
Besides, people often sell their old games to help them buy new ones. I think it's all good.