DVD's have DRM also. Your argument doesn't hold any water.
DRM that is so weak, it does not interfere with normal operation. Blu-ray has utterly failed as copy protection is preventing people from using legitimately purchased discs.
When DVD's had been out for 3 years, I could confidently buy any player and any disc in the same country and have a 99.9999% certainty that it would play. Now I have to research which BR player receives the fastest updates and has the least problems.
This alone dumps BR into the "too hard" basket for most people. They know the DVD will work.
People will emphasise the negatives of a new system over the positives. When they are stopped by DRM it will stick around the platform like a bad smell.
Sony finally won the standards war but is almost irrelevant because people now watch stuff on-demand via streaming.
I'd say, Sony won the format battle but lost the standards war. They cant compete with DVD because Blu-Ray offers no advantage in convenience or price.
And the per-disk cost, of course(both with blanks and with commercial media). DVD blanks are basically disposable, blu-ray rather less so(but still not large enough or stability-tested enough to be a viable alternative to the really pricey tape, for smaller users). Then, when you hit the store, you find that the DVD is ~50% the price of the BD, except under special circumstances.
With TB harddrives, gigabit switches and large USB flash drives going cheap, what do people need with blank optical media?
In 2006 I used to use a dozen a month to play "liberated" video files in my hacked Xbox 1. Now I don't even have any blanks at home.
I've worked in the industry for 10 years. We're just not that cynical.
Adult gamers like violence. If a game is rated as suitable for teens then you would expect it to be pretty tame. Call of Duty sounds liek a marketing screw-up where marketing wanted to target it at the Teen age group and the developers were developing for an adult age group.
Scandals are great free publicity
They're unpredictable. It might work out well. It could backfire, especially if it turns out that you actively tried to create the scandal. They're expensive to manage and cause share prices to go a little crazy. This does not please investors.
I'm cynical of publishers, not developers. Dev's always start out with good intentions but publishers hold the purse strings. So who ends up making the decision.
As the AC pointed out,
Adult gamers don't mind violence. Teenage gamers LOVE violence.
I'm not going all "OMG Protects the children" on you. Quite the contrary, the fascination with violence is normal and 99.999999999% of teenage boys grow out of it by the age of 18 but it's true. Unscrupulous publishers do target violent games at the male, 13 and upwards demographic.
I'm simply saying, automating a ratings process will allow publishers to game the system.
I'm fine with ultra violent and sexually explicit games, but these are adult games.
The T rating allows for violence, so long as it doesn't get to graphic, I'm fine with this too and a lot of parent's will buy Mature rated games for their teens and that's their choice but some parents wont, these are the vocal minority that will use a corrupted ratings system to get games banned for everyone.
That's my fear with companies who will game an automated system.
At 20:41 19 April 2011, Skynet finished assimilating the total sum of human kinds project management knowledge. Utilising this knowledge, Skynet set about it's goal of eliminating humanity.
As of 2031, humans are still the dominant life form on the planet.
They have no interest in making violent games available to kids. If they want to make a game available to kids, they'll make a non violent game! They design the game to the rating, not make a game and then see what the rating is. Hell, if you saw a game and it said suitable for children, wouldn't you think perhaps it might be a little tame?
You're wrong.
They, being the publishers are interested in getting games into as many hands as possible. This means getting the game the lowest rating possible whilst still pandering to the most base instincts (sex and violence, you've got to be blind and retarded not to see that this is the staple topic of media, be it games, movies, music and even books).
You're right in the fact they design the game to the rating, they also try to push that rating as far as possible, the idea is to get the maximum amount of "impact" without actually going over into the next rating group. Why do you think Activision try so hard to keep Call of Duty at the Teen level, despite eventually failing? Could it be the fact that Activision wanted 13 yr old's to be able to buy it?
Certainly as an adult player, I know that COD is certainly not designed with me in mind.
BTW, I still enjoy games like Mario as much as I did when I was a kid. G rating does not imply that a game is no fun.
Scandals are too much hassle.
Scandals are great free publicity. Nothing sells games like a good scandal. That way people feel like they are rebelling when they play it.
If anyone is interested in how that conversation ended.
Activision exec: My lord Kotik, the 117th iteration of Medal of Duty is ready for release. Bobby Kotik: Has there been any changes to the gameplay? Activision exec: Uh, my lord Kotic Bobby Kotik:/Angry glance. Activision exec: One of the junior developers thought of some improvements. Bobby Kotik: I SAID NO CHANGES. Bobby Kotik:/presses button on chair, spins around to reveal a giant screen. The image of a young programmer appears on the screen. Junior Developer: ahhh, um, Lord Kotik, I, I, I wasn't expecting you. Bobby Kotik: You have failed me for the last time Junior Developer. Junior Developer: URK... gargle... klick. Bobby Kotik: See that this does not happen again Executive.
All this will do is allow publishers to game the system.
Activision Exec: We need to make our ultraviolent game available to kids. Activision Project Manager: Easy, we've already found enough flaws in the automated system to allow Medal of Duty 117 to pass under the G category. Activision Exec: But isn't that game full of violence and gore. Activision PM: Yes, but we've diversified the gore just enough that no single criteria breaches the G category. Activision Exec: Excellent, Lord Kotik will be most pleased.
I'm in favour of game ratings, as a guide. It allows parents and adults make informed choices about games, it also allows stores to know what to stock and better compliance with advertisng regulations. This system would be good for publishers to get an idea of what ratings games are likely to get, but we still need a human to judge the entire content, not just receive a as the OP pointed out, meaningless number.
On Babylon 5, one of Marcus's lines was that he took great comfort in the basic unfairness of the Universe. If it were basically fair, that would mean he deserved everything that happened to him.
"I used to think it was awful that life was so unfair. Then I thought, 'wouldn't it be much worse if life *were* fair, and all the terrible things that happen to us come because we actually deserve them?' So now I take great comfort in the general hostility and unfairness of the universe."
Heck some of the really popular shooties, the story is completely ignored by most players. Like Battlefield Bad Company 2. It is the online shooty I currently like. I have no idea what the story is, never tried the single player.
I've played the single player, I still have no idea what the story is.
But SP on BFBC2 was an add-on a six hour distraction from the MP aspect. There was no real story, bad voice work and so forth. Same with Crysis, except it was a tech demo with gameplay.
Now plenty of SP FPS's have great story and atmosphere, Half Life is the classic story example but the S.T.A.L.K.E.R. series is by far the best for atmosphere with decent story telling. The entire story was written in Russian and translated, you could tell but it fit in with the games theme in the Ukraine. It was presented via dialogue and throughout the game, the first game only had 4 or 5 cut scenes that were barely 20 seconds long.
I would have bought Starcraft 2 on launch day if Blizzard sold a $30 version without multiplayer (I heard they do have separate digital SKUs in Korea). Those cyborgs can have their battle.net, I want the story and maybe I'll feel like playing it again in a year's time. $30 would be worth that for me, I don't want to pirate it, I want some god damn consumer choice! (andfirstsaledoctrinethanksverymuch)
$30 version of Starcraft 2, not bloody likely.
A large part of the 100 mil that went into making it was the sheer amount of CGI and voice work that went into the pre-rendered scenes in the single player.
A lot of games only have a few minutes of CG or none at all because it's so damned expensive to produce.
that being said, I like multiplayer starcraft but haven't played a single on-line game of SC2.
Only in markets like US and EU, where broadband is mature will download media take over.
Australia is one of those markets (well almost, NBN will ensure it though) and physical media is going nowhere because the online alternatives are more expensive. When a new release on Steam cost $70-80 to buy and then 24 hours to download, this is compared to $50-60 to buy from Hong Kong and 1 week for shipping. If I'm going to wait 24 hours, I'll wait 1 week.
and with all the crap sony is pulling suing people and hobbling the ps3 why would you?
Because no one chose to fight this on the PC, activation has come to the console and unlike the PC, there is no crack that you can use in 10 years time.
First they forced activation the PC games, but I said nothing because I wasn't a PC gamer.
Next the forced activation on PS gamers, but I said nothing because I was an Xbox fanboy.
Then they forced Activation on me, and there was no-one left to speak out for me.
Fitting no, as a PC gamer I've long realised that what happens on PC, will eventually translate to consoles, consoles are just a few years behind. Expect Ubisoft style "always on-line" DRM enforced sometime in 2013.
How is this any different than PC games that have CD keys that you need to install,
Actually this is more like games where you need to activate in order to play.
With CD keys, you could sell the CD Key with the original media. With this game, you cannot sell the mechanism to play on-line with the media.
IF ableToCompete==False
THEN sue=nearestCompetitor
This little nugget's been part of Apple's MO since the 80's.
And seeing that Apple has the second highest market cap of any company in the US, obviously it must be failing.....
That makes them competitive how...
Apple became the second highest selling phone manufacturer overnight, as many a fanboy will point out. Why cant the reverse happen overnight. It's not like Apple has a huge R&D base to keep it afloat after commercial failure like Nokia has. Apple is entirely dependent on remaining strong in retail.
Didn't they just buy a metric shit-ton of screens for their new iPhone from Samsung?
Samsung should just tell them to go fuck themselves.
Samsung simply cant tell Apple to go "fuck" themselves.
Apple and Samsung have a contract, Apple must pay the contract and Samsung must provide goods.
However due to rapidly changing technologies, Apple may very well find it has trouble negotiating good rates with Samsung when the next new thing(TM) is invented.
This doesn't make sense from a traditional business standpoint, but when has Apple acted like traditional business? Hubris almost killed them in the 90's.
It wants you to know that the "look and feel lawsuit" didn't turn out the way you think it did.
The Samsung OS customisations (TouchWiz) is a world apart from IOS despite similar external appearances to the untrained eye. TouchWiz still performs similar to vanilla Android in most respects. Any half respectable lawyer will rip shreds out of the "copying UI" argument using the Look and Feel case as a cudgel and Samsung can afford very competent lawyers.
You have to have money to innovate. So if you're creating innovative products you have to protect your profits.
Nope,
You have to leverage your innovation to create profit, this means using what you've developed to be more attractive to customers then the competition.
Attempting to hold competitors back via legal action is the exact opposite of innovation.
There are plenty of examples of this in the real world, I never hear of BMW suing GM for using a "hydrocarbon explosion to propel a piston head upwards", when was the last time Google sued any search competitor?
In true slashdot form, a car analogy:
This is the equivalent of GM suing Ford to prevent them from producing a car that gets greater then 10 MPG so GM doesn't have to develop a car that gets greater economy then 11 MPG.
This is interesting, given that Apple buys a lot of its flash and other important components from Samsung, by one estimate over $7B annually. Neither can afford to not do business with the other. Maybe this is the opening move in a components negotiation?
Samsung electronics' total Rev is US$117 B. Source Wikipedia. US$7b is a drop in the bucket.
Apple has a lot of competitors that Samsung can sell to including itself.
Apple already has a good deal with Samsung (and LG displays) for Iphone components, they paid for a certain level of exclusivity and\or supply at rates lower then other companies.
If this is a negotiation tactic, it's pants on head retarded. If it's an attack on a competitor it's also pants on head retarded. Samsung can afford to kiss an estimated US$7 B go if Apple decide to go on an all out attack, who else is going to supply NAND flash and A4 procs at the rate and price that Samsung is currently doing?
Samsung can afford to lose Apple, Apple cannot afford to lose Samsung. What the heck is Apple thinking?
Yeah, 'cos a grid of app icons was Apple's innovation... Just like a rounded rectangular shaped phone...
Besides, you can't patent or copyright an idea, just your implementation. Apple is just as guilty (if not more so) of copying other people's ideas as any one else.
Yes but Apple is allowed to copy other peoples ideas because Apple is an innovator(TM).
Samsung is not because all Samsung does is develop new technologies in their own labs.
This was all clearly spelled out in page 3 of the fanboy initiation guide.
If you take a bit of gold to a mint, often they'll just melt it down, then give you the value of the gold. Had a mate do this with a gold chain from Thailand, turned out the only impurity was the latch.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't know about that, but I know worlds with two Dells typically sport a lot of downtime.
DVD's have DRM also. Your argument doesn't hold any water.
DRM that is so weak, it does not interfere with normal operation. Blu-ray has utterly failed as copy protection is preventing people from using legitimately purchased discs.
When DVD's had been out for 3 years, I could confidently buy any player and any disc in the same country and have a 99.9999% certainty that it would play. Now I have to research which BR player receives the fastest updates and has the least problems.
This alone dumps BR into the "too hard" basket for most people. They know the DVD will work.
People will emphasise the negatives of a new system over the positives. When they are stopped by DRM it will stick around the platform like a bad smell.
Sony finally won the standards war but is almost irrelevant because people now watch stuff on-demand via streaming.
I'd say, Sony won the format battle but lost the standards war. They cant compete with DVD because Blu-Ray offers no advantage in convenience or price.
And the per-disk cost, of course(both with blanks and with commercial media). DVD blanks are basically disposable, blu-ray rather less so(but still not large enough or stability-tested enough to be a viable alternative to the really pricey tape, for smaller users). Then, when you hit the store, you find that the DVD is ~50% the price of the BD, except under special circumstances.
With TB harddrives, gigabit switches and large USB flash drives going cheap, what do people need with blank optical media?
In 2006 I used to use a dozen a month to play "liberated" video files in my hacked Xbox 1. Now I don't even have any blanks at home.
I've worked in the industry for 10 years. We're just not that cynical.
Adult gamers like violence. If a game is rated as suitable for teens then you would expect it to be pretty tame. Call of Duty sounds liek a marketing screw-up where marketing wanted to target it at the Teen age group and the developers were developing for an adult age group. Scandals are great free publicity
They're unpredictable. It might work out well. It could backfire, especially if it turns out that you actively tried to create the scandal. They're expensive to manage and cause share prices to go a little crazy. This does not please investors.
I'm cynical of publishers, not developers. Dev's always start out with good intentions but publishers hold the purse strings. So who ends up making the decision.
As the AC pointed out,
Adult gamers don't mind violence. Teenage gamers LOVE violence.
I'm not going all "OMG Protects the children" on you. Quite the contrary, the fascination with violence is normal and 99.999999999% of teenage boys grow out of it by the age of 18 but it's true. Unscrupulous publishers do target violent games at the male, 13 and upwards demographic.
I'm simply saying, automating a ratings process will allow publishers to game the system.
I'm fine with ultra violent and sexually explicit games, but these are adult games.
The T rating allows for violence, so long as it doesn't get to graphic, I'm fine with this too and a lot of parent's will buy Mature rated games for their teens and that's their choice but some parents wont, these are the vocal minority that will use a corrupted ratings system to get games banned for everyone.
That's my fear with companies who will game an automated system.
Schedule slip.
You expect anything else from a software project?
At 20:41 19 April 2011, Skynet finished assimilating the total sum of human kinds project management knowledge. Utilising this knowledge, Skynet set about it's goal of eliminating humanity.
As of 2031, humans are still the dominant life form on the planet.
You're wrong. They, being the publishers are interested in getting games into as many hands as possible. This means getting the game the lowest rating possible whilst still pandering to the most base instincts (sex and violence, you've got to be blind and retarded not to see that this is the staple topic of media, be it games, movies, music and even books).
You're right in the fact they design the game to the rating, they also try to push that rating as far as possible, the idea is to get the maximum amount of "impact" without actually going over into the next rating group. Why do you think Activision try so hard to keep Call of Duty at the Teen level, despite eventually failing? Could it be the fact that Activision wanted 13 yr old's to be able to buy it?
Certainly as an adult player, I know that COD is certainly not designed with me in mind. BTW, I still enjoy games like Mario as much as I did when I was a kid. G rating does not imply that a game is no fun.
Scandals are too much hassle.
Scandals are great free publicity. Nothing sells games like a good scandal. That way people feel like they are rebelling when they play it.
If anyone is interested in how that conversation ended.
/Angry glance. /presses button on chair, spins around to reveal a giant screen. The image of a young programmer appears on the screen.
Activision exec: My lord Kotik, the 117th iteration of Medal of Duty is ready for release.
Bobby Kotik: Has there been any changes to the gameplay?
Activision exec: Uh, my lord Kotic
Bobby Kotik:
Activision exec: One of the junior developers thought of some improvements.
Bobby Kotik: I SAID NO CHANGES.
Bobby Kotik:
Junior Developer: ahhh, um, Lord Kotik, I, I, I wasn't expecting you.
Bobby Kotik: You have failed me for the last time Junior Developer.
Junior Developer: URK... gargle... klick.
Bobby Kotik: See that this does not happen again Executive.
Now the serious reply,
All this will do is allow publishers to game the system.
Activision Exec: We need to make our ultraviolent game available to kids.
Activision Project Manager: Easy, we've already found enough flaws in the automated system to allow Medal of Duty 117 to pass under the G category.
Activision Exec: But isn't that game full of violence and gore.
Activision PM: Yes, but we've diversified the gore just enough that no single criteria breaches the G category.
Activision Exec: Excellent, Lord Kotik will be most pleased.
I'm in favour of game ratings, as a guide. It allows parents and adults make informed choices about games, it also allows stores to know what to stock and better compliance with advertisng regulations. This system would be good for publishers to get an idea of what ratings games are likely to get, but we still need a human to judge the entire content, not just receive a as the OP pointed out, meaningless number.
This game contains 14.3 units of boobs, far too high for an M rating.
On Babylon 5, one of Marcus's lines was that he took great comfort in the basic unfairness of the Universe. If it were basically fair, that would mean he deserved everything that happened to him.
"I used to think it was awful that life was so unfair. Then I thought, 'wouldn't it be much worse if life *were* fair, and all the terrible things that happen to us come because we actually deserve them?' So now I take great comfort in the general hostility and unfairness of the universe."
Heck some of the really popular shooties, the story is completely ignored by most players. Like Battlefield Bad Company 2. It is the online shooty I currently like. I have no idea what the story is, never tried the single player.
I've played the single player, I still have no idea what the story is.
But SP on BFBC2 was an add-on a six hour distraction from the MP aspect. There was no real story, bad voice work and so forth. Same with Crysis, except it was a tech demo with gameplay.
Now plenty of SP FPS's have great story and atmosphere, Half Life is the classic story example but the S.T.A.L.K.E.R. series is by far the best for atmosphere with decent story telling. The entire story was written in Russian and translated, you could tell but it fit in with the games theme in the Ukraine. It was presented via dialogue and throughout the game, the first game only had 4 or 5 cut scenes that were barely 20 seconds long.
I would have bought Starcraft 2 on launch day if Blizzard sold a $30 version without multiplayer (I heard they do have separate digital SKUs in Korea). Those cyborgs can have their battle.net, I want the story and maybe I'll feel like playing it again in a year's time. $30 would be worth that for me, I don't want to pirate it, I want some god damn consumer choice! (andfirstsaledoctrinethanksverymuch)
$30 version of Starcraft 2, not bloody likely.
A large part of the 100 mil that went into making it was the sheer amount of CGI and voice work that went into the pre-rendered scenes in the single player. A lot of games only have a few minutes of CG or none at all because it's so damned expensive to produce. that being said, I like multiplayer starcraft but haven't played a single on-line game of SC2.
No, hard media is not going away.
Only in markets like US and EU, where broadband is mature will download media take over.
Australia is one of those markets (well almost, NBN will ensure it though) and physical media is going nowhere because the online alternatives are more expensive. When a new release on Steam cost $70-80 to buy and then 24 hours to download, this is compared to $50-60 to buy from Hong Kong and 1 week for shipping. If I'm going to wait 24 hours, I'll wait 1 week.
and with all the crap sony is pulling suing people and hobbling the ps3 why would you?
Because no one chose to fight this on the PC, activation has come to the console and unlike the PC, there is no crack that you can use in 10 years time.
First they forced activation the PC games, but I said nothing because I wasn't a PC gamer.
Next the forced activation on PS gamers, but I said nothing because I was an Xbox fanboy.
Then they forced Activation on me, and there was no-one left to speak out for me.
Fitting no, as a PC gamer I've long realised that what happens on PC, will eventually translate to consoles, consoles are just a few years behind. Expect Ubisoft style "always on-line" DRM enforced sometime in 2013.
You have been warned.
And seeing that Apple has the second highest market cap of any company in the US, obviously it must be failing.....
That makes them competitive how...
Apple became the second highest selling phone manufacturer overnight, as many a fanboy will point out. Why cant the reverse happen overnight. It's not like Apple has a huge R&D base to keep it afloat after commercial failure like Nokia has. Apple is entirely dependent on remaining strong in retail.
Selling a lot != competitive.
Especially in the tech market.
Didn't they just buy a metric shit-ton of screens for their new iPhone from Samsung?
Samsung should just tell them to go fuck themselves.
Samsung simply cant tell Apple to go "fuck" themselves.
Apple and Samsung have a contract, Apple must pay the contract and Samsung must provide goods.
However due to rapidly changing technologies, Apple may very well find it has trouble negotiating good rates with Samsung when the next new thing(TM) is invented.
This doesn't make sense from a traditional business standpoint, but when has Apple acted like traditional business? Hubris almost killed them in the 90's.
Copying the GUI is a valid point
1994 called,
It wants you to know that the "look and feel lawsuit" didn't turn out the way you think it did.
The Samsung OS customisations (TouchWiz) is a world apart from IOS despite similar external appearances to the untrained eye. TouchWiz still performs similar to vanilla Android in most respects. Any half respectable lawyer will rip shreds out of the "copying UI" argument using the Look and Feel case as a cudgel and Samsung can afford very competent lawyers.
Nope,
You have to leverage your innovation to create profit, this means using what you've developed to be more attractive to customers then the competition.
Attempting to hold competitors back via legal action is the exact opposite of innovation.
There are plenty of examples of this in the real world, I never hear of BMW suing GM for using a "hydrocarbon explosion to propel a piston head upwards", when was the last time Google sued any search competitor?
In true slashdot form, a car analogy:
This is the equivalent of GM suing Ford to prevent them from producing a car that gets greater then 10 MPG so GM doesn't have to develop a car that gets greater economy then 11 MPG.
This is interesting, given that Apple buys a lot of its flash and other important components from Samsung, by one estimate over $7B annually. Neither can afford to not do business with the other. Maybe this is the opening move in a components negotiation?
Samsung electronics' total Rev is US$117 B. Source Wikipedia. US$7b is a drop in the bucket.
Apple has a lot of competitors that Samsung can sell to including itself.
Apple already has a good deal with Samsung (and LG displays) for Iphone components, they paid for a certain level of exclusivity and\or supply at rates lower then other companies.
If this is a negotiation tactic, it's pants on head retarded. If it's an attack on a competitor it's also pants on head retarded. Samsung can afford to kiss an estimated US$7 B go if Apple decide to go on an all out attack, who else is going to supply NAND flash and A4 procs at the rate and price that Samsung is currently doing?
Samsung can afford to lose Apple, Apple cannot afford to lose Samsung. What the heck is Apple thinking?
Yeah, 'cos a grid of app icons was Apple's innovation... Just like a rounded rectangular shaped phone...
Besides, you can't patent or copyright an idea, just your implementation. Apple is just as guilty (if not more so) of copying other people's ideas as any one else.
Yes but Apple is allowed to copy other peoples ideas because Apple is an innovator(TM).
Samsung is not because all Samsung does is develop new technologies in their own labs.
This was all clearly spelled out in page 3 of the fanboy initiation guide.
To claim that a tablet can't be rectangular with rounded corners and a border? Dear lord, that's just ridiculous.
IF ableToCompete==False
THEN sue=nearestCompetitor
This little nugget's been part of Apple's MO since the 80's.
I don't hate you.
If you take a bit of gold to a mint, often they'll just melt it down, then give you the value of the gold. Had a mate do this with a gold chain from Thailand, turned out the only impurity was the latch.