Oprah has done a lot of good, so she gets a pass. But again a reason that celebrities should just shut up and do their job, because almost 100% in any other aspect of life, they're idiots.
Hah I agree with u there. I don't think I'm ever seen a worsely coded, malfunctioning site *ever.* And I've been using the internet since Mosaic.
Though speaking personally, believe it or not, just to run internet marketing and advertising campaigns (which in essence is how Myspace makes money; forget the entire other division which provides a social network), it requires a lot more than u think. You need the SQL guys to run in conjunction with the reporting software guys to run in conjunction with the marketing/advertising analysts who need a team to develop presentations to give to clients and then you need copywriters and the writers who interact with the graphic designers along with the javascript/perl/python/java/etc. programmers. It really is a huge operation. Even for a firm who does one simple e-mail campaign, you're talking about 20-30 people.
It's a lot, and a lot more than u think. Hence my surpise at how little employees they have.
Just wow. Facebook is only 2000 employees? Think about that. That's pretty damn amazing for such a huge operation. Don't forget that (depending on which stat firm reports it) Facebook is either #1 or #2 most trafficked site on the *entire* internet.
When I first saw it, I remember thinking that it *only* has 1000 employees? I find that pretty amazing to have so *little* employees.
Think about it. It at one time (only 2-3 years ago) was one of the most popular, most trafficked sites around. All those those data centers, servers, coding (yes it was awful but code doesn't create itself), arrangements with bands and music licenses. Hell its bread and butter was to need data mining analysts and advertising campaign analysts. They should have a department of 100 each!
Whoever did doesn't realize the gravity of the whole situation. This is probably the biggest, most earth-shattering, think to happen in the software industry. And for once no one can predict what can happen--it's all so unknown.
But that's the whole problem. You just illustrated the entire point.
No one is forcing you to--except they are. You can charge $200, but the customers and the marketplace won't bear it. So it IS forcing you to lower it. You don't have to, but if you don't, you go out of business. So you are forced.
And as for not selling it on the App Store, please be realistic. This is Apple we're talking about. Apple users act like sheep, have no qualms about pissing away tons of money, and will always follow whatever is trendy at the time. They will all hop onto the App Store or develop for it, get used to it (because a working software repository really is awesome IMHO), and then after a year or two never look for software outside the App Store again.
Well Steam is kind of an odd example. I don't think you can include Steam in this. It's such a niche service and they provide such a different service, for that niche, as opposed to overall PC software. I may be wrong, but Steam is so different than the App Store when you think about it, I don't think one can be compared to the other.
1. Steam provides a service for gamers. The problem with PC games is that every installer is different, you always need a DVD, and half the time you need to have the DVD in the computer to run it. Then most games don't have built in auto patching. You have to hunt them down (biggest problem IMHO because you can never find them) AND keep on top of when a new version comes out. The driver and hardware problems are pretty much streamlined now, but these other problems still plague PC gamers. Steam fixes all this. However, in the normal PC software industry, everything can already be downloaded from the internet, run on your HD, and most have built-in auto-updates. Steam provides a desperately needed and useful service. I couldn't live without Steam now that I've used it for so long. I *could* live without an App Store for the PC.
2. Steam never changed the price points of games. The App Store has changed the price points for everything mobile. And people will carry these assumptions to the desktop App Store. So, maybe not to the degree of what the Flamebait original article states, but it will squeeze prices. That's the difference. Steam never had a earth-shattering effect. The App Store has, and will. So you can't compare the two.
Steam is actually a pretty bad example. They keep the price higher than market price for months longer than it should. Yes they give sales that bring it down to market price or slightly lower, but that's only if you wait for the sales AND you catch the sales. If I wait 3 months for a game to drop from $60 to $35, I shouldn't have to wait 2 months more to get it at the price for a weekend/mid-week sale.
Yes that's my point. It should be $13 at all times now on Steam. I had that problem recently. I bought MoH for $60 when it was selling for $45 retail. I wanted the simplicity of auto-updates and no need to worry about CD's though. It stayed at $60 and still is at $60 even though it's now $35-40 new. Yes they had a one day sale during Xmas for $30, but one could have easily missed it.
However, that I didn't know. I have to check that out. That is an incredibly useful feature to let you know when games are on sale. That might eliminate a lot of the problems. Half the time I miss sales. I don't want to be checking steam every weekend or Wednesdays to see what the sales are. It's dangerous because I always end up half the time buying what's on sale.:)
I agree with you 100% on that there aren't many serious apps on the App Store. But the thing is, I wouldn't dare spend $39 on TomTom. On the App Store I wouldn't *ever* spend more than $10-15 for a full app, unless it's an insanely out-of-this-world program. You have to be really incredible to get me to buy a $40 app on the App Store. More so than if it was a $40 software package sold through traditional means.
My point for this particular item is that the trend has been set for the App Store. It's going to be pretty tough to change it.
But hey I hope I'm proved wrong. I hope that all apps, even great complex full-featured ones are all brought down to cheap prices, and I think the idea of an actual working software repository works out.
i have to say, this will be the most interesting thing to watch and i'm dying to know the outcome. i don't think many people realize the gravity of this situation.
usually, the idea of an app store on Mac/PC's is the worst idea ever. as with digital distribution, u don't see prices automatically decline over time. example, take bf:bc 2. it's now selling for like $10. u won't see that. it'll stay at 60, maybe now it would be $40-50 (8 mo. later), and they would do a special for a week (that most likely u'll miss) for like $20.
BUT...
in this case, there are so many apps that have competition, and the trend of the app store that if it's over $4, no one wants it (or for big apps, over $10 and no one wants it), it will keep prices beneficial for the consumer. also, i think the idea of a software repo that actually works (sorry Linux, apt and yum will always have dependency problems and there will always be a few pieces that won't be in the repo and you can't get because it won't work compiling from scratch), is brilliant.
That's one big thing. Now here is the other big thing. I'm curious to see what actully happens. Unless it's for promotional sake, or promo'ing the brand (like say netflix, just getting it on as many platforms as u can), or someone huge (like adobe), every developer that has made a complex and useful program will just pack up and leave. There will be a mass exodus to windows. MS was considering an app store. They might see developers flood to windows for that reason. And since MS's strategy is to support devs, it will actually can the idea of an app store. Yes, they may not make money on them, but it strengthens window's hold because no one wants to develop for Mac.
Yes, there will be tons of developers. But for once, I feel bad for the prices they charge. How do you make a living selling a DTP app that you spent years making for $2? You can't run a business like that. The only ones left will be small one-man shops. Because certainly no business can run on those kind of revenues. And the problem will be just that. You won't see a full featured complex app because the only ones able to make it are businesses and they all left because they couldn't make money.
Looks like you have a problem with reading comprehension.
Your post doesn't make a lot of sense, it sounds like a mindless rant.
It makes 100% clear concise sense when my point was that./'s groupthink is to bash EA, say EA sucks, and let's not buy EA. Fail #1.
You mention Dead Space as an excellent example of a game, and then state games should have multiplayer, yet Dead Space was excellent because it was a well crafted single player experience, precisely demonstrating that there's no point putting multiplayer in if it doesn't add anything to the game.
Reading comprehension. Yes, I mentioned multiplayer as PART of my post. The other main crux was others bashing EA and thinking they have innovative titles, like you yourself just agreed. Fail #2.
You talk about groupthink, yet that seems precisely what your post was, for example, I have no problem with EA, I think they're one of the better publishers out there now in that they at least dropped their DRM down to a point where it's far less problematic than the likes of Ubisoft or Valve use, they're one of the few studios churning out new IPs like Army of Two, Deadspace etc. also.
Agreed. The point of my post exactly.
I don't know what you were on about with "But please, you CAN put your money where your mouth is.". That comment makes absolutely no sense whatsoever in the context of the discussion and sounds exactly like the kind of groupthink outburst you claim you have a problem with.
No. My point, right in the darn paragraph titled "I like EA games", was that no one is holding a gun to your head. You have a choice. And a real choice, unlike so-called supposed choices in other things in life. Fail #3.
"But no, you all will be like those PC gamers"
Yeah, except I'm not. Other than Starcraft 2 and Dawn of War II out of the couple of hundred games I've bought and played this past 5 years or so they have all been console titles.
Kudos to you. I'm glad. Really, not being sarcastic. I give you credit for doing what I said and putting your money where your mouth is and supporting your ideals. But you clearly didn't understand what I said fully. My point was that people will keep bitching and saying they'll boycott, but do it anyway. That was just an example. And lest we forget, also typical of/., anecodatal evidence does not make it true. Remember that CoD MW2 petition? Yea, they find out most of the people bough it anyway. Anecdotal evidence from one person. Worthless. Over $500-600 million in sales for CoD MW2: priceless.
Why bitch about groupthink when almost your entire response made no sense in the context of the discussion and was therefore in itself a fine example of a knee jerk groupthink response? Perhaps the reason you think there's a groupthink issue is because you're thinking what you want to think without reading what individual people are actually saying.
Or perhaps your desire to jump down my throat clouds the fact that in reality your response makes absolutely no sense, is insulting, proves you lack reading comprehension and therefore most likely any intelligence.
Why do I even bother. I wanted to post to give a little insight instead of just rehashing usual/. rhetoric and Groupthink. Wanted people to think "hey" and watch a lightbulb go off. Instead, I get the same crap in kind.
EA is innovative: one moderately original game among a hundred rehashes and sequels is not innovation. It's a *safe* plan.
Actually you are incorrect. Well kinda. Yes they do a ton of sequels. But everyone here forgets *all* the games below which were groundbreaking at the time and even started certain genres. Without EA, these wouldn't exist:
Original Sims Original Need for Speed (racing games never looked like this before) command and conquer (online and war strategy--3 years before starcraft) wing commander battlechess (chess but with awesomeness!) battletoads Brutal legend BF Bad Company (first FPS that was filled with humor) Crysis (for a shooter, the amount of interactivity with objects/buildings/etc, ability to roam and complete objectives any way you see fit with no loading anywhere, and the manipulation of physics I've never seen in any shooter before) dragon's lair half life-2, tf2, l4d (yes made by valve but published by our favorite villian--you wouldn't be able to buy a box at a store and get your fix without EA!) marble madness populous r-type road rash (racing with kicking the crap outta people!) simcity(s) (yes developed by maxis but without EA, well you know) Bard's tale ultima worms
I count 21. Not too shabby for groundbreaking games or even ones that started entire genres.
Multiplayer is the direction to go: I've been playing games for longer, and although I like MMO's and some MP shooters, for the most part, when I want to game, I want to play a single player game because Multiplayer FPS games have no plot, and MMO's sometimes seem tedious. You and I place different values on our gaming experience, and that's completely OK. The problem is that this guy from EA is trying to proclaim that a particular style of game is dead when it's clearly not (Fallout 3 and Fallout NV have already been covered above)
True. And I agree 100% that single player is awesome. It's just after decades, I feel I need more. Fallout to me got boring. But doing fallout if it had co-op would be incredible. That's why I loved Borderlands. You're spot on with MMO's though. Grindfest's without story progression is useless (save for Borderlands LOL). I've yet to find a good MMO with a good story. Only one I could think of was AoC. It had a story, but you couldn't do it with people in the beginning and it still had a boring story and fetch quests during story mode. Wish I could find one.
I like EA games: This one is a touchy subject for me. I like a lot of stuff EA publishes as well, but they're not a game studio any more. They used to be a game studio, but now they just buy studios that have interesting/promising IP, milk it for all it's worth, then gut the original studio. This touches on your first point above, that EA is innovative. They aren't innovative, they just buy companies that are.
See above. Most are EA originals.
I look forward to your reply. I'm curious as to your thoughts--someone who has played video games as long as I have.
This is not a personal attack against you. It's a post in general. I've been reading/. probably since about the time it first started. One of/.'s biggest problems is its Groupthink. I saw the story's title and before even reading the responses, instantly knew what they ALL would say ALREADY. And I was right.
It's time to inject some new ways of thinking. So to say a few things:
1. EA is innovative 2. Multiplayer is the direction to go 3. I like EA games
There. I said it. Now here's my explanation:
EA is innovative. Look at Dead Space. Amazing game. Yes, groupthink will respond: it used 3rd person perspective. So what? There are only a few perspectives that all games have used and will ever use. Dead Space was the first that I recall to combine space sci-fi, good story, survival horror, building of character stats/abilities that wasn't tedious, and damn scary. It was the first game for me to ever get pissed that I jumped because even though I knew something was coming, it scared me anyway. And the Zero-G parts were totally brilliant and original--NEVER done before. Then take Mirror's Edge. So original, and plain fun.
Multiplayer is the direction to go. I've been playing games for about 24 years. I took a break for 7 years there, but needless to say I love them and play them and still love playing them. But you know what? I find myself thinking amazing single player games, well, after a few hours, are boring. I picked up Gears of War 2, Shadow Complex, and Bioshock 2 recently. Shadow complex is a brilliant game and so is Bioshock 2. Metroidvania-like games and the original Bioshock IMHO were masterpieces. But I've touched them in the past 3 months for all of a total of a few hours. Guess what I play? GOW 2 multiplayer. Not even the single player. Single player games lately, unless it *really* catches me and draws me in, and hold me in, are kinda just meh after a while, no matter how good. Multiplayer is reasonably simple, I can jump in quickly (quicker with co-op because you're not getting your ass kicked), and have a good time with a decent amount of game complexity to keep me coming back for more (I don't enjoy simple games like Angry Birds or any of that crap). At the end of the day, MP is the only thing that keep you interested, captivated, and coming back for more.
I like EA games. Hey look. No one is forcing you to buy EA's games. In this day and age, there are so. many. games. to. buy. If EA dissapeared tomorrow, no one would even notice. Add to that with XBOX Live Marketplace, PSN, and the PC, there are so many unique and original alternatives. SO DO IT. But I enjoy a few games from EA here and there. There is nothing wrong with that, and it's okay for you to do it too. But please, you CAN put your money where your mouth is.
But no, you all will be like those PC gamers that complain about how they get shafted with Call of Duty Black Ops, but yet it's the highest grossing game of all time--and you bought it anyway (on the day it was released for full price, no less).
Re:That's one heck of a "long goodbye"
on
Goodbye, VGA
·
· Score: 1
Lol the simplest solution is usually the best one.:-) Very interesting though.
I guess the best solution then is if one is to buy a new TV, only buy with a DVI connection or displayport. Simple solution. Hopefully one of the benefits of this removal of VGA is the development of TV sets that have displayport instead of VGA.
Re:That's one heck of a "long goodbye"
on
Goodbye, VGA
·
· Score: 1
I posted below elsewhere on this. I've found the opposite. That the only clear picture on an HDTV is via plain 'ol VGA. How did you get a clear picture via HDMI?
The only way to get a clear image is by using VGA. HDMI connected to a modern day DVI graphic card (using an adapter*) gives an image that looks like it's underwater. Text you can kinda make out. Forget getting clear images. It's not even passable--it's so bad it's not usable.
* Not the adapter. Thought it was. Tested it with a myriad of adapters and different cables.
Re:That's one heck of a "long goodbye"
on
Goodbye, VGA
·
· Score: 1
Exactly. Even scarier: say goodbye to hooking up your computer to your HDTV (goodbye HTPC).
The only way to get a clear image is by using VGA. HDMI connected to a modern day DVI graphic card (using an adapter*) gives an image that looks like it's underwater. Text you can kinda make out. Forget getting clear images. It's not even passable--it's so bad it's not usable.
* Not the adapter. Thought it was. Tested it with a myriad of adapters and different cables.
How many console games are designed for this? 4? And are you seriously advocating playing l4d 4 player on the same TV. How could you even make out what you were shooting?
Every time someone brings this up, must be discovering this for the first time. For the rest of us, playing 4 player golden eye or split screen GoW just sucks. Keep your split screen multiplayer.
Maybe the only thing is dance/rythm games, which is how much of the amount of available games out there? And not to mention the type I could care less about.
1) I use Steam. I right click on install. It's done. The game plays. To un-install, I right-click and select "delete local content". Done.
God that's hard.
Ok let's make it tougher and assume you don't use Steam. Put in the DVD. Click install. Click 3-4 times. done. Holy crap that's hard! I hate to break it to you, but gone are IRQ configuring and playing with jumper settings.
2) Why the hell are you putting in $500 every 6 months? I play most games at max settings with a rig *4* years ago. An old dual core with a 4 year OLD 8800 GTS 512. Are you special?
And sure, that's a great idea: instead of lowering your detail settings, just quit entirely. Nevermind that even at lower details PC games look 4x better. And you do realize that the only reason you're able to play any game on an 360 is because you're playing the equivalent on a PC at a 800x400 resolution with all settings on low. Which you could do on any old PC today. But no, that would poke a hole in your uneducated strawman theory.
I'm going to re-post what I wrote above in a different thread:
I love how people always bring up Crysis when talking about good graphics and graphics ruining games. I have something to say to you all: you're all dead wrong.
Crysis was one of the most innovate FPS games of this decade, because of its technology. Crysis is as far beyond the normal FPS as Call of Duty is to House of the Dead.
Most FPS are simple. Take call of duty (insert # here):
The game is on rails You kill people by either a gun or a knife melee attack Done.
Crysis:
You can accomplish the mission by going anywhere on the entire island. There are multiple ways to do it. It's like saying fallout 3 is just a FPS.
And killing enemies:
I can shoot them I can grab them and throw them into trees, rocks, over cliffs I can lob a barrel and when its close, shoot the exploding barrel I can jump on top of a building and destroy the roof, thereby collapsing the building and destroying the enemy I can throw an object, the enemy will follow it to investigate, thereby creating a diversion, and then I can sneak up and kill him with melee or guns I can hold and enemy, drag him away to not alert guards, and then off him away from alerting guards.
After years of FPS's, I was bored as crap. Oh boy, another FPS. Shoot, story event, shoot. Rinse, repeat. Crysis was the first FPS I wasn't bored of in like 10 years.
Could you do any of what Crysis did on a console? NO.
I love how people always bring up Crysis when talking about good graphics and graphics ruining games. I have something to say to you all: you're all dead wrong.
Crysis was one of the most innovate FPS games of this decade, because of its technology. Crysis is as far beyond the normal FPS as Call of Duty is to House of the Dead.
Most FPS are simple. Take call of duty (insert # here):
The game is on rails You kill people by either a gun or a knife melee attack Done.
Crysis:
You can accomplish the mission by going anywhere on the entire island. There are multiple ways to do it. It's like saying fallout 3 is just a FPS.
And killing enemies:
I can shoot them I can grab them and throw them into trees, rocks, over cliffs I can lob a barrel and when its close, shoot the exploding barrel I can jump on top of a building and destroy the roof, thereby collapsing the building and destroying the enemy I can throw an object, the enemy will follow it to investigate, thereby creating a diversion, and then I can sneak up and kill him with melee or guns I can hold and enemy, drag him away to not alert guards, and then off him away from alerting guards.
After years of FPS's, I was bored as crap. Oh boy, another FPS. Shoot, story event, shoot. Rinse, repeat. Crysis was the first FPS I wasn't bored of in like 10 years.
Could you do any of what Crysis did on a console? NO.
Gmail is the worst for search. It lacks the basic functionality of searching for part of a string. If you search for "oogle" it won't turn up a result. Even though an email with the word "google" is staring you in the face.
Speaking if which, I've noticed this alot lately (in CRM software of all places). When has this become the norm?
I always wondered about that. What do you do in the enterprise? I would imagine the point of support is help relating to say installation and maintenance on included Sendmail, PostgreSQL, etc. But if you rip it out and install a new one from scratch, which is necessary because the packages are really really old, they can't or won't support it. What do admins do?
There has to be an answer, otherwise why would anyone in the entire industry use Linux?
Discovery: I still stand by my comments about discovery. Lack of simple things like:
1) No tool-tips (which are a godsend) 2) Icons/buttons so small that you have to spend an inordinate time focusing on hitting rather than "flicking" to hit (HIG). You know it's bad when it's so annoying to get to the button you'd rather move your hands to the keyboard and hit ctrl+w 3) It's not a matter of Windows either. Even in Linux, if you use a GUI program in X you can always figure it out--at least the interface and basic usage. I mean maybe not if you use twm or godawful Afterstep lol (which no one uses anyway), but everything else.
Funny side note: Afterstep was meant to emulate NeXTStep's WM, and guess who used that as the base for its OS?:) And they both have poor discoverability. Small world.
But that help system does sound like a deal. Nice feature. Is the help detailed and thorough and covers all topics in depth? Or is it like Windows where unless it's a particular industrial strength or established program, it's pretty sparse?
MP3: Interesting. These do sound like useful features. I came from the old school with MP3's, so I always was in the habit of making detailed appropriate names and directories so I could search for it or busting out with "find / - name xyz*.mp3". I always wanted to KISS rather than go crazy with a corruptible DB of metadata. That's why I always heard great things about Amarok but never got around to trying it. Though now I rarely even use MP3s though. Love Pandora. And for the MP3's I do have, I couldn't take ITunes anymore. I just stream everything to my iPhone. But nonetheless you have a good counterpoint--those do sound like useful features.
I like your post. I have a few issues with it, but I like it.
Out off curiosity I checked for those iTunes, QuickTime and Safari vulnerabilities and find out they affected windows exclusively, not only this but seems most were WebKit issues in win32 environments, meaning for sure at least at some point chrome had the same issues. Other issues I found noted QuickTime ActiveX controls.
This isn't the case. You really have to cull over the database line by line, vulnerability by vulnerability. But I don't blame you, doing it requires a lot of work.
I have seen windows machines be infected in my face. Usually it's adobe software that is to blame, but it tends to carry windows specific attacks. These don't even need user stupidity, as the malicious code runs in flash ads or other embedded content.
1) There are OS X specific attacks in Flash too. 2) This will happen with Apple's "magical" solution--HTML 5--for everything too. 3) Even basic web ads with Javascript do it. It's not windows specific. 4) Apple has Javascript support too, and flash too. They're just as vulnerable. 5) Blaming another vendor (in this case, MS) for Flash's vulnerabilities. No.
On iLife software, the only way anyone can call it mediocre is because they have not used it, at least not for anything other than click on buttons at a display machine in BestBuy,and even there, long enough exposure would bring it's power to light. It's not software for professional power users, but it's powerful software none the less.
If it works for you, that's great. For me it's worthless. I could say well so what--mac doesn't have video games. But it's the same thing. To you it probably doesn't matter and it's worthless. (5% of games run on it does not make it a platform for games)
On usability, my wife hates computers and is far from disposed to learn new software under any environment. That is why I tend to use heras an example. As the owner of a Mac Mini, I also fail to seethe drastic UI differences between applications you note.
It's readily apparent within 10 minutes of using it. I don't know how you missed it. I gave real, multiple, specific examples. Not FUD.
On discovery, macs have an amazing help system. As long as the app is designed properly (and all Apple software is, as well as all popular apps I have used) the OS will even drop down the needed menu and point out with an impossible to miss arrow the item you need to click. It may also darken the screen and spotlight buttons. Likely what helps my wife find her way without asking me for anything.
Why should I even need to access the help system at all? Anything I've used in Windows for years I haven't even had to crack open a help system. One can figure it out in seconds, if one needs to figure it out at all.
Oh and iTunes sync may not be very intuitive, but also had a Samsung MP3 player and rather deal with iTunes than ever be forced to drag and drop MP3s ever again.
This one I really have issue with. How is treating a MP3 player as a USB drive with simple drag and drop hard? ITunes as the better solution to MP3 management? Millions of users disagree with you.
Slashdot Mirror
No. Thank Jenny McCarthy for that. And Oprah.
Oprah has done a lot of good, so she gets a pass. But again a reason that celebrities should just shut up and do their job, because almost 100% in any other aspect of life, they're idiots.
Hah I agree with u there. I don't think I'm ever seen a worsely coded, malfunctioning site *ever.* And I've been using the internet since Mosaic.
Though speaking personally, believe it or not, just to run internet marketing and advertising campaigns (which in essence is how Myspace makes money; forget the entire other division which provides a social network), it requires a lot more than u think. You need the SQL guys to run in conjunction with the reporting software guys to run in conjunction with the marketing/advertising analysts who need a team to develop presentations to give to clients and then you need copywriters and the writers who interact with the graphic designers along with the javascript/perl/python/java/etc. programmers. It really is a huge operation. Even for a firm who does one simple e-mail campaign, you're talking about 20-30 people.
It's a lot, and a lot more than u think. Hence my surpise at how little employees they have.
Just wow. Facebook is only 2000 employees? Think about that. That's pretty damn amazing for such a huge operation. Don't forget that (depending on which stat firm reports it) Facebook is either #1 or #2 most trafficked site on the *entire* internet.
When I first saw it, I remember thinking that it *only* has 1000 employees? I find that pretty amazing to have so *little* employees.
Think about it. It at one time (only 2-3 years ago) was one of the most popular, most trafficked sites around. All those those data centers, servers, coding (yes it was awful but code doesn't create itself), arrangements with bands and music licenses. Hell its bread and butter was to need data mining analysts and advertising campaign analysts. They should have a department of 100 each!
Why is my post modded down?
Whoever did doesn't realize the gravity of the whole situation. This is probably the biggest, most earth-shattering, think to happen in the software industry. And for once no one can predict what can happen--it's all so unknown.
But that's the whole problem. You just illustrated the entire point.
No one is forcing you to--except they are. You can charge $200, but the customers and the marketplace won't bear it. So it IS forcing you to lower it. You don't have to, but if you don't, you go out of business. So you are forced.
And as for not selling it on the App Store, please be realistic. This is Apple we're talking about. Apple users act like sheep, have no qualms about pissing away tons of money, and will always follow whatever is trendy at the time. They will all hop onto the App Store or develop for it, get used to it (because a working software repository really is awesome IMHO), and then after a year or two never look for software outside the App Store again.
You have to be realistic here.
Well Steam is kind of an odd example. I don't think you can include Steam in this. It's such a niche service and they provide such a different service, for that niche, as opposed to overall PC software. I may be wrong, but Steam is so different than the App Store when you think about it, I don't think one can be compared to the other.
1. Steam provides a service for gamers. The problem with PC games is that every installer is different, you always need a DVD, and half the time you need to have the DVD in the computer to run it. Then most games don't have built in auto patching. You have to hunt them down (biggest problem IMHO because you can never find them) AND keep on top of when a new version comes out. The driver and hardware problems are pretty much streamlined now, but these other problems still plague PC gamers. Steam fixes all this. However, in the normal PC software industry, everything can already be downloaded from the internet, run on your HD, and most have built-in auto-updates. Steam provides a desperately needed and useful service. I couldn't live without Steam now that I've used it for so long. I *could* live without an App Store for the PC.
2. Steam never changed the price points of games. The App Store has changed the price points for everything mobile. And people will carry these assumptions to the desktop App Store. So, maybe not to the degree of what the Flamebait original article states, but it will squeeze prices. That's the difference. Steam never had a earth-shattering effect. The App Store has, and will. So you can't compare the two.
Steam is actually a pretty bad example. They keep the price higher than market price for months longer than it should. Yes they give sales that bring it down to market price or slightly lower, but that's only if you wait for the sales AND you catch the sales. If I wait 3 months for a game to drop from $60 to $35, I shouldn't have to wait 2 months more to get it at the price for a weekend/mid-week sale.
Yes that's my point. It should be $13 at all times now on Steam. I had that problem recently. I bought MoH for $60 when it was selling for $45 retail. I wanted the simplicity of auto-updates and no need to worry about CD's though. It stayed at $60 and still is at $60 even though it's now $35-40 new. Yes they had a one day sale during Xmas for $30, but one could have easily missed it.
However, that I didn't know. I have to check that out. That is an incredibly useful feature to let you know when games are on sale. That might eliminate a lot of the problems. Half the time I miss sales. I don't want to be checking steam every weekend or Wednesdays to see what the sales are. It's dangerous because I always end up half the time buying what's on sale. :)
I agree with you 100% on that there aren't many serious apps on the App Store. But the thing is, I wouldn't dare spend $39 on TomTom. On the App Store I wouldn't *ever* spend more than $10-15 for a full app, unless it's an insanely out-of-this-world program. You have to be really incredible to get me to buy a $40 app on the App Store. More so than if it was a $40 software package sold through traditional means.
My point for this particular item is that the trend has been set for the App Store. It's going to be pretty tough to change it.
But hey I hope I'm proved wrong. I hope that all apps, even great complex full-featured ones are all brought down to cheap prices, and I think the idea of an actual working software repository works out.
i have to say, this will be the most interesting thing to watch and i'm dying to know the outcome. i don't think many people realize the gravity of this situation.
usually, the idea of an app store on Mac/PC's is the worst idea ever. as with digital distribution, u don't see prices automatically decline over time. example, take bf:bc 2. it's now selling for like $10. u won't see that. it'll stay at 60, maybe now it would be $40-50 (8 mo. later), and they would do a special for a week (that most likely u'll miss) for like $20.
BUT...
in this case, there are so many apps that have competition, and the trend of the app store that if it's over $4, no one wants it (or for big apps, over $10 and no one wants it), it will keep prices beneficial for the consumer. also, i think the idea of a software repo that actually works (sorry Linux, apt and yum will always have dependency problems and there will always be a few pieces that won't be in the repo and you can't get because it won't work compiling from scratch), is brilliant.
That's one big thing. Now here is the other big thing. I'm curious to see what actully happens. Unless it's for promotional sake, or promo'ing the brand (like say netflix, just getting it on as many platforms as u can), or someone huge (like adobe), every developer that has made a complex and useful program will just pack up and leave. There will be a mass exodus to windows. MS was considering an app store. They might see developers flood to windows for that reason. And since MS's strategy is to support devs, it will actually can the idea of an app store. Yes, they may not make money on them, but it strengthens window's hold because no one wants to develop for Mac.
Yes, there will be tons of developers. But for once, I feel bad for the prices they charge. How do you make a living selling a DTP app that you spent years making for $2? You can't run a business like that. The only ones left will be small one-man shops. Because certainly no business can run on those kind of revenues. And the problem will be just that. You won't see a full featured complex app because the only ones able to make it are businesses and they all left because they couldn't make money.
I really am dying to see what happens.
Looks like you have a problem with reading comprehension.
Your post doesn't make a lot of sense, it sounds like a mindless rant.
It makes 100% clear concise sense when my point was that ./'s groupthink is to bash EA, say EA sucks, and let's not buy EA. Fail #1.
You mention Dead Space as an excellent example of a game, and then state games should have multiplayer, yet Dead Space was excellent because it was a well crafted single player experience, precisely demonstrating that there's no point putting multiplayer in if it doesn't add anything to the game.
Reading comprehension. Yes, I mentioned multiplayer as PART of my post. The other main crux was others bashing EA and thinking they have innovative titles, like you yourself just agreed. Fail #2.
You talk about groupthink, yet that seems precisely what your post was, for example, I have no problem with EA, I think they're one of the better publishers out there now in that they at least dropped their DRM down to a point where it's far less problematic than the likes of Ubisoft or Valve use, they're one of the few studios churning out new IPs like Army of Two, Deadspace etc. also.
Agreed. The point of my post exactly.
I don't know what you were on about with "But please, you CAN put your money where your mouth is.". That comment makes absolutely no sense whatsoever in the context of the discussion and sounds exactly like the kind of groupthink outburst you claim you have a problem with.
No. My point, right in the darn paragraph titled "I like EA games", was that no one is holding a gun to your head. You have a choice. And a real choice, unlike so-called supposed choices in other things in life. Fail #3.
"But no, you all will be like those PC gamers"
Yeah, except I'm not. Other than Starcraft 2 and Dawn of War II out of the couple of hundred games I've bought and played this past 5 years or so they have all been console titles.
Kudos to you. I'm glad. Really, not being sarcastic. I give you credit for doing what I said and putting your money where your mouth is and supporting your ideals. But you clearly didn't understand what I said fully. My point was that people will keep bitching and saying they'll boycott, but do it anyway. That was just an example. And lest we forget, also typical of /., anecodatal evidence does not make it true. Remember that CoD MW2 petition? Yea, they find out most of the people bough it anyway. Anecdotal evidence from one person. Worthless. Over $500-600 million in sales for CoD MW2: priceless.
Why bitch about groupthink when almost your entire response made no sense in the context of the discussion and was therefore in itself a fine example of a knee jerk groupthink response? Perhaps the reason you think there's a groupthink issue is because you're thinking what you want to think without reading what individual people are actually saying.
Or perhaps your desire to jump down my throat clouds the fact that in reality your response makes absolutely no sense, is insulting, proves you lack reading comprehension and therefore most likely any intelligence.
Why do I even bother. I wanted to post to give a little insight instead of just rehashing usual /. rhetoric and Groupthink. Wanted people to think "hey" and watch a lightbulb go off. Instead, I get the same crap in kind.
EA is innovative: one moderately original game among a hundred rehashes and sequels is not innovation. It's a *safe* plan.
Actually you are incorrect. Well kinda. Yes they do a ton of sequels. But everyone here forgets *all* the games below which were groundbreaking at the time and even started certain genres. Without EA, these wouldn't exist:
Original Sims
Original Need for Speed (racing games never looked like this before)
command and conquer (online and war strategy--3 years before starcraft)
wing commander
battlechess (chess but with awesomeness!)
battletoads
Brutal legend
BF Bad Company (first FPS that was filled with humor)
Crysis (for a shooter, the amount of interactivity with objects/buildings/etc, ability to roam and complete objectives any way you see fit with no loading anywhere, and the manipulation of physics I've never seen in any shooter before)
dragon's lair
half life-2, tf2, l4d (yes made by valve but published by our favorite villian--you wouldn't be able to buy a box at a store and get your fix without EA!)
marble madness
populous
r-type
road rash (racing with kicking the crap outta people!)
simcity(s) (yes developed by maxis but without EA, well you know)
Bard's tale
ultima
worms
I count 21. Not too shabby for groundbreaking games or even ones that started entire genres.
Multiplayer is the direction to go: I've been playing games for longer, and although I like MMO's and some MP shooters, for the most part, when I want to game, I want to play a single player game because Multiplayer FPS games have no plot, and MMO's sometimes seem tedious. You and I place different values on our gaming experience, and that's completely OK. The problem is that this guy from EA is trying to proclaim that a particular style of game is dead when it's clearly not (Fallout 3 and Fallout NV have already been covered above)
True. And I agree 100% that single player is awesome. It's just after decades, I feel I need more. Fallout to me got boring. But doing fallout if it had co-op would be incredible. That's why I loved Borderlands. You're spot on with MMO's though. Grindfest's without story progression is useless (save for Borderlands LOL). I've yet to find a good MMO with a good story. Only one I could think of was AoC. It had a story, but you couldn't do it with people in the beginning and it still had a boring story and fetch quests during story mode. Wish I could find one.
I like EA games: This one is a touchy subject for me. I like a lot of stuff EA publishes as well, but they're not a game studio any more. They used to be a game studio, but now they just buy studios that have interesting/promising IP, milk it for all it's worth, then gut the original studio. This touches on your first point above, that EA is innovative. They aren't innovative, they just buy companies that are.
See above. Most are EA originals.
I look forward to your reply. I'm curious as to your thoughts--someone who has played video games as long as I have.
This is not a personal attack against you. It's a post in general. I've been reading /. probably since about the time it first started. One of /.'s biggest problems is its Groupthink. I saw the story's title and before even reading the responses, instantly knew what they ALL would say ALREADY. And I was right.
It's time to inject some new ways of thinking. So to say a few things:
1. EA is innovative
2. Multiplayer is the direction to go
3. I like EA games
There. I said it. Now here's my explanation:
EA is innovative. Look at Dead Space. Amazing game. Yes, groupthink will respond: it used 3rd person perspective. So what? There are only a few perspectives that all games have used and will ever use. Dead Space was the first that I recall to combine space sci-fi, good story, survival horror, building of character stats/abilities that wasn't tedious, and damn scary. It was the first game for me to ever get pissed that I jumped because even though I knew something was coming, it scared me anyway. And the Zero-G parts were totally brilliant and original--NEVER done before. Then take Mirror's Edge. So original, and plain fun.
Multiplayer is the direction to go. I've been playing games for about 24 years. I took a break for 7 years there, but needless to say I love them and play them and still love playing them. But you know what? I find myself thinking amazing single player games, well, after a few hours, are boring. I picked up Gears of War 2, Shadow Complex, and Bioshock 2 recently. Shadow complex is a brilliant game and so is Bioshock 2. Metroidvania-like games and the original Bioshock IMHO were masterpieces. But I've touched them in the past 3 months for all of a total of a few hours. Guess what I play? GOW 2 multiplayer. Not even the single player. Single player games lately, unless it *really* catches me and draws me in, and hold me in, are kinda just meh after a while, no matter how good. Multiplayer is reasonably simple, I can jump in quickly (quicker with co-op because you're not getting your ass kicked), and have a good time with a decent amount of game complexity to keep me coming back for more (I don't enjoy simple games like Angry Birds or any of that crap). At the end of the day, MP is the only thing that keep you interested, captivated, and coming back for more.
I like EA games. Hey look. No one is forcing you to buy EA's games. In this day and age, there are so. many. games. to. buy. If EA dissapeared tomorrow, no one would even notice. Add to that with XBOX Live Marketplace, PSN, and the PC, there are so many unique and original alternatives. SO DO IT. But I enjoy a few games from EA here and there. There is nothing wrong with that, and it's okay for you to do it too. But please, you CAN put your money where your mouth is.
But no, you all will be like those PC gamers that complain about how they get shafted with Call of Duty Black Ops, but yet it's the highest grossing game of all time--and you bought it anyway (on the day it was released for full price, no less).
Lol the simplest solution is usually the best one. :-) Very interesting though.
I guess the best solution then is if one is to buy a new TV, only buy with a DVI connection or displayport. Simple solution. Hopefully one of the benefits of this removal of VGA is the development of TV sets that have displayport instead of VGA.
I posted below elsewhere on this. I've found the opposite. That the only clear picture on an HDTV is via plain 'ol VGA. How did you get a clear picture via HDMI?
The only way to get a clear image is by using VGA. HDMI connected to a modern day DVI graphic card (using an adapter*) gives an image that looks like it's underwater. Text you can kinda make out. Forget getting clear images. It's not even passable--it's so bad it's not usable.
* Not the adapter. Thought it was. Tested it with a myriad of adapters and different cables.
Exactly. Even scarier: say goodbye to hooking up your computer to your HDTV (goodbye HTPC).
The only way to get a clear image is by using VGA. HDMI connected to a modern day DVI graphic card (using an adapter*) gives an image that looks like it's underwater. Text you can kinda make out. Forget getting clear images. It's not even passable--it's so bad it's not usable.
* Not the adapter. Thought it was. Tested it with a myriad of adapters and different cables.
How many console games are designed for this? 4? And are you seriously advocating playing l4d 4 player on the same TV. How could you even make out what you were shooting?
Every time someone brings this up, must be discovering this for the first time. For the rest of us, playing 4 player golden eye or split screen GoW just sucks. Keep your split screen multiplayer.
Maybe the only thing is dance/rythm games, which is how much of the amount of available games out there? And not to mention the type I could care less about.
I also wanted to make two other comments.
1) I use Steam. I right click on install. It's done. The game plays. To un-install, I right-click and select "delete local content". Done.
God that's hard.
Ok let's make it tougher and assume you don't use Steam. Put in the DVD. Click install. Click 3-4 times. done. Holy crap that's hard! I hate to break it to you, but gone are IRQ configuring and playing with jumper settings.
2) Why the hell are you putting in $500 every 6 months? I play most games at max settings with a rig *4* years ago. An old dual core with a 4 year OLD 8800 GTS 512. Are you special?
And sure, that's a great idea: instead of lowering your detail settings, just quit entirely. Nevermind that even at lower details PC games look 4x better. And you do realize that the only reason you're able to play any game on an 360 is because you're playing the equivalent on a PC at a 800x400 resolution with all settings on low. Which you could do on any old PC today. But no, that would poke a hole in your uneducated strawman theory.
I'm going to re-post what I wrote above in a different thread:
I love how people always bring up Crysis when talking about good graphics and graphics ruining games. I have something to say to you all: you're all dead wrong.
Crysis was one of the most innovate FPS games of this decade, because of its technology. Crysis is as far beyond the normal FPS as Call of Duty is to House of the Dead.
Most FPS are simple. Take call of duty (insert # here):
The game is on rails
You kill people by either a gun or a knife melee attack
Done.
Crysis:
You can accomplish the mission by going anywhere on the entire island. There are multiple ways to do it. It's like saying fallout 3 is just a FPS.
And killing enemies:
I can shoot them
I can grab them and throw them into trees, rocks, over cliffs
I can lob a barrel and when its close, shoot the exploding barrel
I can jump on top of a building and destroy the roof, thereby collapsing the building and destroying the enemy
I can throw an object, the enemy will follow it to investigate, thereby creating a diversion, and then I can sneak up and kill him with melee or guns
I can hold and enemy, drag him away to not alert guards, and then off him away from alerting guards.
After years of FPS's, I was bored as crap. Oh boy, another FPS. Shoot, story event, shoot. Rinse, repeat. Crysis was the first FPS I wasn't bored of in like 10 years.
Could you do any of what Crysis did on a console? NO.
I love how people always bring up Crysis when talking about good graphics and graphics ruining games. I have something to say to you all: you're all dead wrong.
Crysis was one of the most innovate FPS games of this decade, because of its technology. Crysis is as far beyond the normal FPS as Call of Duty is to House of the Dead.
Most FPS are simple. Take call of duty (insert # here):
The game is on rails
You kill people by either a gun or a knife melee attack
Done.
Crysis:
You can accomplish the mission by going anywhere on the entire island. There are multiple ways to do it. It's like saying fallout 3 is just a FPS.
And killing enemies:
I can shoot them
I can grab them and throw them into trees, rocks, over cliffs
I can lob a barrel and when its close, shoot the exploding barrel
I can jump on top of a building and destroy the roof, thereby collapsing the building and destroying the enemy
I can throw an object, the enemy will follow it to investigate, thereby creating a diversion, and then I can sneak up and kill him with melee or guns
I can hold and enemy, drag him away to not alert guards, and then off him away from alerting guards.
After years of FPS's, I was bored as crap. Oh boy, another FPS. Shoot, story event, shoot. Rinse, repeat. Crysis was the first FPS I wasn't bored of in like 10 years.
Could you do any of what Crysis did on a console? NO.
Gmail is the worst for search. It lacks the basic functionality of searching for part of a string. If you search for "oogle" it won't turn up a result. Even though an email with the word "google" is staring you in the face.
Speaking if which, I've noticed this alot lately (in CRM software of all places). When has this become the norm?
I always wondered about that. What do you do in the enterprise? I would imagine the point of support is help relating to say installation and maintenance on included Sendmail, PostgreSQL, etc. But if you rip it out and install a new one from scratch, which is necessary because the packages are really really old, they can't or won't support it. What do admins do?
There has to be an answer, otherwise why would anyone in the entire industry use Linux?
Discovery: I still stand by my comments about discovery. Lack of simple things like:
1) No tool-tips (which are a godsend)
2) Icons/buttons so small that you have to spend an inordinate time focusing on hitting rather than "flicking" to hit (HIG). You know it's bad when it's so annoying to get to the button you'd rather move your hands to the keyboard and hit ctrl+w
3) It's not a matter of Windows either. Even in Linux, if you use a GUI program in X you can always figure it out--at least the interface and basic usage. I mean maybe not if you use twm or godawful Afterstep lol (which no one uses anyway), but everything else.
Funny side note: Afterstep was meant to emulate NeXTStep's WM, and guess who used that as the base for its OS? :) And they both have poor discoverability. Small world.
But that help system does sound like a deal. Nice feature. Is the help detailed and thorough and covers all topics in depth? Or is it like Windows where unless it's a particular industrial strength or established program, it's pretty sparse?
MP3: Interesting. These do sound like useful features. I came from the old school with MP3's, so I always was in the habit of making detailed appropriate names and directories so I could search for it or busting out with "find / - name xyz*.mp3". I always wanted to KISS rather than go crazy with a corruptible DB of metadata. That's why I always heard great things about Amarok but never got around to trying it. Though now I rarely even use MP3s though. Love Pandora. And for the MP3's I do have, I couldn't take ITunes anymore. I just stream everything to my iPhone. But nonetheless you have a good counterpoint--those do sound like useful features.
I like your post. I have a few issues with it, but I like it.
Out off curiosity I checked for those iTunes, QuickTime and Safari vulnerabilities and find out they affected windows exclusively, not only this but seems most were WebKit issues in win32 environments, meaning for sure at least at some point chrome had the same issues. Other issues I found noted QuickTime ActiveX controls.
This isn't the case. You really have to cull over the database line by line, vulnerability by vulnerability. But I don't blame you, doing it requires a lot of work.
I have seen windows machines be infected in my face. Usually it's adobe software that is to blame, but it tends to carry windows specific attacks. These don't even need user stupidity, as the malicious code runs in flash ads or other embedded content.
1) There are OS X specific attacks in Flash too.
2) This will happen with Apple's "magical" solution--HTML 5--for everything too.
3) Even basic web ads with Javascript do it. It's not windows specific.
4) Apple has Javascript support too, and flash too. They're just as vulnerable.
5) Blaming another vendor (in this case, MS) for Flash's vulnerabilities. No.
On iLife software, the only way anyone can call it mediocre is because they have not used it, at least not for anything other than click on buttons at a display machine in BestBuy,and even there, long enough exposure would bring it's power to light. It's not software for professional power users, but it's powerful software none the less.
If it works for you, that's great. For me it's worthless. I could say well so what--mac doesn't have video games. But it's the same thing. To you it probably doesn't matter and it's worthless. (5% of games run on it does not make it a platform for games)
On usability, my wife hates computers and is far from disposed to learn new software under any environment. That is why I tend to use heras an example. As the owner of a Mac Mini, I also fail to seethe drastic UI differences between applications you note.
It's readily apparent within 10 minutes of using it. I don't know how you missed it. I gave real, multiple, specific examples. Not FUD.
On discovery, macs have an amazing help system. As long as the app is designed properly (and all Apple software is, as well as all popular apps I have used) the OS will even drop down the needed menu and point out with an impossible to miss arrow the item you need to click. It may also darken the screen and spotlight buttons. Likely what helps my wife find her way without asking me for anything.
Why should I even need to access the help system at all? Anything I've used in Windows for years I haven't even had to crack open a help system. One can figure it out in seconds, if one needs to figure it out at all.
Oh and iTunes sync may not be very intuitive, but also had a Samsung MP3 player and rather deal with iTunes than ever be forced to drag and drop MP3s ever again.
This one I really have issue with. How is treating a MP3 player as a USB drive with simple drag and drop hard? ITunes as the better solution to MP3 management? Millions of users disagree with you.