I tried to run DD-WRT on my Linksys before I gave it away to my unsuspecting parents:) Many of the advanced features could not be enabled due to the fact that Linksys was cheap enough to only give me 2MB of RAM or something equally ridiculous. It didn't fare much better with DD-WRT running. My parents do not BitTorrent at all, so the WRT54G is working out for them. In connection-heavy environments it buckles and requires rebooting every few MINUTES.
I used to think D-Link routers were crap. Then I got a Linksys WRT54G, and my life went to hell. Constant lockups, power cycles, and constantly losing DNS service... It was batshit insane.
And then my folks got a D-Link 605 (the draft-N one) from a copy of Vista, and I inherited it. My connection has been ROCK SOLID ever since, NEVER have to reboot that thing. Their firmware also does more than the WRT54G.
In-interview tests are just as ineffective as code samples. For one thing, you would allow your engineers much more time under far less stressful conditions when they write their code, with access to many more resources (references, books, colleagues, etc.). The code that they're pumping out in an interview is also not totally indicative of their real skill.
1) Blizzard was a small company once too. Everybody has to start somewhere.
The level of investment required to produce a game when Blizzard first started was far less than what it is today. Remember that in the beginning it WAS actually possible for 3 guys in a basement to produce a game sold in local shops. Try that today.
The idea is that Blizzard built their fortune when the barrier to entry was still low. It is nigh impossible for a developer to do so now - the notable exception being Valve.
There's also a large element of luck and skill to it. If your team works well and puts out your first few games with no delays, then you've built up a significant leeway for your later projects.
2) These guys have EA behind them, so funding shouldn't be an issue. That is, if EA doesn't mind providing additional funding to finish the game properly...
So does every other major studio - everyone has a publisher backing them. But, when push comes to shove many publishers are unwilling to throw more money at an investment they already see as failed. Blizzard self-publishes, and are immune to this effect.
As a 1st generation iPhone owner who has some big bills to pay in the coming weeks (and hence skipping the iPhone 3G for now)... man is EDGE slow. I look forward to the day when I can get 3G access. The web browser on the iPhone is practically useless without WiFi.
Well. For many smaller studios they have very little funding, so not shipping now may mean not making the paychecks next month, so shipping an incomplete product is the lesser of two evils. Blizzard is sitting on top of a veritable mountain of money, they have the ability to wait.
Man, Slashdot is full of cynics. There are some bad apples in the gaming press, but overall I find that reviews are pretty honest, and give me a good idea of what to expect in a game. Not to mention almost all major sites now have a "user rating" right next to the review score, where users can comment. BS reviews are knocked right out there, not to mention when you aggregate through a site like metacritic you wipe out biases.
Reviews... *sigh* let's be frank, if reviews were really working on a wide-scale, there are a lot of 'blockbusters' that would never have enjoyed that level of success.
Crappy games are selling because of a combination of good marketing and an ignorant game-buying public, not because reviews overwhelmingly lie. Look at the Sims and its expansion packs - selling like fricking hotcakes, despite being critically panned, or at least "meh"ed. Many games target audiences that simply do not READ reviews.
The fact is they're asking you to plunk down $50 or $60 for something that you really don't know will be worth your time
The same way you're asked to plunk down $10-15 to see a movie. Or hell, $200K+ for a house! In both cases you can do your due diligence and research, but there's always the chance that you missed something, and you get screwed with a lemon. Seriously, this is a fact of life, why are people up in arms about this? I don't see people complaining about not being able to view a movie for free to decide if they're going to go to the cinema to see it. We do seem to trust movie reviews a fair bit, or at least word of mouth. How is gaming any different?
Ask anybody who's purchased Superman 64.
You mean the game that was critically panned by nearly EVERY critic, quickly became the laughingstock of the gaming press? I have no sympathy for anyone who bought that game - this isn't even a case of the publisher buying out reviewers.
You know the game sucks if you've bothered to read some reviews, or even visit metacritic. Most sites these days even allow *users* to review games. Seriously, why are people pretending that a game is a black box that cannot be peered into until you bring it home?
Formats are different though. A book can take you days to read, while a movie must tell its tale in 2 hours and a little bit. Likewise, a game can have you meander an abandoned hotel for an entire hour, looking for bad guys, a movie cannot. Adaptations are required, and not necessarily a bad thing.
Because fraud was a HUGE problem? Honestly, I think consumers blew it with game returns, and we have nobody to blame but ourselves. I remember the days when stores *did* take games back, even if you just plain didn't like them.
Of course, as soon as CD burners came down in price, the stores were getting gutted. I personally knew many (fellow immature middle schoolers) who would buy games, burn 'em, and return 'em, and gloat to everyone about how smart they were.
Needless to say, pretty soon stores stopped accepting game returns, and this is the way it has stayed. You will notice that stores will gladly accept EXCHANGES, precisely because it allows to replace defective product without opening back up the burn-and-return loophole.
This is part of why I have no tolerance for pirate bullshit. Sure, if you want to pirate a game, go out ahead and do it, but don't act like you have some God-given right to rip people off.
I really don't get that. I've been burned before, most recently by Tribes 2 (yeah, that long ago), when I got so excited over the game I bought it day 1, without reading any reviews. Nowadays I *always* research my sources before a game purchase. You'd probably study up on your TVs before going to BB to get one, why wouldn't you do it for a $60 game? I mean, one quick romp to metacritic will tell you if the game totally sucks, and a quick skim of any reputable review site will reveal any major technical issues.
I see this as pawning off responsibility onto someone else. There are *lots* of things a consumer can get burned on, and I think a little bit of a research should be the consumer's responsibility.
And honestly, I see this as a movie analogy. I've never asked for a movie ticket refund because the movie sucked, so why would you expect to refund a game if it sucks? Do your due diligence before making your purchase. I also don't expect to be able to return a Blu-ray movie because I didn't know my shit and tried to pop it into an HD-DVD drive - so buying a game that's clearly beyond your system hardware is also, IMHO, generally an invalid excuse.
A lot of piracy is in the form of downloading something so the play is better, even when you have bought the game.
No, it's not. CRACKING games is. I've personally cracked many games I've owned legally. This is not the same as downloading the ISO.
Your reply makes no sense. If games are mediocre and just plainly not fun, why are you pirating them? If companies are making games that run on ridiculous hardware that few people have, then why are people pirating them? I don't usually say this, but IMHO pirates in general are full of shit, and have poor excuses for doing the things they do.
Why do I pirate? Because I'm too cheap to fucking buy it, and because I don't agree with the pricing of the games. There, I said it, and I think I'm the most honest one here with regards to this issue.
Again, I would still be willing to BUY games if they would stop rehashing half witted half finished games
I realize that you personally haven't used it to justify piracy, but I see this all too often from pirates. This is not a valid excuse. If games really sucked so much, you wouldn't even be interested in pirating them!
Why is it that so FEW companies actually put out workable, GOOD products?
What games don't work? List some, and I will list you twice as many that do ship in a reasonably working, bug-free form.
Prosthetic limbs don't need to be intelligent and play air hockey. They need to be strong and have good control, since the implication here is that a human operator will always be present (or more accurately, *attached*).
Where does the gap end? These things are getting bigger, more spacious, and more powerful (and consequently more expensive and battery-intensive)... at some point they'll just be building regular ol' laptops agian.
Agreed! Atom 1.6GHz, 80GB HDD, 10" screen? This isn't a "super portable mini budget laptop", this is a straight out *normal* ultra-portable laptop. This is a budget competitor to Sony's Vaio series, not a new device class like Asus initially announced.
Go to a college sometime - stolen laptops are a thriving economy. Sadly, most people I've run into will have no qualms about buying laptops they know to be stolen (or suspect to be so).
5 copies of a book sitting in an obscure corner of the warehouse (tracked by database so that it can be retrieved when it is needed) certainly isn't free, but it's *much* less expensive than keeping 500 copies chain-wide on prime shelf space. The latter also has an opportunity cost associated - putting this obscure book on the shelf means one less best-seller on the shelf, unless your store is of an infinite size:P When you can afford to sell something that only moves 10 copies a year, nation-wide, and guarantee speedy shipping, and still turn a profit, you're doing it right. Barnes & Noble et al cannot.
It's all about your approach and attitude. We've socialized much of our water and electric utilities, and that's worked out well so far. Electricity and water are sold at reasonable prices, availability is damn near universal, and few people have to call and bitch about billing errors, sneaky back-door hidden costs, etc etc. If we treat the internet as an utility as important as water and power and roads, it's perfectly socializable.
As for your wiretapping comment... AT&T is not government owned, but seems to have done the warrantless, secret wiretapping ANYWAY. So, given that warrantless wiretapping is going to happen regardless, I'd rather have my utilities run by a company that isn't out to turn billions in profit without offering anything in return.
Actually... if you read the list, CO2 by itself is not the *biggest* immediate problem we have. Sure, it contributes to global warming, but the huge health problems present in all of the listed cities are caused by *particulates* in the air, like heavy metals, soot, etc etc. These are far more dangerous to the immediate health of the people than CO2. The upside is that the two are somewhat linked.
Re:The explanation is obvious
on
Terminal Chaos
·
· Score: 1
As a somewhat-regular train rider in Canada...
For example you don't include travel time to the train station
Almost all train stations I've seen are smack downtown. This is generally where I need to be, either for business reasons, or because most train stations in most cities also tend to be the central transit hub for local public transit (subways, buses, etc.)... As compared to airports, which are generally in the middle of nowhere, and only in a few cities are they well-connected to a nearby public transit hub.
The last time I took a flight(about 2 years ago), I walked up to the machine, entered some numbers, and had my luggage checked in less then 10 minute
Well, if the GP is guilty of padding, you're guilty of the direct opposite. I fly fairly often also, and a 10-minute check-in is quite optimistic, and only works out if you're flying at non-peak hours. Usually for me it's at least 20 minutes to line up, all in all 30 minutes is a reasonable expectation for check-in.
went through security in 15 minutes
Which is also a bit optimistic, and assumes the line is moving at a good pace. To be reasonably safe 30 minutes should be allotted.
This is all kind of moot when you consider that airlines *mandate* that type of arrival time. Sure, they will *almost always* let you on the flight if you check in 40 minutes before takeoff, but they are, by the terms and conditions on your ticket, allowed to turn you away also. So... arriving at least 60 minutes early is often non-optional.
BTW, all my experiences have been in Canada (and a smattering of American cities), where population density is *even worse* than most major American cities... So if it works *here*, it can work for you guys.
Slashdot Mirror
Because it's difficult to get spam accounts *and* have good karma. Spam posts get modded to oblivion nice and quick :)
... that is ridiculously overpriced. GP wins :)
I tried to run DD-WRT on my Linksys before I gave it away to my unsuspecting parents :) Many of the advanced features could not be enabled due to the fact that Linksys was cheap enough to only give me 2MB of RAM or something equally ridiculous. It didn't fare much better with DD-WRT running. My parents do not BitTorrent at all, so the WRT54G is working out for them. In connection-heavy environments it buckles and requires rebooting every few MINUTES.
I used to think D-Link routers were crap. Then I got a Linksys WRT54G, and my life went to hell. Constant lockups, power cycles, and constantly losing DNS service... It was batshit insane.
And then my folks got a D-Link 605 (the draft-N one) from a copy of Vista, and I inherited it. My connection has been ROCK SOLID ever since, NEVER have to reboot that thing. Their firmware also does more than the WRT54G.
In short, Linksys sucks, go D-Link.
In-interview tests are just as ineffective as code samples. For one thing, you would allow your engineers much more time under far less stressful conditions when they write their code, with access to many more resources (references, books, colleagues, etc.). The code that they're pumping out in an interview is also not totally indicative of their real skill.
1) Blizzard was a small company once too. Everybody has to start somewhere.
The level of investment required to produce a game when Blizzard first started was far less than what it is today. Remember that in the beginning it WAS actually possible for 3 guys in a basement to produce a game sold in local shops. Try that today.
The idea is that Blizzard built their fortune when the barrier to entry was still low. It is nigh impossible for a developer to do so now - the notable exception being Valve.
There's also a large element of luck and skill to it. If your team works well and puts out your first few games with no delays, then you've built up a significant leeway for your later projects.
2) These guys have EA behind them, so funding shouldn't be an issue. That is, if EA doesn't mind providing additional funding to finish the game properly...
So does every other major studio - everyone has a publisher backing them. But, when push comes to shove many publishers are unwilling to throw more money at an investment they already see as failed. Blizzard self-publishes, and are immune to this effect.
As a 1st generation iPhone owner who has some big bills to pay in the coming weeks (and hence skipping the iPhone 3G for now)... man is EDGE slow. I look forward to the day when I can get 3G access. The web browser on the iPhone is practically useless without WiFi.
Well. For many smaller studios they have very little funding, so not shipping now may mean not making the paychecks next month, so shipping an incomplete product is the lesser of two evils. Blizzard is sitting on top of a veritable mountain of money, they have the ability to wait.
Man, Slashdot is full of cynics. There are some bad apples in the gaming press, but overall I find that reviews are pretty honest, and give me a good idea of what to expect in a game. Not to mention almost all major sites now have a "user rating" right next to the review score, where users can comment. BS reviews are knocked right out there, not to mention when you aggregate through a site like metacritic you wipe out biases.
Reviews ... *sigh* let's be frank, if reviews were really working on a wide-scale, there are a lot of 'blockbusters' that would never have enjoyed that level of success.
Crappy games are selling because of a combination of good marketing and an ignorant game-buying public, not because reviews overwhelmingly lie. Look at the Sims and its expansion packs - selling like fricking hotcakes, despite being critically panned, or at least "meh"ed. Many games target audiences that simply do not READ reviews.
The fact is they're asking you to plunk down $50 or $60 for something that you really don't know will be worth your time
The same way you're asked to plunk down $10-15 to see a movie. Or hell, $200K+ for a house! In both cases you can do your due diligence and research, but there's always the chance that you missed something, and you get screwed with a lemon. Seriously, this is a fact of life, why are people up in arms about this? I don't see people complaining about not being able to view a movie for free to decide if they're going to go to the cinema to see it. We do seem to trust movie reviews a fair bit, or at least word of mouth. How is gaming any different?
Ask anybody who's purchased Superman 64.
You mean the game that was critically panned by nearly EVERY critic, quickly became the laughingstock of the gaming press? I have no sympathy for anyone who bought that game - this isn't even a case of the publisher buying out reviewers.
You know the game sucks if you've bothered to read some reviews, or even visit metacritic. Most sites these days even allow *users* to review games. Seriously, why are people pretending that a game is a black box that cannot be peered into until you bring it home?
Formats are different though. A book can take you days to read, while a movie must tell its tale in 2 hours and a little bit. Likewise, a game can have you meander an abandoned hotel for an entire hour, looking for bad guys, a movie cannot. Adaptations are required, and not necessarily a bad thing.
Because fraud was a HUGE problem? Honestly, I think consumers blew it with game returns, and we have nobody to blame but ourselves. I remember the days when stores *did* take games back, even if you just plain didn't like them.
Of course, as soon as CD burners came down in price, the stores were getting gutted. I personally knew many (fellow immature middle schoolers) who would buy games, burn 'em, and return 'em, and gloat to everyone about how smart they were.
Needless to say, pretty soon stores stopped accepting game returns, and this is the way it has stayed. You will notice that stores will gladly accept EXCHANGES, precisely because it allows to replace defective product without opening back up the burn-and-return loophole.
This is part of why I have no tolerance for pirate bullshit. Sure, if you want to pirate a game, go out ahead and do it, but don't act like you have some God-given right to rip people off.
I really don't get that. I've been burned before, most recently by Tribes 2 (yeah, that long ago), when I got so excited over the game I bought it day 1, without reading any reviews. Nowadays I *always* research my sources before a game purchase. You'd probably study up on your TVs before going to BB to get one, why wouldn't you do it for a $60 game? I mean, one quick romp to metacritic will tell you if the game totally sucks, and a quick skim of any reputable review site will reveal any major technical issues.
I see this as pawning off responsibility onto someone else. There are *lots* of things a consumer can get burned on, and I think a little bit of a research should be the consumer's responsibility.
And honestly, I see this as a movie analogy. I've never asked for a movie ticket refund because the movie sucked, so why would you expect to refund a game if it sucks? Do your due diligence before making your purchase. I also don't expect to be able to return a Blu-ray movie because I didn't know my shit and tried to pop it into an HD-DVD drive - so buying a game that's clearly beyond your system hardware is also, IMHO, generally an invalid excuse.
A lot of piracy is in the form of downloading something so the play is better, even when you have bought the game.
No, it's not. CRACKING games is. I've personally cracked many games I've owned legally. This is not the same as downloading the ISO.
Your reply makes no sense. If games are mediocre and just plainly not fun, why are you pirating them? If companies are making games that run on ridiculous hardware that few people have, then why are people pirating them? I don't usually say this, but IMHO pirates in general are full of shit, and have poor excuses for doing the things they do.
Why do I pirate? Because I'm too cheap to fucking buy it, and because I don't agree with the pricing of the games. There, I said it, and I think I'm the most honest one here with regards to this issue.
Again, I would still be willing to BUY games if they would stop rehashing half witted half finished games
I realize that you personally haven't used it to justify piracy, but I see this all too often from pirates. This is not a valid excuse. If games really sucked so much, you wouldn't even be interested in pirating them!
Why is it that so FEW companies actually put out workable, GOOD products?
What games don't work? List some, and I will list you twice as many that do ship in a reasonably working, bug-free form.
Prosthetic limbs don't need to be intelligent and play air hockey. They need to be strong and have good control, since the implication here is that a human operator will always be present (or more accurately, *attached*).
Well... Since the only way to generate a sizable EMP blast is a nuclear detonation, I would say that's a small comfort... :)
Where does the gap end? These things are getting bigger, more spacious, and more powerful (and consequently more expensive and battery-intensive)... at some point they'll just be building regular ol' laptops agian.
Agreed! Atom 1.6GHz, 80GB HDD, 10" screen? This isn't a "super portable mini budget laptop", this is a straight out *normal* ultra-portable laptop. This is a budget competitor to Sony's Vaio series, not a new device class like Asus initially announced.
Or we're so painfully slow with fixing bugs that we JUST got around to 1975 :P There are always multiple views :P
Go to a college sometime - stolen laptops are a thriving economy. Sadly, most people I've run into will have no qualms about buying laptops they know to be stolen (or suspect to be so).
5 copies of a book sitting in an obscure corner of the warehouse (tracked by database so that it can be retrieved when it is needed) certainly isn't free, but it's *much* less expensive than keeping 500 copies chain-wide on prime shelf space. The latter also has an opportunity cost associated - putting this obscure book on the shelf means one less best-seller on the shelf, unless your store is of an infinite size :P When you can afford to sell something that only moves 10 copies a year, nation-wide, and guarantee speedy shipping, and still turn a profit, you're doing it right. Barnes & Noble et al cannot.
It's all about your approach and attitude. We've socialized much of our water and electric utilities, and that's worked out well so far. Electricity and water are sold at reasonable prices, availability is damn near universal, and few people have to call and bitch about billing errors, sneaky back-door hidden costs, etc etc. If we treat the internet as an utility as important as water and power and roads, it's perfectly socializable.
As for your wiretapping comment... AT&T is not government owned, but seems to have done the warrantless, secret wiretapping ANYWAY. So, given that warrantless wiretapping is going to happen regardless, I'd rather have my utilities run by a company that isn't out to turn billions in profit without offering anything in return.
Actually... if you read the list, CO2 by itself is not the *biggest* immediate problem we have. Sure, it contributes to global warming, but the huge health problems present in all of the listed cities are caused by *particulates* in the air, like heavy metals, soot, etc etc. These are far more dangerous to the immediate health of the people than CO2. The upside is that the two are somewhat linked.
As a somewhat-regular train rider in Canada...
For example you don't include travel time to the train stationAlmost all train stations I've seen are smack downtown. This is generally where I need to be, either for business reasons, or because most train stations in most cities also tend to be the central transit hub for local public transit (subways, buses, etc.)... As compared to airports, which are generally in the middle of nowhere, and only in a few cities are they well-connected to a nearby public transit hub.
The last time I took a flight(about 2 years ago), I walked up to the machine, entered some numbers, and had my luggage checked in less then 10 minuteWell, if the GP is guilty of padding, you're guilty of the direct opposite. I fly fairly often also, and a 10-minute check-in is quite optimistic, and only works out if you're flying at non-peak hours. Usually for me it's at least 20 minutes to line up, all in all 30 minutes is a reasonable expectation for check-in.
went through security in 15 minutesWhich is also a bit optimistic, and assumes the line is moving at a good pace. To be reasonably safe 30 minutes should be allotted.
This is all kind of moot when you consider that airlines *mandate* that type of arrival time. Sure, they will *almost always* let you on the flight if you check in 40 minutes before takeoff, but they are, by the terms and conditions on your ticket, allowed to turn you away also. So... arriving at least 60 minutes early is often non-optional.
BTW, all my experiences have been in Canada (and a smattering of American cities), where population density is *even worse* than most major American cities... So if it works *here*, it can work for you guys.