And on the very same page as the link listed is another link describing how "Sony could come in last" (rather than second) in the next-gen "race". Point being regarding any such premonitions?...grain, salt, take it.:)
I heard a great analogy today. Software is like a vehicle. Software should be able to be modified just like buying a Harley and modifying it like West Coast Choppers does. As long as all the parties get paid, the Harley dealer, the suppliers of the mods, etc., then no one can stop it as long as it's not illegal.
Unfortunately, that's not actually the case...and this illuminates one of the fundamental problems with trying to compare past law to current problems.
Most of the laws about such things as "theft" work off the basis that if you take something, your are depriving someone else use of that thing. In other words, when I take your modified Harley, you no longer have the Harley. However, digital material can be duplicated such that both parties can still have a copy. This has been the case to some extent in other media for a long time, but only with digital works is it the first time a "perfect" copy can be made.
In any case, the point being is that that any analogy of software (or movies) to something more physically tangible breaks down on the point that if I illegally copy some software (or movies), I am not depriving the user I copied it from of its use.
In your discussin here, this is not quite as much a problem, because you are discussing more the problem of "modifying" rather than illegally copying...but still something to be wary of.
First, what was "an early warning sign"?...it's unclear from your post.
2 - movies) You are true in saying that studios have a constant flow of high-budget movies that are carefully created to be sure-fire successes...BUT, that doesn't mean there aren't other people making and successfully selling and distributing low-budget independent films. Look around, and you'll find at least one independent film theater near most well-sized cities. Go to a video rental place, and you'll see lots of small independent films -- even at Blockbuster. And so on and so on....so the film industry effectively has about three to four tiers which one can make a film at and have it still potentially be a success. The games industry has one.
3 - drugs) Drugs are MASSIVELY expensive to create and get approved by the FDA. Somewhere about 800 million or so. For this reason, yes, there is a limited amount that the companies are willing to risk, as just one drug can bankrupt an entire company (as might have happened recently)...however, that does NOT mean there is no innovation. Actually, there is a massive amount of innovation. Most drug companies create hundreds of thousands of potential drug candidates for each one they end up making. They start with a huge number of possible molecules, and then whittle them down based off a large number of criteria to just 1 to go through all the phases of trials. The games industry DEFINITELY does not do that.
4 - cars) In the car industry there is a large array of cars at different prices with different features. You can get a brand new car for, what, $7000? Or get a brand new Porsche or something for $100,000? That's a HUGE range of prices, again, something the game industry doesn't have.
And as for innovation, I disagree with your idea that we are driving the same cars we drove in 1950. There have been massive improvements in safety, price, mechanics, etc. across the board. However, a car is still a car as it is, well, the car industry. It seems the innovations you would want would extend outside the car industry. And talking about companies copying each other -- that happens in EVERY industry. It's good business common sense. If I see my competitor do something well, I don't want to be left be hind, so I'll try to do the same thing.
Not to mention the recent massive popularity of the Prius...
5 - EA) That's the nature of capitalism. Do you believe in capitalism? If so, what's your issue?...and don't compare EA to Microsoft...EA doesn't buy things to make sure they don't get released -- they buy them because they are impressed and want to be the ones releasing whatever. The Sims was made under EA's control, for example, because EA saw the value and potential Maxis based off the SimCity games, when no one else really wanted to go near Maxis...
Kraftwerk (and most 80's new wave) was only really responsible for the EBM branch of industrial music anyway. the rest took what they liked, and moved on to a harder sound.
Hardly. Almost all industrial bands, when asked their influences, have one band that is almost always listed: Kraftwerk. There are other bands that are frequently named, but none that receives more note than Kraftwerk. I don't even like Kraftwerk all that much, but *that* is the definition of influential. And let's not forget Skinny Puppy, Throbbing Gristle, and others...*they* were influential.
the rest took what they liked, and moved on to a harder sound.
Again...the *definition* of influential...
yeah, because we're all hearing a lot from Godhead these days. for every Eminem or Marilyn Manson, there are first bands that blow real hard.
You take something I said, and twist it into something I didn't. Did I *say* all first signed bands?? Nope! And, as for MM, it was just the right place and time for TR to start a label. *That* is half the story of MM's success.
this brings up the next point: Marilyn Manson only gained his initial exposure due to Reznor. if what you said was true, then Manson would have stopped selling records after Antichrist Superstar (which was the last record Reznor had anything to do with).
Again, you put words in my mouth I didn't say. Did I say TR's involvment with the band while recording was the secret of MM's success?? Again, nope! What I *did* say, is they were there at just the right time to receive a massive media blitz propelling them further than, well, they ever should've. And as for how they've managed to continue to sell albums...
the fact that Marilyn Manson is still able to pump out a multi-platinum record pretty much negates your theory.
Again, hardly. The music industry is all about business, and next to nothing about quality or creativity. It is planned, constructed, and created to craft what will sell and win it will sell. You throw enough marketing dollars behind even the worse band ever made, and they *will* sell millions upon millions of records. Why? Because you pay radio stations, CD stores, etc. to play their albums, and *whichever* album is being played is garaunteed to sell copies, regardless of what it is. (don't even get me started on payola)
Additionally, another marketing masterpiece is that such bands can collect a "momentum"...once you get them going, if you do it the right way at the right time, they can keep afloat on their own...on their *past* success and their convinced "fans".
The other half of MM's success is the same as why you know Dennis Rodman's name over most other basketball players of the same skill...
apparently, your idea of influence and importance is the ability to create and move product as fast as possible. lemme know how your collection of "influential" backstreet boys albums are doing.
LOL! You are even hypocritical as well. First you say seem to point out some quality of MM's record sales, then you turn around and accuse me of doing just that! It's one or the other..
Best part is, yet again, I didn't say that..you continue to put words in my mouth, so I won't bother with the rest...
Kraftwerk (and most 80's new wave) was only really responsible for the EBM branch of industrial music anyway. the rest took what they liked, and moved on to a harder sound.
Hardly. Almost all industrial bands, when asked their influences, have one band that is almost always listed: Kraftwerk. There are other bands that are frequently named, but none that receives more note than Kraftwerk. I don't even like Kraftwerk all that much, but *that* is the definition of influential. And let's not forget Skinny Puppy, Throbbing Gristle, and others...*they* were influential.
the rest took what they liked, and moved on to a harder sound.
Again...the *definition* of influential...
yeah, because we're all hearing a lot from Godhead these days. for every Eminem or Marilyn Manson, there are first bands that blow real hard.
You take something I said, and twist it into something I didn't. Did I *say* all first signed bands?? Nope! And, as for MM, it was just the right place and time for TR to start a label. *That* is half the story of MM's success.
this brings up the next point: Marilyn Manson only gained his initial exposure due to Reznor. if what you said was true, then Manson would have stopped selling records after Antichrist Superstar (which was the last record Reznor had anything to do with).
Again, you put words in my mouth I didn't say. Did I say TR's involvment with the band while recording was the secret of MM's success?? Again, nope! What I *did* say, is they were there at just the right time to receive a massive media blitz propelling them further than, well, they ever should've. And as for how they've managed to continue to sell albums...
the fact that Marilyn Manson is still able to pump out a multi-platinum record pretty much negates your theory.
Again, hardly. The music industry is all about business, and next to nothing about quality or creativity. It is planned, constructed, and created to craft what will sell and win it will sell. You throw enough marketing dollars behind even the worse band ever made, and they *will* sell millions upon millions of records. Why? Because you pay radio stations, CD stores, etc. to play their albums, and *whichever* album is being played is garaunteed to sell copies, regardless of what it is. (don't even get me started on payola)
Additionally, another marketing masterpiece is that such bands can collect a "momentum"...once you get them going, if you do it the right way at the right time, they can keep afloat on their own...on their *past* success and their convinced "fans".
The other half of MM's success is the same as why you know Dennis Rodman's name over most other basketball players of the same skill...
apparently, your idea of influence and importance is the ability to create and move product as fast as possible. lemme know how your collection of "influential" backstreet boys albums are doing.
LOL! You are even hypocritical as well. First you say seem to point out some quality of MM's record sales, then you turn around and accuse me of doing just that! It's one or the other..
Best part is, yet again, I didn't say that..you continue to put words in my mouth, so I won't bother with the rest...
This guy was the first big artist to record the soundtrack for a computer game (remember Quake 1?)
Eh...any claim about the first "big" artist to do something is fairly underwhelming, as always there were a number of "small" artists who did it long before.
Now he's the first one to release a song as a GarageBand file.
Again, many other artists have done similar things in other format / for other programs. Nothing new here...
He brought industrial music (or something like this) into the main stream.
Very short-term memory. Bands like Kraftwerk and some of the bands to follow New Wave in the 1980s did this much more significantly...
Be brought forward some new huge bands like Marylin Manson and Filter (I'm not arguing if they're good or bad)
But you should (argue if they are good or bad)...there's nothing impressive about a bad band. MM is only well known because they were the first band to sign to TR's new label, when TR was still an active and visible performer. Whoever he had signed first was garaunteed to suceed.
But he is just going to release his fourth album in almost 20 years of career.
Which is ridiculous with the extremely large gaps between releases...
He made 2.5 good albums, and a bunch of remixes of that small amount of material, and coasted on it for years and years and yaers. I LOVE his first albums. Absolutely. They were great. But when you do nothing for half a decade after that, and then come out with something that is just mediocre...eh.
There's even a WHOLE movie that's based off the images of the video for "Closer" (Ok, so the movie sucks and the video wasn't Trent's work, but still)
Well: a) as you admit, it's not TR's work...b) you admit that it's bad...and c) it's not even remotely original...Hell, Michael Jackson made a long movie for Moonwalker.
So what's your point here?
For me, this guy is the most influential musician of the last 15 years.
How on earth could you think so? I can name dozens of other artists more influential on other artists and the music industry (for example: Tori Amos...she pretty much *made* a genre feasible for many to follow after her). I can name dozens of artists that have been more innovative (for example, Brian Eno, Peter Gabriel, and David Bowie). I can name dozens of bands that has sold more albums by orders of magnitude. And so on and so on...and any genres of music that he could've possibly been classified as in the past, have changed unbelieveably much such as to not even be really applicable anymore...
So what has TR done that's so influential? Made 2.5 good albums, and then just wandered off to do next to nothing for years and years...how is that influential?? Lots of people haven't even heard of NIN nowadays, which admittedly is sad, but hardly influential.
A couple quick notes, however... they have no incentive whatsoever to do so.
I don't really think that's true. There's a couple reasons: - maintaining their "goodwill"/brand...if the game sucks, and it's got EA's name on it, then it hurts the company as a whole for the future... - Madden and other yearly EA Sports games have been their bread and butter for years...suddenly losing a large amount of expected revenue on a crappy game would hurt - development costs for a game like Madden are VERY high...they have to get at least some sales just to offset the development costs...additionally, they paid supposedly a LOT for these licenses (probably over-paid?)... - they have to convince consumers to buy the thing in the first place, and if they can not convince people that there's enough new stuff for folks to put their $$ on the counter to buy the game, again, that will hurt...see, unlike some others, I do not necessarily believe that if the game is bad, there will still be a market for it just because it's the only football game out there...eventually, yes, but for a year or two, no -- they'll stick with Madden '04 or whatever.
These are reasons as to why EA would want to drive Madden forward to be better than ever....does that mean they won't rest on their laurels a bit?...no, but I don't think they will as much as people think they will. However, I also don't know if there is enough room to cost-effectively innovate right now that they'll even be able to...
I'm not so sure I can swear off Lord of the Rings, Sims, and 007 games.
Ditto...;)...and also, EA has done a good job at least a couple times with each of those series...there is a reason they are the biggest. Will they stay the biggest?...who knows...
A company acting in its best interests is different than a company acting against its customers' best interests.
Explain further...I agree that it is not by definition acting against its customers' best interests...but what in the cases where it does? What then?
For example, look at the tobacco industry. Next to nothing that they do is in their customer's best interests, but they are in the best interests of the industry. (although, this is probably far too extreme of an example)
In any case, I agreed with most of the rest of what you said, until you said that it wasn't the case at all...heh. I don't think there is much happening in the way of innovation in football games almost at all...and I think most of the innovation, from *all* companies over the last few years, has been incremental...(I know some will disagree with me w.r.t. the NFL 2K's)
Either you are completely missing my point, or that doesn't make any sense at all...
People gripe because they assume that sole-licensing like this will retard the creation of quality games and maybe stifle some of the innovation that would've come around with more competition (in other words, the games are gonna suck). Correct?
So what happens if next year's or the year after that's Madden is very very good? Will all those people who were griping based on future assumptions of crappy-games then rescind their comments?
I mean, hey, if Bush all of the sudden starts becoming an unbelieveably good President, and changes the nation and the world for the better, for current and future generations: I will be the first one to stand up and say I was wrong...;)
Hardly trolling...as for "when you look online", I'm talking about go to Citeseer, do some searches in a topic you are interested in. If there seems to be a lot of good work done on that topic at some school or another, then I whole-heartedly encouraged going there! If you are not entirely sure, and just want to do a more general literature survey in an area, again, go ahead...in *that* case, I'm pretty sure you'll find a decent amount of work done at MIT (in science and engineering areas of course).
As for comparisons of Notre Dame, some other Ivy league, etc....all just anecdotal evidence...not really much to say there. I already wrote one reply about MIT as an undergraduate school elsewhere on this thread -- you might want to check that out.
Feh...I never feigned a lack of bias. hehe... Funny thing is: I was a "film student" at MIT. Go figure.
But as for movies, it's silly to try to make comparisons based off of stuff like that. As I'm sure CalTech folks will be never hearing the end of "Real Genius" comments until the day I die, likewise, if I hear one more comment about MIT janitorial geniuses...well, you get the idea. It's all funny and silly.
Oh?..you have some incontrovertible proof as to this? My main point is merely that people who really do not know all that well what they are talking about (including yourself) keeping stating random opinions and anecdotes as if they were facts!
They are a research university
There seems to be this pervasive myth that MIT does all this research and correspondingly doesn't give a crap about undergraduates. It is just plain false.
First: and like other research universities, research is done by grad students, not by undergrads.
Incorrect. MIT has a program called UROP which is exactly about getting undergraduates involved in research. http://web.mit.edu/urop/index.html
And second, MIT is one of the few large, well known, "research" schools in which the undergraduate classes that are typically taught by PostDocs, assistants, etc. at other schools are taught by full professors at MIT.
However, even Dr. Edmund Bertschinger told me not to bother, that there were many other schools which focus on, and do a better job of, teaching undergraduates.
I see. And you did a full poll of all the faculty, to get an accurate sampling of opinions, correct? Certainly, you didn't just go off of one anecdotal comment?
except that your atrocious grammar suggests that you didn't
LOL...let me tell you, never EVER make a math error in public where it's known you went to MIT. You will never hear the end of it, even if you make just 1% as many as the general public does.
I apologize that you find my one grammatical error in a quickly posted message sent late at night to Slashdot so "atrocious".
CalTech = near LA. Lots of movies are made in or near LA.
MIT = near Boston. Not a lot of movies are made near Boston (comparatively) (and most of the ones which supposedly take place in or near Boston are shot in or near LA).
LOL...wow. Did you ever miss every point there was to be gotten.
It was like they weren't even trying to sell the school.
Sorry, but if you needed to be "sold" on anything, you were already not even close to understanding, well, the entire point, really. MIT doesn't need to "sell" anything. Go online. Look around. Do some research. Then, if you need to then be "sold" by an antique recruitment video, then you have completely missed the boat...
but the feeling I got when I went to visit was that they didn't really give a shit about undergrads because they're not bringing in research money.
You're "feeling" was wrong.
The school might have a ton of resources available but I would rather be at a school where professors actually cared about their students.
I assume you base that on your erroneous "feeling", so it is without any backing.
I'm confident that got more out of my education here at Notre Dame than I would have at MIT
Busy now, but e-mail me in a week, and I'll make sure to find one or two.
For now, I'd say just go look at this year's GDC talks, look at the PPT files for the talks on "the future of game distribution", and you'll probably find numerous such cites. I don't remember them off the top of my head...I think the IGDA might have done one? Or was it NPD?
Slashdot Mirror
Unfortunately, in many situations, this is not the case. For example, see:
Courtney Love's 2000 speech
And you get this information from where?
And on the very same page as the link listed is another link describing how "Sony could come in last" (rather than second) in the next-gen "race". Point being regarding any such premonitions?...grain, salt, take it. :)
I heard a great analogy today. Software is like a vehicle. Software should be able to be modified just like buying a Harley and modifying it like West Coast Choppers does. As long as all the parties get paid, the Harley dealer, the suppliers of the mods, etc., then no one can stop it as long as it's not illegal.
Unfortunately, that's not actually the case...and this illuminates one of the fundamental problems with trying to compare past law to current problems.
Most of the laws about such things as "theft" work off the basis that if you take something, your are depriving someone else use of that thing. In other words, when I take your modified Harley, you no longer have the Harley. However, digital material can be duplicated such that both parties can still have a copy. This has been the case to some extent in other media for a long time, but only with digital works is it the first time a "perfect" copy can be made.
In any case, the point being is that that any analogy of software (or movies) to something more physically tangible breaks down on the point that if I illegally copy some software (or movies), I am not depriving the user I copied it from of its use.
In your discussin here, this is not quite as much a problem, because you are discussing more the problem of "modifying" rather than illegally copying...but still something to be wary of.
it's a shame you couldn't have refuted any of the points I made, instead of simply commenting on the parts that were less than essential to the post.
I went through your post LINE BY LINE, until I just gave up, as I realized it was all going to be landing on deaf ears.
Heh, looks like I was right...
Ummm...I disagree.
First, what was "an early warning sign"?...it's unclear from your post.
2 - movies) You are true in saying that studios have a constant flow of high-budget movies that are carefully created to be sure-fire successes...BUT, that doesn't mean there aren't other people making and successfully selling and distributing low-budget independent films. Look around, and you'll find at least one independent film theater near most well-sized cities. Go to a video rental place, and you'll see lots of small independent films -- even at Blockbuster. And so on and so on....so the film industry effectively has about three to four tiers which one can make a film at and have it still potentially be a success. The games industry has one.
3 - drugs) Drugs are MASSIVELY expensive to create and get approved by the FDA. Somewhere about 800 million or so. For this reason, yes, there is a limited amount that the companies are willing to risk, as just one drug can bankrupt an entire company (as might have happened recently)...however, that does NOT mean there is no innovation. Actually, there is a massive amount of innovation. Most drug companies create hundreds of thousands of potential drug candidates for each one they end up making. They start with a huge number of possible molecules, and then whittle them down based off a large number of criteria to just 1 to go through all the phases of trials. The games industry DEFINITELY does not do that.
4 - cars) In the car industry there is a large array of cars at different prices with different features. You can get a brand new car for, what, $7000? Or get a brand new Porsche or something for $100,000? That's a HUGE range of prices, again, something the game industry doesn't have.
And as for innovation, I disagree with your idea that we are driving the same cars we drove in 1950. There have been massive improvements in safety, price, mechanics, etc. across the board. However, a car is still a car as it is, well, the car industry. It seems the innovations you would want would extend outside the car industry. And talking about companies copying each other -- that happens in EVERY industry. It's good business common sense. If I see my competitor do something well, I don't want to be left be hind, so I'll try to do the same thing.
Not to mention the recent massive popularity of the Prius...
5 - EA) That's the nature of capitalism. Do you believe in capitalism? If so, what's your issue?...and don't compare EA to Microsoft...EA doesn't buy things to make sure they don't get released -- they buy them because they are impressed and want to be the ones releasing whatever. The Sims was made under EA's control, for example, because EA saw the value and potential Maxis based off the SimCity games, when no one else really wanted to go near Maxis...
Kraftwerk (and most 80's new wave) was only really responsible for the EBM branch of industrial music anyway. the rest took what they liked, and moved on to a harder sound.
Hardly. Almost all industrial bands, when asked their influences, have one band that is almost always listed: Kraftwerk. There are other bands that are frequently named, but none that receives more note than Kraftwerk. I don't even like Kraftwerk all that much, but *that* is the definition of influential. And let's not forget Skinny Puppy, Throbbing Gristle, and others...*they* were influential.
the rest took what they liked, and moved on to a harder sound.
Again...the *definition* of influential...
yeah, because we're all hearing a lot from Godhead these days. for every Eminem or Marilyn Manson, there are first bands that blow real hard.
You take something I said, and twist it into something I didn't. Did I *say* all first signed bands?? Nope!
And, as for MM, it was just the right place and time for TR to start a label. *That* is half the story of MM's success.
this brings up the next point: Marilyn Manson only gained his initial exposure due to Reznor. if what you said was true, then Manson would have stopped selling records after Antichrist Superstar (which was the last record Reznor had anything to do with).
Again, you put words in my mouth I didn't say. Did I say TR's involvment with the band while recording was the secret of MM's success?? Again, nope! What I *did* say, is they were there at just the right time to receive a massive media blitz propelling them further than, well, they ever should've. And as for how they've managed to continue to sell albums...
the fact that Marilyn Manson is still able to pump out a multi-platinum record pretty much negates your theory.
Again, hardly. The music industry is all about business, and next to nothing about quality or creativity. It is planned, constructed, and created to craft what will sell and win it will sell. You throw enough marketing dollars behind even the worse band ever made, and they *will* sell millions upon millions of records. Why? Because you pay radio stations, CD stores, etc. to play their albums, and *whichever* album is being played is garaunteed to sell copies, regardless of what it is. (don't even get me started on payola)
Additionally, another marketing masterpiece is that such bands can collect a "momentum"...once you get them going, if you do it the right way at the right time, they can keep afloat on their own...on their *past* success and their convinced "fans".
The other half of MM's success is the same as why you know Dennis Rodman's name over most other basketball players of the same skill...
apparently, your idea of influence and importance is the ability to create and move product as fast as possible. lemme know how your collection of "influential" backstreet boys albums are doing.
LOL! You are even hypocritical as well. First you say seem to point out some quality of MM's record sales, then you turn around and accuse me of doing just that! It's one or the other..
Best part is, yet again, I didn't say that..you continue to put words in my mouth, so I won't bother with the rest...
Kraftwerk (and most 80's new wave) was only really responsible for the EBM branch of industrial music anyway. the rest took what they liked, and moved on to a harder sound.
Hardly. Almost all industrial bands, when asked their influences, have one band that is almost always listed: Kraftwerk. There are other bands that are frequently named, but none that receives more note than Kraftwerk. I don't even like Kraftwerk all that much, but *that* is the definition of influential. And let's not forget Skinny Puppy, Throbbing Gristle, and others...*they* were influential.
the rest took what they liked, and moved on to a harder sound.
Again...the *definition* of influential...
yeah, because we're all hearing a lot from Godhead these days. for every Eminem or Marilyn Manson, there are first bands that blow real hard.
You take something I said, and twist it into something I didn't. Did I *say* all first signed bands?? Nope!
And, as for MM, it was just the right place and time for TR to start a label. *That* is half the story of MM's success.
this brings up the next point: Marilyn Manson only gained his initial exposure due to Reznor. if what you said was true, then Manson would have stopped selling records after Antichrist Superstar (which was the last record Reznor had anything to do with).
Again, you put words in my mouth I didn't say. Did I say TR's involvment with the band while recording was the secret of MM's success?? Again, nope! What I *did* say, is they were there at just the right time to receive a massive media blitz propelling them further than, well, they ever should've. And as for how they've managed to continue to sell albums...
the fact that Marilyn Manson is still able to pump out a multi-platinum record pretty much negates your theory.
Again, hardly. The music industry is all about business, and next to nothing about quality or creativity. It is planned, constructed, and created to craft what will sell and win it will sell. You throw enough marketing dollars behind even the worse band ever made, and they *will* sell millions upon millions of records. Why? Because you pay radio stations, CD stores, etc. to play their albums, and *whichever* album is being played is garaunteed to sell copies, regardless of what it is. (don't even get me started on payola)
Additionally, another marketing masterpiece is that such bands can collect a "momentum"...once you get them going, if you do it the right way at the right time, they can keep afloat on their own...on their *past* success and their convinced "fans".
The other half of MM's success is the same as why you know Dennis Rodman's name over most other basketball players of the same skill...
apparently, your idea of influence and importance is the ability to create and move product as fast as possible. lemme know how your collection of "influential" backstreet boys albums are doing.
LOL! You are even hypocritical as well. First you say seem to point out some quality of MM's record sales, then you turn around and accuse me of doing just that! It's one or the other..
Best part is, yet again, I didn't say that..you continue to put words in my mouth, so I won't bother with the rest...
This guy was the first big artist to record the soundtrack for a computer game (remember Quake 1?)
Eh...any claim about the first "big" artist to do something is fairly underwhelming, as always there were a number of "small" artists who did it long before.
Now he's the first one to release a song as a GarageBand file.
Again, many other artists have done similar things in other format / for other programs. Nothing new here...
He brought industrial music (or something like this) into the main stream.
Very short-term memory. Bands like Kraftwerk and some of the bands to follow New Wave in the 1980s did this much more significantly...
Be brought forward some new huge bands like Marylin Manson and Filter (I'm not arguing if they're good or bad)
But you should (argue if they are good or bad)...there's nothing impressive about a bad band. MM is only well known because they were the first band to sign to TR's new label, when TR was still an active and visible performer. Whoever he had signed first was garaunteed to suceed.
But he is just going to release his fourth album in almost 20 years of career.
Which is ridiculous with the extremely large gaps between releases...
He made 2.5 good albums, and a bunch of remixes of that small amount of material, and coasted on it for years and years and yaers. I LOVE his first albums. Absolutely. They were great. But when you do nothing for half a decade after that, and then come out with something that is just mediocre...eh.
There's even a WHOLE movie that's based off the images of the video for "Closer" (Ok, so the movie sucks and the video wasn't Trent's work, but still)
Well: a) as you admit, it's not TR's work...b) you admit that it's bad...and c) it's not even remotely original...Hell, Michael Jackson made a long movie for Moonwalker.
So what's your point here?
For me, this guy is the most influential musician of the last 15 years.
How on earth could you think so? I can name dozens of other artists more influential on other artists and the music industry (for example: Tori Amos...she pretty much *made* a genre feasible for many to follow after her). I can name dozens of artists that have been more innovative (for example, Brian Eno, Peter Gabriel, and David Bowie). I can name dozens of bands that has sold more albums by orders of magnitude. And so on and so on...and any genres of music that he could've possibly been classified as in the past, have changed unbelieveably much such as to not even be really applicable anymore...
So what has TR done that's so influential? Made 2.5 good albums, and then just wandered off to do next to nothing for years and years...how is that influential?? Lots of people haven't even heard of NIN nowadays, which admittedly is sad, but hardly influential.
We do?
I agree with almost everything you said.
;) ...and also, EA has done a good job at least a couple times with each of those series...there is a reason they are the biggest. Will they stay the biggest?...who knows...
A couple quick notes, however...
they have no incentive whatsoever to do so.
I don't really think that's true. There's a couple reasons:
- maintaining their "goodwill"/brand...if the game sucks, and it's got EA's name on it, then it hurts the company as a whole for the future...
- Madden and other yearly EA Sports games have been their bread and butter for years...suddenly losing a large amount of expected revenue on a crappy game would hurt
- development costs for a game like Madden are VERY high...they have to get at least some sales just to offset the development costs...additionally, they paid supposedly a LOT for these licenses (probably over-paid?)...
- they have to convince consumers to buy the thing in the first place, and if they can not convince people that there's enough new stuff for folks to put their $$ on the counter to buy the game, again, that will hurt...see, unlike some others, I do not necessarily believe that if the game is bad, there will still be a market for it just because it's the only football game out there...eventually, yes, but for a year or two, no -- they'll stick with Madden '04 or whatever.
These are reasons as to why EA would want to drive Madden forward to be better than ever....does that mean they won't rest on their laurels a bit?...no, but I don't think they will as much as people think they will. However, I also don't know if there is enough room to cost-effectively innovate right now that they'll even be able to...
I'm not so sure I can swear off Lord of the Rings, Sims, and 007 games.
Ditto...
grrr...Clickable link
I'm surprised no one has mentioned the "News Map":m ap.cfm
http://www.marumushi.com/apps/newsmap/news
It's very cool. Not a geographical map, but a spatial one, with quantity of stories being graphically displayed with size.
A company acting in its best interests is different than a company acting against its customers' best interests.
Explain further...I agree that it is not by definition acting against its customers' best interests...but what in the cases where it does? What then?
For example, look at the tobacco industry. Next to nothing that they do is in their customer's best interests, but they are in the best interests of the industry. (although, this is probably far too extreme of an example)
In any case, I agreed with most of the rest of what you said, until you said that it wasn't the case at all...heh. I don't think there is much happening in the way of innovation in football games almost at all...and I think most of the innovation, from *all* companies over the last few years, has been incremental...(I know some will disagree with me w.r.t. the NFL 2K's)
Either you are completely missing my point, or that doesn't make any sense at all...
;)
People gripe because they assume that sole-licensing like this will retard the creation of quality games and maybe stifle some of the innovation that would've come around with more competition (in other words, the games are gonna suck). Correct?
So what happens if next year's or the year after that's Madden is very very good? Will all those people who were griping based on future assumptions of crappy-games then rescind their comments?
I mean, hey, if Bush all of the sudden starts becoming an unbelieveably good President, and changes the nation and the world for the better, for current and future generations: I will be the first one to stand up and say I was wrong...
Let the obligatory bashing of EA begin! ;)
(Death to all companies that try to act in their best interest!...or something like that)
And I wonder what will happen if say the next couple Madden's turn out to be surprisingly good?...I wonder if people will eat their words, or not...
Hardly trolling...as for "when you look online", I'm talking about go to Citeseer, do some searches in a topic you are interested in. If there seems to be a lot of good work done on that topic at some school or another, then I whole-heartedly encouraged going there! If you are not entirely sure, and just want to do a more general literature survey in an area, again, go ahead...in *that* case, I'm pretty sure you'll find a decent amount of work done at MIT (in science and engineering areas of course).
As for comparisons of Notre Dame, some other Ivy league, etc....all just anecdotal evidence...not really much to say there. I already wrote one reply about MIT as an undergraduate school elsewhere on this thread -- you might want to check that out.
Feh...I never feigned a lack of bias. hehe...
Funny thing is: I was a "film student" at MIT. Go figure.
But as for movies, it's silly to try to make comparisons based off of stuff like that. As I'm sure CalTech folks will be never hearing the end of "Real Genius" comments until the day I die, likewise, if I hear one more comment about MIT janitorial geniuses...well, you get the idea. It's all funny and silly.
he is absolutely right.
Oh?..you have some incontrovertible proof as to this? My main point is merely that people who really do not know all that well what they are talking about (including yourself) keeping stating random opinions and anecdotes as if they were facts!
They are a research university
There seems to be this pervasive myth that MIT does all this research and correspondingly doesn't give a crap about undergraduates. It is just plain false.
First:
and like other research universities, research is done by grad students, not by undergrads.
Incorrect. MIT has a program called UROP which is exactly about getting undergraduates involved in research. http://web.mit.edu/urop/index.html
And second, MIT is one of the few large, well known, "research" schools in which the undergraduate classes that are typically taught by PostDocs, assistants, etc. at other schools are taught by full professors at MIT.
However, even Dr. Edmund Bertschinger told me not to bother, that there were many other schools which focus on, and do a better job of, teaching undergraduates.
I see. And you did a full poll of all the faculty, to get an accurate sampling of opinions, correct? Certainly, you didn't just go off of one anecdotal comment?
except that your atrocious grammar suggests that you didn't
LOL...let me tell you, never EVER make a math error in public where it's known you went to MIT. You will never hear the end of it, even if you make just 1% as many as the general public does.
I apologize that you find my one grammatical error in a quickly posted message sent late at night to Slashdot so "atrocious".
Me. ;)
I wouldn't worry...I've heard nothing like that, at least.
CalTech = near LA. Lots of movies are made in or near LA.
;)
MIT = near Boston. Not a lot of movies are made near Boston (comparatively) (and most of the ones which supposedly take place in or near Boston are shot in or near LA).
Coincidence?...perhaps...
although I did my research. MIT has been declining the past 20 years.
Best. Post. Ever.
I'd write more, but "John" already got factually owned in following posts...lol.
LOL...wow. Did you ever miss every point there was to be gotten.
It was like they weren't even trying to sell the school.
Sorry, but if you needed to be "sold" on anything, you were already not even close to understanding, well, the entire point, really. MIT doesn't need to "sell" anything. Go online. Look around. Do some research. Then, if you need to then be "sold" by an antique recruitment video, then you have completely missed the boat...
but the feeling I got when I went to visit was that they didn't really give a shit about undergrads because they're not bringing in research money.
You're "feeling" was wrong.
The school might have a ton of resources available but I would rather be at a school where professors actually cared about their students.
I assume you base that on your erroneous "feeling", so it is without any backing.
I'm confident that got more out of my education here at Notre Dame than I would have at MIT
But there's no way to know, is there?
Busy now, but e-mail me in a week, and I'll make sure to find one or two.
For now, I'd say just go look at this year's GDC talks, look at the PPT files for the talks on "the future of game distribution", and you'll probably find numerous such cites. I don't remember them off the top of my head...I think the IGDA might have done one? Or was it NPD?