Jump to content
  • Advertisement

Nathan Baum

Member
  • Content Count

    2076
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Nathan Baum

  1. Nathan Baum

    How I hate microsoft

    Quote:Original post by Oluseyi Quote:Original post by Nathan Baum <crap> Voila, encapsulation in C. How is that any different than what Win32 does? Are you just arguing to argue, or do you realize that by "encapsulation" Crypter really meant data hiding? (He was, after all, talking about public members. Show me a C equivalent for private, I dare you.) Riiight. Because hiding data isn't data hiding. WTF? Are you just arguing to argue? It's perfectly clear that my sample implements encapsulation. Quote: Quote:Xlib? No "reserved for future use" structure members in Xlib. Try using today's Xlib against X10. Why would I do that? X11 isn't intended to be backwards compatible with X10. X10 was barely more than a collaborative research project. I'm not complaining that Windows Vista isn't backwards compatible with pre-release development versions of Windows 1. Quote: Quote:Yes, I'm sure Xlib isn't perfectly backwards compatible, but neither is Windows. Whatever happened to GetInstanceData? Read. That was what we call a rhetorical question. I know what happened to GetInstanceData, but the point is that any program that previously relied upon GetInstanceData no longer works properly. Quote: Quote:No, that's stupid. Just because the language specs say you're allowed to do something doesn't mean you should. There's no practical merit to changing the entry point to WinMain: it's just change for change's sake. The same applies to PilotMain. Convenience. The arguments to WinMain are a system-supplied instance handle, a now-unused parameter, the command line that invoked the program, and a flag indicating what show state the program should start up in. Now, sure, you could pass all of that in via argv, but then every single Windows program that had use for those arguments would need to parse argv the same way, so much so that Windows would have to supply a standard function for it... which is the real stupid. Yeah, that'd be real stupid. It's not as if there's a standard format for command-line options in Windows, and that a standard function for parsing options would be helpful with parsing all the other options a program might want to parse. That's irony, by the way. Quote: Are you going to nitpick all my posts, erroneously? Oh, I'm sorry. I must have mistaken this for a discussion forum.
  2. Nathan Baum

    How I hate microsoft

    Quote:Original post by Oluseyi Quote:Original post by d000hg Imagine writing a game engine and then trying to keep modifying it over 20 years for the games you want to write. It would be horrific. Not necessarily. I mean, that's basically Unreal Engine... Now, that's only 9 years. And can you run the original Unreal on Unreal Engine 3 without changing the game's source? Also, an observation on the "ha ha ur stupid for not installing the platform sdk lol its not microsofts fault retard lol" argument: Microsoft know that many people install VSC++ without the platform SDK. Microsoft know that VSC++ is basically useless without the platform SDK. So VSC++ should tell the user when they try to compile a program on a system which lacks the platform SDK. Maybe it could even offer to download and install it for them. This isn't rocket science.
  3. Nathan Baum

    How I hate microsoft

    Quote:Original post by Oluseyi Quote:As all members are public, and are in no way abstracted, this breaks encapsulation. Syntactic encapsulation is an object orientated language concept. C can be used to author object oriented systems (such as the Win32 API - yes, it's OO), but it has no language support for concepts like encapsulation. struct Foobar { int public_int; }; struct FoobarInternal { struct Foobar public_part; double internal_double; }; Foobar *make_foobar (int x) { FoobarInternal *fb = malloc(sizeof(FoobarInternal)); fb->public_part->public_int = x; fb->internal_double = 42.0; return fb->public_part; } Voila, encapsulation in C. Quote: Quote:Of course, this does not include the many members that are "reserved" for "future use". You try authoring an extensible general-purpose Windowing API for use over 20 years. Xlib? No "reserved for future use" structure members in Xlib. Well, there might be, but it actually encapsulates the data, so you don't know. Yes, I'm sure Xlib isn't perfectly backwards compatible, but neither is Windows. Whatever happened to GetInstanceData? Quote: Quote:Other then that, Microsoft does not seem to stick to standards very well. I don't know of any other system that uses a special entry point routine (WinMain) for 32 bit applications. Palm OS. The fact that you don't know means nothing, really. Besides, the C and C++ language standards explicitly state that a platform is free to alter the entry point, so your complaint is void. No, that's stupid. Just because the language specs say you're allowed to do something doesn't mean you should. There's no practical merit to changing the entry point to WinMain: it's just change for change's sake. The same applies to PilotMain.
  4. Nathan Baum

    MMO Game Design Idea: No one survives

    Quote:Original post by darkpegasus Quote:A possible flaw with this good/bad karma scheme is that it doesn't allow for successful evil characters. One solution is to say that you earn good karma by acting in agreement with your soul's alignment, and bad karma by acting against it. When a naturally evil character commits an evil act, he will reap benefit from doing so later. On the other hand, if he commits a good act, he will be punished for it. Similarly, a natural good character will be rewarded for good acts, but punished for evil ones. I think this defeats the intent of karma in the first place. Well, that really depends upon what your intent is. If you intend to make it hard to be evil, then you obviously don't want a system which rewards evil acts: that system I described isn't for you. It was intended to make it hard to be a powerful character, whether good or evil. Quote: I had a karma system for a long time that would generally provide stronger resources to those that were willing to take gravitate toward evil. So a character would have something like the touch of death, but they would get bad karma everytime they used it. Then later, some Karma Effect would be triggered and all those with bad karma would take some penalty while those with good karma would get a benefit. I like this one. I think it's basically a refinement of the first karma system I described: you get bad karma for doing bad things, and good karma for doing good things. The question is whether it makes being evil stupid. If the benefits of evil acts outweigh the penalty, then it essentially rewards evil. On the other hand, if the penalty outweights the benefit, then it essentially punishes evil. In the former case, it probably defeats your intent. In the latter case, only newbies would be evil all the time. You can force some players to be evil some of the time by defining all violence as evil: i.e. any violence nets you bad karma. The trick to staying alive in a hostile environment would be to earn enough good karma that the bad doesn't completely destroy you.
  5. Nathan Baum

    Realistic vintage battlefield

    Quote:Original post by Sneftel I'll tell you what: the player will never, ever notice when the troops do "something better than you ordered" That obviously depends upon how wrongly they interpret your orders. If you order a full frontal assault on a massive base at the top of the map, and they opt for a covert surgical strike on an isolated facility at the bottom of the map, any competent player would notice the difference. Quote:Original post by Karnot I'm not quite sure about that. I'm certain that most battle orders in the last 3-4 centuries (at least) were written down, not transferred verbally. Well, you're wrong. Long-term strategic orders that could afford to wait that long would be written down, but short-term orders over short-to-long distances (not past the horizon) would often have been sent by some variety of semaphore. Of course, semaphores don't have much bandwidth, so the kinds of orders that could be sent would have been quite limited: only general things like "storm facility A", "assist group B", "retreat quietly to waypoint C" could be sent quickly. Coincidentally, that's exactly the level of precision most RTSes give the player. Acknowledging that semaphores exist can bring in some gameplay features. Transmitting a semaphore message takes time. The further away a unit is, the longer it takes to transmit an order. A unit that is directly engaged in combat will also find it hard to concentrate on reading a semaphore, so it'd take longer to tell them to retreat, for example. Poor weather conditions would make orders take longer everywhere. To help transmit orders more quickly, a player would build forward command posts, with semaphore transmitting equipment, to relay instructions from central command. Quote:Original post by Karnot Quote:I was imagining that the player would basically stay in ops, giving messages to messengers and hoping they'd arrive safely at their destination. The only control the player would have over this would be trying to come up with troop dispositions that allowed for reasonably safe courier routes. Do you really think this would be interesting ? It comes down to moving items on a schematic map, like a real general, which is rather...unspectacular. To you. Some players would relish a game like that. Although, I am not one of them. People sitting in a room handing out unchangable missions is not a realistic representation of most warfare throughout history. There has always been interaction between commanders and the men on the field, even if the latency has often been quite high.
  6. Nathan Baum

    Collection of portals, doors of sorts

    Quote:Original post by Humble Hobo Just do yourself a favor, and do NOT use the standard upright circular portal. Why would that be doing himself a favor? What's wrong with "the standard upright circular portal"? In what sense is it even standard? How many games even have "portals" in this sense, circular or otherwise? Even if it were standard, there could be a good reason. Saying that you mustn't use a standard upright circular portal design just because it's standard is like saying you shouldn't use a standard upright rectangular doorway just because it's standard. If anything, one should save the use of non-standard portal designs for exotic locations, just as most games which feature non-standard doors do so to emphasize the alienness of their location. I'm not demanding that everyone use upright circular portals, though: I'm just saying that novelty for novelty's sake only gets in the way of the game unless the point of the game is to be alien, strange and confusing, and yurian has already said that there are "plain worlds" in the game, which obviously shouldn't be alien, strange and confusing. My suggestion for a kind of portal to use is a simple doorway. When using this portal, you wouldn't announce to the player that they've moved to a new world; you'd leave it for them to figure out on their own. Making such a portal from a "plain world" to a "wacky world" could be quite effective at throwing the player off balance if the "wacky world" appears normal at first glance but becomes increasingly strange, especially if they've already gotten used to plain-to-wacky world transitions being clearly announced.
  7. Nathan Baum

    Interfaces in C

    Quote:Original post by outRider Easiest way is to return the pointer, disguised as something, or just as a void*. Saves you from having to associate IDs with objects. Easy, but hard to debug. Returning an index into an array of pointers means that the library can check the bounds of the index to ensure that a bad handle wasn't passed.
  8. Nathan Baum

    MMO Game Design Idea: No one survives

    Quote:Original post by Drethon How well do you think players would take a MMO where all the players will die at one point or another? The idea I have is as follows. Experience goes into two places, number one is the "player" experience and number two is the character experience. Character experience is no different from normal games, it directly affects the character's abilities within the game and is lost when the player dies. Player experience is gained at the same level as character experience but is not lost when the character dies and a new character starts at the experience level the player currently has. To prevent players from building up experience though "easy" play, all experience would be gained each time the player tries an action, regardless of success, and would be balanced so that all actions gain the same experience. Also some sort of experience penalty might be necessary upon death to prevent players from bouncing around too much. What I'm looking for here is a way to add actual death to the characters within the MMO as well as allowing characters to branch off into a new field without having to start from the beginning. I would also like to add in some way for the game to track unique accomplishments that the NPCs would discuss. This would give greater draw towards true accomplishments other than just gaining wealth and killing people that would allow the player to "live on after death". Thoughts? The general idea sounds interesting, but I wouldn't use this particular implementation: If the new character starts at the same or nearly the same level as the old character, then I think it's equivalent to being resurrected with an XP penalty. Something a little bit different would be reincarnation. Reincarnation is when the soul of a dead character takes up residence in a new, living character. Logically, reincarnation would mean you lose the old character's physical attributes but retain its spiritual attributes. Suppose you have three tiers of attributes: physical, mental and spiritual. Physical attributes include strength, stamina, agility and speed; these are the quickest to build up, but are completely lost when the character dies. Mental attributes include reason, acumen and knowledge; these take longer to build up, but are partially retained when the character dies. Spiritual attributes include wisdom, magic and intuition; these are the slowest to build up, but are completely retained when the character dies. Many belief systems with reincarnation in them say that you aren't just reincarnated into this world. You might say that when your spiritual attributes are sufficiently evolved, your next reincarnation will be into a different world. You might progress through several layers until you ascend to Godhood and win the game. A completely different tactic would be to use a karma system. Your acts within the game would earn you karma, which would come to fruition at some later time, possibly in your current life, possibly in a future life. Doing good deeds would earn positive karma, and you might be rewarded later with buffs, or supernatural help with your quests. Doing evil deeds would earn negative karma, and you might be punished later with curses or extra obstacles to your quests. An important feature of karma is that doing good deeds doesn't cancel out evil deeds: you will still be punished for evil deeds at some later time, no matter what good deeds you do. Some players might choose to pay off their bad karma when they reincarnate, taking a penalty to their attributes, or reincarnating in a particularly unpleasant or dangerous part of the world. Other players might prefer to start with a normal character, and cope with the bad karma as it comes to fruition during their life. Of course, if you have a lot of bad karma, you wouldn't be able to pay it all off at reincarnation time without your attributes going negative. The same concept applies to good karma, of course. If you have a lot of good karma when you die, you could spend that on enhanced attributes for your next life. OTOH, you might choose to be an average character and reap their rewards as they come. Like with bad karma, once you've received the benefit of good karma, it is spent. In a game without leveling, this kind of karma system would enable players to improve over time, but would not allow them to improve without limit by simply grinding. This kind of karma system could also be combined with the multiple worlds concept. If you have a lot of good or bad karma, you could (or the game could force you to) spend it on moving to a better or worse world. A possible flaw with this good/bad karma scheme is that it doesn't allow for successful evil characters. One solution is to say that you earn good karma by acting in agreement with your soul's alignment, and bad karma by acting against it. When a naturally evil character commits an evil act, he will reap benefit from doing so later. On the other hand, if he commits a good act, he will be punished for it. Similarly, a natural good character will be rewarded for good acts, but punished for evil ones. Your soul's natural alignment will be modified by your actions. Whenever you commit an evil act, your soul becomes a little tainted. When you commit a good act, your soul becomes a little pure. Your soul starts off neutral, and it's your choice as to which way to take it. Staying neutral means your character is less powerful, but nearing the ends of the alignment spectrum is difficult because even, at the very edges, the slightest deviation from your alignment can result in harsh punishment. For example, a nearly neutral character is given a quest to save 100 slaves: if 10 of them die in the rescue attempt, the character is not punished. OTOH, if a very good paragon of virtue accepts the same quest and only 1 of them dies, he will be severely punished. "With great power comes great responsibility." As with the other reincarnation systems, this karma scheme can be combined with other worlds. Ever more evil players can be reincarnated in ever more infernal realms, whilst good players are reincarnated in increasingly heavenly realms.
  9. Nathan Baum

    "MMORPG"

    Quote:Original post by CooleoBen P.S. Im 16 lol yes i know if u rea up top it says ten years of getting ideas, that is true, ever since i have been ten started prgramming and writing my ideas down. Quote:Original post by CooleoBen Im 16 ... up top it says ten years of getting ideas ... ever since i have been ten started prgramming and writing my ideas down. Quote:Original post by CooleoBen Im 16 ... ten years of getting ideas ... since i have been ten. My math is rusty. 16 - 10 is 10?
  10. Nathan Baum

    Uhhhhhhhhhh.... Linux?

    Quote:Original post by Oluseyi Quote:"User friendly" distributions like Ubuntu generally have GUI interfaces to important configuration files... I'm going to contest this assertion, too. In my experience, those GUI configuration interfaces deal primarily with the GUI environment and its associated tools. Maybe networking and bootlevel/desktop manager. Which is to say, nearly everything that the average non-expert user would want to configure. Ubuntu users don't (normally) have to mess around with /etc/fstab, manage users via the command line tools (if they need to manage users at all), (as you say) set up networking by editing configuration files in nano, set up the time zone by manually linking to the correct time zone file. It's entirely possible to set up and use Ubuntu without manually editing a single configuration file. It's not possible to do that with Gentoo. Quote: For the preponderance of other utilities, though, this is not the case, which means that Gentoo does not provide any special advantage in terms of forcing you to familiarize yourself with system configuration files. At which point did I say that Gentoo's approach to configuration provides an "advantage", special or otherwise? Quote: Quote:You dismissed the possibility out-of-hand, but I know from experience that recompiling source with machine-specific optimizations can often result in an observable speed increase. At what cost? Ah, so you're moving the goalposts. Before you were just saying that Gentoo wasn't more optimized that some other distributions. Now you're saying that the performance increase isn't worth it. Maybe that's true: I've always left my CFLAGS as they are, so I wouldn't know. Quote: Recompiling your entire distribution? Probably not. Somebody building a high-performance Gentoo system would probably start with the basic system and set their CFLAGS up before compiling the entire distribution. Quote: Quote:Portage itself is slow, buggy and obviously wrong in many places, but the general concept of a source-based distribution -- which is what you've actually argued against, rather than Gentoo's implementation in particular -- is not wrong, just different. A well-designed source-based distribution gives you more control over what programs and libraries are installed and what features they have. This presupposes that you can't have a package-based distribution and then compile from source. Oh, wait... Ah, so you ignored the part of my post where I explicitly acknowledged that you could have a binary package based distribution and then compile from source. That's nice of you. As you should know if you've been using Linux for a while, compiling from source on a binary package based distribution means that the program you install is outside the package manager. It won't be automatically updated, packages upon which it depends won't necessarily be kept around, packages which depend upon it may fail -- even if you tell the package manager to pretend the package is installed -- because they may depending upon it being compiled with the standard features. Quote: Quote:That doesn't mean you have to disparage everyone who does want what Gentoo offers. Ah, you feel personally slighted. I understand your complaints now: I slandered your OS religion. Yes, that's exactly right. Gentoo is a religion and I am an acolyte. No way would any reasonable person interpret you referring to Gentoo's designers as dweebs and nerds who are just out of high school and oblivious of fundamental IT concepts. No way would any reasonable person conclude that the "beginner- to intermediate-level Linux enthusiasts" you were referring to were Gentoo's users. Sheesh. It's plainly obvious you intended to belittle Gentoo's users. Why bother denying it? I don't feel personally slighted, because I know you don't know a damn thing about me. (Yes, obviously you know some things about me.) But it annoys me that you disparage a distribution and its user base on for entirely fallacious reasons. And to what end? To discourage a user from using a distribution that might actually be well-suited to him? Had you complained about the fact that portage is slow and fails to pick up very important dependencies that can sometimes break your system, and was built that way on purpose, I'd agree without hesitation: that would be something that 020644 would probably find useful in making his decision. Saying "ha ha source-based distributions are stupid because I personally disagree with their priorities" just isn't useful. It is, I daresay, mere ego masturbation.
  11. Nathan Baum

    Uhhhhhhhhhh.... Linux?

    Quote:Original post by Oluseyi But I really do think the hype around Gentoo's being "low level" is utter rubbish, Where is this hype? Aside from your post, I've never heard anyone claim Gentoo is "low level". You seemed to read Oxyd's post as though it made that claim, but that post was actually saying that Gentoo can be harder to manage because you have to "get your hands dirty". "User friendly" distributions like Ubuntu generally have GUI interfaces to important configuration files, whilst Gentoo comes with no standard GUI tools at all, not even for installing the thing. This means that, with Gentoo, you have to understand "manual setup and configuration: understanding your configuration files, your setup and maintenance scripts, your distribution's organizational conventions, as well as Unix fundamentals regarding filesystems, Everything Is A File and networking". Which is to say, Gentoo forces you to understand what you define as the "low level" concepts of a Linux system, even whilst you claim that Gentoo isn't "low level". You also appeared to think that Oxyd had claimed that Gentoo was more "optimized" than binary-packaged-based distributions, even though Oxyd clearly didn't say that. You dismissed the possibility out-of-hand, but I know from experience that recompiling source with machine-specific optimizations can often result in an observable speed increase. Quote: and is fed by the unspectacular ports port (which comes from BSD). Portage itself is slow, buggy and obviously wrong in many places, but the general concept of a source-based distribution -- which is what you've actually argued against, rather than Gentoo's implementation in particular -- is not wrong, just different. A well-designed source-based distribution gives you more control over what programs and libraries are installed and what features they have. For example, if you had call to build a system without X but still wanted a graphical browser, you could install links with support for svgalib, DirectFB or SDL, but not X. OTOH, in Debian, for example, you could install links2, and it also supports svgalib and DirectFB, but it also requires that X be installed, and it doesn't support SDL at all: if you wanted an SDL enabled links (e.g. so that it would obey your SDL_* environmental variables) you'd have to compile it yourself from source, outside of the packaging system. Maybe you don't have a need to build an X-less system with a graphical web browser. That's fine: nobody's forcing you to use Gentoo. If Gentoo doesn't offer you anything you want, you shouldn't use it. That doesn't mean you have to disparage everyone who does want what Gentoo offers.
  12. Nathan Baum

    Steam: Good or evil?

    Quote:Original post by Saruman Quote:Original post by Megaman_22 How many of the games on Steam will run on Linux, without using WINE or something of that sort? I don't know, but I'm guessing it's approaching 0. It makes sense to me that Valve would cater to 90% of the market share. Actually at the current time Windows has 100% of the market share on the PC. The Linux/Mac marketshare for games doesn't even add up to a point of a percent at the moment. Let's stop pulling numbers out of our arses, shall we? Windows has at most 94% of the market. Quote: And to the people that don't like Steam how about you go look at the Gamestop earnings reports. When you see that they are nothing more than an upscale game pawn shop with over 60% of their revenue in used games, and the majority of their marketing dollars in used games, maybe you'll wake up and realize that developers need to get away from these guys or at least open up another channel to avoid the massive revenue loss on this. Ah. So what you're saying is that it's fine for Valve to deny users what is in many countries their legal right to sell on products they don't want any more? What happens in industries which operate fairly is that if you want people to keep buying new products, you make the new products better.
  13. Nathan Baum

    Why do so many people choose MMORPG ?

    Quote:Original post by Daerax My theory. Used to be RPGs. Invokes strongest emotions. MMORPGs invoke strong emotions? WoW is nothing but a shallow grindfest. Quote: Things you feel you could do better by combining feature x from game X with game Y. I think those who play games immersively, especially RPGs will tend to also want to make the game theirs in the fullest sense while also improving it as they see fit. Invocation of strong emotions + imagination of better implementation. MMOs currently more than match that criteria by doing the first well and lacking in the second. Those who would be motivated to do this will likely be familiar enough with the technical to consider the idea feasible. RPGs require imagination and comfortableness with inane number crunching. More likely than not these set of people will intersect more than any other with those beginner making games. But again: If this is true, why MMOGs? Why not lots of people asking how to make a single-player RPG? After all, if you want to "make the game yours in the fullest sense", surely you want a single-player game? At most, you'd want to make a multiplayer game which you can play with a close group of friends who you know aren't going to put their own enjoyment ahead of that of the rest of the group.
  14. Nathan Baum

    Are memory leaks dangerous?

    Quote:Original post by ForeverNoobie Hi. I'm developing a game and I decided to focus on developing gameplay before finishing the pesky tasks such as memory management. This is either a very good idea or a very bad idea. If you're implementing the gameplay in C, C++, or some other language with manual memory management, then stop. You're doing it wrong. It is a bad idea. Writing a program without consideration for memory management and then stopping it leaking memory is incredibly difficult. It would be like building a car without any concern for safety and then trying to modify it so that it's perfectly safe but looks and handles exactly the same. If you're implementing the gameplay in a language with automatic memory management, and the underlying engine in anything else, you might not be doing it wrong. If the gameplay component was sufficiently abstracted from the main engine, you would be able to completely reimplement the engine without touching a line of the gameplay code. You're unlikely to actually reach that goal, but good design can still keep the amount of changes you'd need to make in the gameplay code to a minimum.
  15. Nathan Baum

    Why do so many people choose MMORPG ?

    Quote:Original post by Ravuya It's probably because they are Unskilled and Unaware of It. That doesn't explain why MMORPGs in particular. Somebody "unskilled and unaware of it" could just as easily want to make an RTS. I remain convinced that the reason so many idiots want to make MMORPGs is that they are viewed as cash cows.
  16. Nathan Baum

    Steam: Good or evil?

    Quote:Original post by phantom I'm pretty certain the law doesn't allow them to just suddenly decide they can charge you for access to something like that. When you buy the software you enter into a legal agreement bound at the time of purchasing. This is a contract and any subsequent changes would have to be agreed by both parties and I'm pretty sure it has to be explicately agreed. Remember when Valve banned 20,000 users for trying to "access Half-Life 2 without purchasing it"? They weren't just banned from using Half-Life 2, they were banned from using any services offered over Steam, including services which they had legitimately bought. I don't remember Valve being forced by the courts to re-enable those accounts. Quote: Infact, the only ruling relating to EULAs seems to put a dent in their applicability, at least as software companies would like them to behave (clicky). Hardly. That ruling just says that you aren't bound by licenses you haven't accepted. And, the only ruling related to EULAs? There are many more rulings. For example, in Klocek v. Gateway, the court held that EULAs are unenforceable unless you accept them before paying for the product. OTOH, in Brower v. Gateway, the court held the opposite, on the grounds that you can return the product if you don't wish to accept the license. A consistent interpretation of the two is that if you have a right to return the product, the EULA is enforceable if you choose not to, but if you live somewhere where you have no right to return a product if you don't like the EULA (and you weren't asked to agree to the EULA before buying it) then the EULA is not enforceable. Quote: In short, I don't believe they have the legal right to suddenly decide that you have to pay a subscription for playing a game you already own, the situation simply wouldn't hold up in court (and I fully expect it would go to court VERY quickly and Valve would find themselves on losing end) and would destroy their bussiness model. You don't own the game. You own a license to play the game, which Valve can revoke at any time. The Steam contract states "Valve may amend this Agreement at any time in its sole discretion" and "either you or Valve has the right to terminate or cancel your Account or a particular Subscription at any time". Valve can decide to charge a monthly or pay-per-play fee for you to play Half-Life 2. When you obtained HL2, Valve made no legally binding promise that you'd be allowed to continue to play it for free for ever. Quite the opposite, they said they could terminate your license to play HL2 at any time. Quote:Original post by Megaman_22 Quote:Original post by Lode EVIL There should have been an open system for this, that works on all platforms, including open source platforms. That the servers are run and controlled by a company is unavoidable, but the software part of it should have been open and at least work on Linux. How many of the games on Steam will run on Linux, without using WINE or something of that sort? I don't know, but I'm guessing it's approaching 0. It makes sense to me that Valve would cater to 90% of the market share. 1. I don't recall Lode saying that Steam shouldn't work on Windows. 2. Valve don't even have to do the hard work. If the design of the system was open, somebody else could have made a Linux client to interact with the server. 3. No doubt you or somebody else will complain that making the system open would mean anybody could crack it and play games for free. But that happened anyway. 4. It's a circular argument, anyway. Of course you can't download Linux games from Steam: Steam doesn't run on Linux. 5. Some of the games do have Linux versions, though. I count 17 games which have native Linux ports, about 8% of the total.
  17. Nathan Baum

    Why do so many people choose MMORPG ?

    Why is this so difficult to understand? People pay you, directly and continually, to play your MMOG.
  18. Nathan Baum

    PC Gaming Dying? Microsoft, Id, Epic to blame?

    Quote:Original post by Nytegard And exactly what would you propose be the new business model? The new business model? Why should there be a single new business model? There will be many models, as appropriate to the particular markets the businesses operate in. In some countries, a portion of a tax (whether direct or indirect) would be dedicated to entertainment software. No doubt you consider that ludicrous, but in many countries people already pay the recording industry for the privilege of obtaining blank media that they might copy music onto. In the US they have the publicly funded CPB, which funds public free-to-air television and radio services. Another revenue source is user donations. You casually dismiss this possibility out of hand, on the grounds that "fanboys" wouldn't be willing to "preorder" Halo 4 three years in advance. This, of course, misses the fundamental point that nobody would be "preordering" anything, since when it's released, everyone can get a copy. Quote: And obviously the video game industry would collapse if people had to prepay a company for their work. Is that obvious? I think you just put "obviously" in that sentence in the hopes that people would accept it uncritically. What's more, everybody already does it. When you "pay for a copy of Halo 2", you aren't paying for the work that goes into making Halo 2: that work has already been done. You're actually paying for the work that's underway on Halo 3 and whatever the next game is. Now, I happen to think Bungie are very good, and I'd be more than happy to donate $20 or $30 as a "thank you" for Halo 2, especially if it made the release of Halo 3 and whatever's next more likely. Having said that, I wouldn't begrudge having to $40 for a copy. I don't buy games immediately upon release, when they cost (the equivalent of) $70, but I'm happy to pay $40 for a copy of a several month old but excellent game, and $20 for a copy of a year old but still good game. Leaving it longer before buying not only means it's cheaper, but I can wait until all the verdicts are in and only buy a game where I think the developers actually deserve the money. In fact, I don't have any "pirated" games at all. I don't have to have the very latest game the moment it's out and, for me, $20 to $40 is a reasonable price for the amount of entertainment I get out of a game, particularly compared to the hassle of downloading it; where my connection can't do anything else for a couple of days. That will be especially true when HD DVD games appear for the PC: they'll be so massive that publishers would still be able to sell copies even if the games were legitimately available for free online. (I'm making no claim that they'd sell enough copies that they'd be able to support themselves from HD DVD sales alone.) Quote: Companies right now have two realistic options. Either you put draconian DRM on and piss people off. Or you make an example out of every person you catch infringing, making you look like the bad guy. Some companies manage to do neither, but nonetheless turn a profit. Quote:Original post by MARS_999 Yes, I would be interested in seeing what the pro warez people recommend for a business to do, to make money on the product you should have bought. So you're assuming I'm pro warez. Not surprising. I feel like there's no point trying to explain things to you, because you seem to be stuck in the mindset that you absolutely must pay for copies of software. Note what your question wasn't: What do you recommend a business should do to make money on a product that people don't have to pay for a copy of?
  19. Nathan Baum

    PC Gaming Dying? Microsoft, Id, Epic to blame?

    Quote:Original post by stimarco Oh well, that's all right then. By that logic, I can cheerfully run off copies of £50 notes to my heart's content! After all, I'm not depriving anyone of their own notes; I'm just printing off my own. Hah. Funny. Mithrandir says "copyright infringement isn't stealing" and you respond with "if copyright infringement isn't stealing, then neither is counterfeiting money". Which would be a great rebuttal if it weren't for the fact that, quite clearly, counterfeiting isn't stealing. Quote: Oh wait: you _do_ deprive people of something when you counterfeit a work. You deprive them of the value inherent _in_ that work. You do? How does this occur? If I copy Halo 3, Bungie are deprived of "the value inherent in the work"? So they can't ever sell a copy for money after the very first act of piracy? Or is this some strange definition of "deprive" where you can "deprive" somebody of something even though they've still got it? Quote: Don't give me that bullshit about how "normal" people don't give copies away to their friends and relatives because that's a load of arseburgers and you know it. Of course they effing do. The reason DRM exists at all is because the producers and managers aren't naïve and know damned well what *they* did as kids too. Tape cassette decks which let you dub from one tape to another at high speed were, naturally, only EVER used for wholly legitimate purposes and never for, say, copying music albums or C64 and Spectrum games. Yes. So what? I'm failing to see how this is a rebuttal to Mithrandir's argument. It only supports his claim that the business model that big publishers want to force on consumers is unnatural and ultimately unworkable. People make unauthorized copies. They have done it for decades, and they will continue to do as long as it is physically possible to do so. The correct response is for publishers to admit that their modus operandi is unsustainable, accept the changes, and move on. Of course, most of them can't do that, because they're money guzzling profit-whores. Not that there's no room for MGPWs in the new economy: MMOGs show that you can distribute software for free, charge for genuine services and still make money. Quote: Multiply that by all the customers out there and the piracy figures we see touted aren't quite as unbelievable as they first appeared. Yes, they are. Nobody is doubting that lots of ships are boarded and pillage-- er, I mean, lots of unauthorised copies are made. The doubt is over the repeated claim that a significant proportion of those copies represent lost sales. Quote: Sorry. DRM is there because damned few people can resist a free lunch. That it generally sucks is because PCs suck, nothing more. No, PC DRM sucks because PCs don't suck, unless your idea of "suck" is "gives the owner control". PC DRM sucks because users actually have power over their computer, without having to install modchips or otherwise void their warranty. Which means that PC DRM can't be simple, like it can on a console. PC DRM has to be obfuscated and ever changing to have the slightest hope of delaying pirates. It's inevitable that sometimes it just doesn't work for paying customers. Quote:Original post by Mithrandir OSS cultists (specifically the GNU/FSF people) think that I should be forced to give away my source code for free. Their stated intention in this world is to eventually reach that goal. Listen to RMS talk for a while. You'll see just how nuts he is. No. Why do you insist on misrepresenting the FSF? They don't claim that you should have to "give away" anything at all. Many members of the FSF, RMS included, have been paid to develop software. They believe, as you do, that individual copies of a program have no inherent value, but that the process of development of software can have a lot of value. The FSF has absolutely no problem with programmers writing code for money. They even recommend that a contract programmer distribute code to his client under a license which prohibits further redistribution until he gets paid for his work, and expressly state that code created for internal use needn't be freely licensed. But, if you want to ignore what the FSF actually says and continue claim that "their stated intention in this world" is to force everyone to give away their code free, feel free.
  20. Nathan Baum

    PC Gaming Dying? Microsoft, Id, Epic to blame?

    Quote:Original post by MARS_999 I don't like DRM either, but the fact is it came on due to the large amount of stealing of software, movies, music, ect. If DRM was created to combat "stealing", why doesn't it do that? The simple fact is that DRM does not work. "Piracy" continues unabated. Why are publishers completely unable to recognize that DRM does not do the job you claim it is intended to do? Quote: So you can blame the thieves. You mean the publishers? Yes, I will. Quote: So taking an item or food from a retail store without paying, is that stealing? So why is that different than IP products? Because of the definition of the word stealing. You can't steal something if it's still there afterwards. Calling it stealing is absurd, and what's more it's intentionally dishonest. Most people agree stealing is basically wrong, but are unsure about unauthorised copying. By attempting to equate unauthorised copying with mere stealing you are attempting to short circuit any mature and informed discussion on the issue. Quote: I live in the US and would be willing to back a law that throws thieves of software, music, and movies into prison for a min of 10yrs if they catch you. Okay. What does this have to do with unauthorised copying? Quote: And yes I have been to college and I worked fulltime while I went to college fulltime, so don't give me this crap about no money. You want some get a job. All I hear are excuses to promote stealing, Then you need to listen more carefully. Nobody is giving "excuses to promote 'stealing'", they are giving explanations for why unauthorised copying occurs and why DRM can't do anything about it.
  21. Nathan Baum

    C or C++ or C#

    Quote:Original post by Xai do you really not believe that C is a good approximation of the VIRTUAL MACHINE that most other development is built upon? No. C is an abstraction of machines that were cutting edge several decades ago. Most modern programs are developed on machines where C's view of the world just isn't applicable. "C the language" doesn't understand that many computers have more than one processor, or that memory is arranged in a heirarchy of caches, amongst other things. A language which was actually designed to represent the realities of modern computer hardware would contain explicit language-level support for multiprocessing and cache-aware memory control.
  22. Nathan Baum

    C or C++ or C#

    Quote:Original post by Hodgman C is *closer* to machine level than higher level languages like C# (i.e. it has raw pointers, can be freely mixed with assembly code, etc...). No it can't. Certain implementations of C offer inline assembly. How "freely" the two can be mixed is highly variable. And C# has pointers, and at least one C# compiler supports inline MSIL assembly. So, you're wrong all around, basically. Quote: e.g. #1 Learning how to deal with strings correctly in C will teach you a lot more about "how the computer works as a machine" compared to using a C++/C#/Java/etc string class. No, it'll teach you about how C-style strings work. Given that they work the same on all implementations of C, even when running on machines with wildly differing architectures, that should be a clue that string handling doesn't reveal the secrets of "how the computer works as a machine". Quote: e.g. #2 You can write a program in C that accepts an arbitrary hexadecimal value from the user and tries to read 17 bytes from that memory address (which may well cause a seg-fault etc...). Higher languages such as C#/Java won't let you do silly low-level things like this because they are *more abstracted*. C# will let you do silly things like that, not that it matters. The ability to crash your program by probing random memory addresses does not make a language "closer to the metal". BASIC allowed you to probe random memory addresses, yet it was, in many ways, "higher level" than C.
  23. Nathan Baum

    Vampires over level 60

    Quote:Original post by thelovegoose I just had a thought for an mmorpg concept, when you reach a high enough level, if you are bitten by a vampire you become one. Why not at lower levels? Quote: The important thing is that vampires have to stick to the age old rles of not going into sunlight. Those aren't age old rules. The film Nosferatu invented that notion. Most of the vampires of folklore were not allergic to sunlight, but merely nocturnal. In Stoker's Dracula, the count could walk around during the day, but his special powers were unavailable. In most folklore depictions, vampires are obsessive-compulsive. Sprinkle sawdust, confetti or rice in their path and they are compelled to count each individual grain. They are warded off -- but not destroyed -- by garlic, rose, hawthorn, ash (the tree), sunlight, and sacred objects. If killed by mundane means, they come back to life the next night. Methods for permanently killing them are varied. The most common is staking and decapitation. They are commonly not pale and not gaunt. Usually, the victims of vampires do not become vampires themselves. All of which is more interesting than yet another rehash of Stoker's Dracula.
  24. Nathan Baum

    Hezbollah video game: War with Israel

    So what? I found this
  25. Nathan Baum

    Played out concepts, playa.

    Quote:Original post by Zouflain --Ascending power of bosses. There is no logic behind this; if the enemy can throw a SUPER POWERFUL BEING at you any time they choose, why do they wait until you've collected 10billion power ups? Realism: Because the more powerful a class of beings gets, the fewer of them there are. There's no point in the Big Bad sending his only Supercolossal Hyperdragon to take out every would-be hero that's wondering around his land. Most heroes are easily defeated with lower level troops, which the Big Bad has in abundance. The Supercolossal Hyperdragon is needed to take care of the very rare adventurer (i.e. you) who manages to break down the door to the Megafortress Of Ultrahate. Gameplay: It would be a boring game if you automatically lost in the first battle. In RTSes, the conceit that it is possible to generate trained soldiers from nothing in twenty seconds is over-used. Particularly in games like Age of Empires, where you don't even have magic or futuristic technology as an excuse. Not that magic or technology is a good excuse, anyway.
  • Advertisement
×

Important Information

By using GameDev.net, you agree to our community Guidelines, Terms of Use, and Privacy Policy.

GameDev.net is your game development community. Create an account for your GameDev Portfolio and participate in the largest developer community in the games industry.

Sign me up!