• Announcements

    • khawk

      Download the Game Design and Indie Game Marketing Freebook   07/19/17

      GameDev.net and CRC Press have teamed up to bring a free ebook of content curated from top titles published by CRC Press. The freebook, Practices of Game Design & Indie Game Marketing, includes chapters from The Art of Game Design: A Book of Lenses, A Practical Guide to Indie Game Marketing, and An Architectural Approach to Level Design. The GameDev.net FreeBook is relevant to game designers, developers, and those interested in learning more about the challenges in game development. We know game development can be a tough discipline and business, so we picked several chapters from CRC Press titles that we thought would be of interest to you, the GameDev.net audience, in your journey to design, develop, and market your next game. The free ebook is available through CRC Press by clicking here. The Curated Books The Art of Game Design: A Book of Lenses, Second Edition, by Jesse Schell Presents 100+ sets of questions, or different lenses, for viewing a game’s design, encompassing diverse fields such as psychology, architecture, music, film, software engineering, theme park design, mathematics, anthropology, and more. Written by one of the world's top game designers, this book describes the deepest and most fundamental principles of game design, demonstrating how tactics used in board, card, and athletic games also work in video games. It provides practical instruction on creating world-class games that will be played again and again. View it here. A Practical Guide to Indie Game Marketing, by Joel Dreskin Marketing is an essential but too frequently overlooked or minimized component of the release plan for indie games. A Practical Guide to Indie Game Marketing provides you with the tools needed to build visibility and sell your indie games. With special focus on those developers with small budgets and limited staff and resources, this book is packed with tangible recommendations and techniques that you can put to use immediately. As a seasoned professional of the indie game arena, author Joel Dreskin gives you insight into practical, real-world experiences of marketing numerous successful games and also provides stories of the failures. View it here. An Architectural Approach to Level Design This is one of the first books to integrate architectural and spatial design theory with the field of level design. The book presents architectural techniques and theories for level designers to use in their own work. It connects architecture and level design in different ways that address the practical elements of how designers construct space and the experiential elements of how and why humans interact with this space. Throughout the text, readers learn skills for spatial layout, evoking emotion through gamespaces, and creating better levels through architectural theory. View it here. Learn more and download the ebook by clicking here. Did you know? GameDev.net and CRC Press also recently teamed up to bring GDNet+ Members up to a 20% discount on all CRC Press books. Learn more about this and other benefits here.

mdwh

Members
  • Content count

    695
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1108 Excellent

About mdwh

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Personal Information

  1. . Could you please list all these "new jobs" that can sustain over 7,400,000,000 ( 7.4 billion ) humans? ( roughly 5,000,000,000 [ 5 billion ] workers ) Last year 131,000,000 ( 131 million ) new humans were made. It seems like thousands of "old jobs" are being replaced with a handful of new jobs ... AKA "diminishing labor returns" .     I don't need to list every single job, I simply note that they already exist in today's world, jobs weren't swept away by machines from the Industrial revolution.   No one is claiming that there aren't issues of poverty or inequality today.   Are you seriously suggesting that life was better for most people in developed countries before say the 20th Century? If not, why is your argument today different from the Luddites'?   Another problem with your argument is that striving for scientific and technological advancement, or greater efficiency, is hardly specific to capitalism - though if it excels at promoting it, that would be a good point imo.
  2. This seems to be the Luddite argument that people have been making for a long time about new technology, but new jobs appear to replace those lost, and so the claimed criticism never happens. And are you seriously saying that it would be better if we didn't strive to do that? It'd be better if we didn't have robots and computers and factories replacing all that human labour? That said, if ai can replace virtually all human jobs, we may get to a point where even new jobs created are still done by ai. But that's going to be a massive revolution in itself - I don't think it's a criticism of capitalism today. Yes when all human can be done by ai, there will be many changes. Btw, in the new ai controlled society, I bet that AIs will still be striving to continue to make things more efficiently with less resources, even if capitalism is no longer around.
  3. It's a lot compared to the UK - well, maybe I'm being ripped off (I've only had one full time job, so haven't looked around at rates in years), but the general perception is that the US pays a lot more (and I don't work in finance). OTOH I'm thankful to have a reasonable amount of holiday, I can't put a price on that. And I'm still paid far more than the median in the UK, so I'm not complaining. "There are far too many people in this industry who accept lowball offers." But all the people commenting earning less seem to not be in the US, so statistics about the US are meaningless. It's nothing to do with accepting lowball offers.
  4. Generally I think they make sense, and the length should vary by the crime. But it is odd if the statute of limitations here was less than the 25 years that the victims were in prison for. Put it another way: if we accept that after time, people are rehabilitated even if they didn't get punished at all, why is it that in the US, people are locked up for decades?
  5. I'm happily using visual studio (even the older 2012), virtual box (I think I had to upgrade for some reason, but that was when windows 10 had just come out). Don't know about android studio, but doing android development with eclipse is fine. More generally, I found it smootger than upgrading from XP to 7 (which had some issues does to the 32/64 bit transition, and improved security model). The only issues I had with 10 were a couple of applications showing glory fonts, which were all fixed by upgrading the applications. On licences, the only thing I'm unclear on is what happens if you upgrade a full retail version - do you then have a full retail version of 10 that can be installed on a new machine? I've seen conflicting sources saying opposite things. What I want to know is, if I upgrade a retail version to 10, how do I then move that installation to a brand new machine, without first installing 7 and then upgrading (given that 10 no longer has product keys, and instead recognises the hardware)? Has anyone actually managed to do this?
  6. Open Game Art http://opengameart.org - all under Free licences.
  7. Hopefully I can reply to this thread before it gets closed too :)   If you want to make money selling overpriced applications, sure go with IOS - but does that revenue even include ad money (which tends to be better as well as more common on Android, due to being massively more popular)?   This is also missing a point: if you want maximum revenue, one shouldn't limit yourself to one platform anyway. But I think the OP is asking about his personal choice of a phone, with the possibility of getting into programming. For personal use there are other considerations for development choices. For starters you can only develop for IOS with Apple computers, so for personal use that's now dictating what computers you have. I also like the market with 85% share - whether that's seeing millions of downloads, or just being able to share with people and having most people be able to run it (rather than it being limited to only people with the same make of phone as you).   Lastly, one can just as well pluck up references that show it's actually Windows Phone that beats either Android or Iphone ( http://betanews.com/2016/02/29/windows-phone-developer-revenue/ ) (I suspect the issue is that despite fewer users than either, there are also fewer competing applications; plus maybe they spend more too.)   Programming choices may also depend on what you're used to: Ubuntu obviously seems more natural if you run Ubuntu on PCs anyway (and you probably need Ubuntu to develop with?); Windows Phone uses the same languages/tools as Windows 10 development, and uses tools like Visual Studio - and requires a Windows PC; Iphone development requires an Apple computer; Android is probably most flexible in that you can develop on Windows/OS X/Linux. But I guess it also depends on whether you want to try something completely new anyway.   Personally I prefer smartphones to feature phones, I've had Nexuses and found them great (currently with the Nexus 6). They've traditionally had a more developer-oriented focus. The Samsung Galaxy S series are traditionally the crown of smartphones, but if you want something not so expensive, the Nexuses tend to be better value too (especially the 5s), whilst still being decent.     Blackberrys run Android now, so he get a phone with the keyboard he likes, whilst still running Android, and not being limited due to a platform dying.
  8. Other countries are going to want to keep trade open with them, they have the 5th largest world economy. Any country to deny trade with them simply because they are not a club member would be daft(as the English like to say).  A set of trade regulations will be set up with everyone involved and life will continue as normal. They are not taking advantage of a system. Besides, the main issue was the rule of the people and losing their country to politicians who are not even of their kinship.   British people want Brits to make decisions for their country. Really not that crazy of a thought. Would you be ok with your next door neighbor regulating your daily routine? Telling you to turn your lights off at night or what color you can paint your house, which group of friends you can have over for a party or what television channels you can watch? These are completely arbitrary examples, but the point stands.   And how can people be surprised at delays and the fact that this is going to take time for Britain to mold their newly reformed political system into something tangible? Your are laughing at the Leave movement as nonsensical and with out plan, but governments do not form overnight, even if they have already be previously established in a different shape or form.     And we want to trade with the EU - you can't say that other countries would be willing to agreement with anything, whilst we agree with nothing. The other EU members know this. Expecting freedom of movement for British citizens, but not the same in reverse, is ridiculous. Yes, we'll get a "set of trade regulations", the question is what they are. No one is claiming there won't be any trade, the question is the terms of that trade - will it be free access to the common market, or tariffs.   A better analogy would be a group of neighbours coming together with an agreement on who's responsible for a shared fence, or say people in apartments having an agreement on how to pay repairs. Which law are you referring to that's analogous to the things you list? We do make our own decisions - that includes a decision to come to have some rules in agreement with other countries, for common trade. If you're American, I don't see you calling for your state to make its own laws, despite the federal Government having far more control. Do you like people telling you what colour you can paint your house?     I don't see anyone claiming  being against immigration was racist. But there have been plenty of observed examples of racism in recent days since the vote (e.g., people telling people to "go home" based on their appearance even if they're British citizens who were born here).
  9. Given that article 50 has a fixed 2 year time limit, it makes sense not to hit that button immediately - hitting that sooner doesn't speed up the negotiations, it just reduces the possible time for negotiations.   It would seem to make sense to figure out what the plan is before triggering article 50 - since leave campaigners don't seem to have a clue what the plan is, with opinions being divided, and the referendum itself posing no plan, no wonder it's chaos. Perhaps a strategy should have been planned before putting the question to the people.   ETA: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/26/i-cannot-stress-too-much-that-britain-is-part-of-europe--and-alw/   Looks like Boris's proposal is "British people will still be able to go and work in the EU; to live; to travel; to study; to buy homes and to settle down." whilst people from the EU coming to the UK have to follow a points based immigration system.   The UK will still have access to the common market, whilst not paying in any money or following any of the EU rules.   Also he wants the moon on a stick, and to have his cake and eat it.
  10. Do you think a union will stop infighting in the long term? ;-)     Yes.   In terms of its age - I note that firstly you base your argument that 17 years is "literally children", but then say 1993 is merely "an additional 6 years" - except it blows a hole in your "literally children" argument.   But my comment was not talking about a return to the pre-1993 EEC - that would be fine too. But unlikely - out is out, not a return to pre-1993, and if the EU collapses due to other countries leaving, we're talking pre-1958. Your comment also was not talking about the 1958-1993 period - you said "England has ruled itself for more than a millennia" and I just pointed out what most of those millennia looked like (at least, for Europe).   The panic you're seeing is partly the unknown - that may have something to do with the fact that we had a Leave vote with utterly no plan as to what will happen in terms of negotiating trade agreements, and there's still no sign of any consensus. For starters if you're going to understand, it may help to have a knowledge that is more than a misreading of Wikipedia (this reminds me of the Google trends showing people searching for "What is the EU" after the referendum). But even the 1993 date is misleading, because an out vote doesn't return us to 1993, it puts us out of the common market, so pre-1973 (when the UK joined). Well, unless we be like Norway which means still abiding by EU rules and having freedom of movement, without any say in the EU.   I don't see how the panic is very odd, unless you think not much has changed in 46 years.   Phantom:   Ah but the crown also has the power to join the EU! (Unless by crown he means the Queen, but by that logic, the Commons is treason also.) This guy may have been an isolated bs-er, but the common theme of supremacy of the UK Government seems to be a main argument. The paradox is that the UK Government is still supreme when it chooses to accept things in return for benefits such as free trade. The Government would have been supreme if it'd say "we're not having a referendum, and not leaving the EU". The UK has always had the choice to leave the EU - as it will now do. What the UK can't do is pick and choose - have the free trade without the things people don't like. But I don't see how we'll be able to do that out the EU either...
  11. Re nastiness - I did note on election night how Nigel Farage etc were saying how if the vote failed, there has to be "concessions" because of the narrow margin. It seemed to me like trying to have your cake and eat it: if you lose, you get concessions, if you win, you get your full say. To be fair, the UKIP MP said if they won, there should still be concessions for the people who voted Remain - though it's hard to see what concessions there could be, we can't be partly out, and models like Norway are a compromise that seem the worst of both worlds. Now they've won, talk of concessions seem to have gone.   http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2016/06/i-want-my-country-back - I want my country back too.   I was wondering when someone would bring up bendy bananas. The EU does not ban straight bananas, it is to do with classification of bananas and marketing standards; it applies to wholesalers not retailers; it applies to unripened green bananas, it's not about what you buy in a shop. It's just about standardising the way that goods are classified, so retailers know what they're getting - bananas with abnormal defects would be "class 2", not "class 1". Big deal.   Sorry, I'm not bothering with a tabloid source to back this up - a ten second Google is all you need.   (Vacuum cleaners has more truth to it, but it was about preventing energy inefficiency rather than banning some level of performance - yes, some companies did argue against it and said it wasn't the best way to go about it, OTOH this wasn't some petty red tape, it is to do with energy efficiency and the environment.)   As I say, I'm not saying that every regulation the EU has brought in makes sense or is something I agree with. Yeah, I found it a bit pointless to tell users I use cookies on my website. Doesn't mean I think it's worth leaving the common market, closing up borders, years of uncertainty, and damage to the economy.   braindigitalis:     There is no such thing as an "EU human rights act". There is the Human Rights Act, a UK law passed by the British Government. This allows people to go to UK courts for things based on the European Convention on Human Rights, which is also not an EU thing, it's a treaty that the UK signed up to (and played a major part in creating) independent of the EU.   I would be curious to see references for it refusing to allow the deportation of convicted criminals (as opposed to say, protecting important rights for suspects)?   If anything, deportation of suspects is actually easier in the EU, due to things like the European Arrest Warrant. Outside of the EU, it'll have to be done via deportation laws. Meanwhile, deportation of convicted criminals seems to happen more often now ( http://rightsinfo.org/human-rights-act-criminal-deportations/ ).     This sounds more like a description of our own head of state...     So it's actually about immigration, bendy bananas, and a Convention that isn't part of the EU.   Will look forward to being able to buy straight bananas, I'm sure it'll all be worth it.
  12. I agree with phantom's point about this not being the common man vs the elites; that was spun by leave lobbyists (e.g., the "grassroots" campaign that was anything but), and now I see even remain people believing it.   I think it's really interesting to see how this is correlated with age though - polling put Remain at a clear majority in age groups up to 34, with a slim majority up to 44 ( http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-36616028 ).   What phantom says about non-EU immigration is also true - it's got massively harder over the last 15 years or so, and even for people getting married, there're several rounds of applications (each with a ~£1000 fee) and one of you has to earn over a limit that discounts a significant proportion of the population; even before that rule, you had to show you had more than enough funds to show that you could never claim any benefits, making the new rules unnecessary other than a tool to limit the numbers.   Now, one might make the argument that it's unfair that non-EU immigration is so hard whilst EU immigration is easier - maybe it is better that it's the same for everyone, with the rules somewhere in the middle. Maybe we could go back to how the rules were say 15 years ago (funny how it's fine to go back to how things were 40 years ago, but that argument doesn't work for immigration rules). But is that going to happen when we leave the EU? Of course not. We'll continue to see complaints about immigration (most of which is non-EU anyway), and pressure for even tighter restrictions.   Having said that, I believe these income requirements don't apply if you want to become a citizen and you've already been living here for 5 years (the requirements apply insteaad to people wanting to get a visa in the first place, and for non-EU citizens, getting indefinite leave to remain), so in practice won't apply to EU citizens currently having lived here for 5 years. But I'd be surprised if anything happens to make it easier for them - they'll still have to apply to become citizens or leave at some point, and will still be subject to ever tightening rules.   Re Turkey: they could only enter the EU with the UK Government's approval - in the EU we have a say, out of it we do not. In fact the UK Government has been supportive of the idea (although even then, only when they meet the requirements), whilst in fact I believe Germany has not.   grumpyOldDude:       Though the flip side is that the savings of no trade tariffs outweighs the money paid in - unfortunately this is something less tangible and harder to predict. It's hilarious to now see places like Cornwall (that voted leave) moaning about how they'll lose EU funding and need the Government make it up.   Do the disadvantage outweight the advantages - do immigrants to the UK bring a net cost to the UK in terms of what they pay in versus what they take out?       _Was_ good being a key word :) It might be nice to have a common market without the other aspects of the EU, but it's not an option, and now we're out. What are your opinions on what the UK should do in term of trade agreements? That would affect what benefits or negative consequences we have, until then it's uncertainty. If we're asking "Now what for the UK?", I don't think anyone's answered the question of what the UK should do.   MarkS:   Europe has also been at war with infighting for most of those millennia. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying the fall of the EU means a return to those times, but I'm not exactly reassured by a "hey, it was fine before, the EU is just a new thing".   conquestor3:   The EU consists of politicians that are directly elected, as well as those that are appointed by directly elected politicians (so analogous to the UK's 2nd House of Lords, or the US's Supreme Court). I'm not saying the system is perfect or couldn't do with reform, but this common idea of unelected EU isn't really far. Whilst there may be some silly regulations (out of the many which are really EU myths), there are also those that I like; there are also UK laws that I dislike, but I'm not calling for my city to exit the UK.   It's the directly elected UK Government (that the Leave people are so in favour of being supreme) that was majority in favour of remaining in the EU (it would be amusing to see the bill to exit the EU - since the referendum is advisory and still needs to be passed in Parliament - be defeated by the UK policitians that the Leave campaigners say should be entirely in charge).   Unduli: A "regulation like Norway" means being part of Schengen! So much for "control of our borders".
  13. The most obvious subtle gotcha that you will have is that you will run Windows 10 afterwards. I would think very carefully whether you absolutely need Windows 10. There may indeed be valid reasons why you may need Windows 10, for example if you are developing for that platform and want to test your software on it. And yes, in 5-10 years you will probably have no other choice. But in the mean time, it may just as well be the case that Windows 10 does not offer any significant advantage to you over the Windows version that you use right now (but noticeable disadvantages). Reflect carefully. Just "free offer is running out" is not a valid argument (limited time offers are often a warning sign, just like "I got 3 other customers interested". They're the kind of sales tricks that used car sellers apply to rip off the foolish). Now, before the inevitable shitstorm from the Win10 fanboys will start, and we will have 350 posts of how great Windows 10 is and how all the massively negative things don't count... please consider two things:     You don't want 350 posts in response and you label anyone who disagrees a "fanboy", yet you're more than happy to have your say and start a flamewar yourself. Why bother?   Being time limited doesn't make it bad just because there exist other time limited things that are bad. That's a fallacy. One doesn't have to update something that's free, and indeed there is the argument of "if it isn't broke, don't change it" (which answers your later question of why not everyone runs in), but personally I like running the latest versions of my software when possible.   Regarding your other points: I've seen very little marketing for Windows. A notification to users is not aggressive, it's absolutely the correct way to notify people of free updates, same as every other platform (Android is worse, it puts a notification that you can't clear AFAIK). Aggressive would be the endlessly desperate advertising everywhere of all Apple's non-free products.   Windows 10 is the fastest adopted new version other, and with hundreds of millions of users, it's clear it's a runaway success.
  14. You seem to have forgotten to supply a link to your evidence that shows that any reduction in warming from this feedback will counteract the rise. I assume it's peer reviewed of course.     I don't want your humble opinion, I want to see the evidence that supports this idea that it's human population alone and not carbon dioxide.   I'm curious to know how human population causes an increase in temperature, if it isn't indirectly via increase carbon dioxide emissions.   You also seem to be making a straw man. I'm sure that most people who want lower emissions would be all in favour of trying to do less cutting down of the rainforests - indeed, the fact that the rainforests are carbon sinks is well known. However it's not enough to simply stop cutting them down (that just stops it getting even worse).   Ice at the poles melting due to heat from the research base, okay that's just funny.     By "enthusiasts", you mean the vast majority of professional scientists.
  15. Seashells have the problem of being easy to obtain a large number, so not at all limited, which makes them not very useful as a store of value. There are various properties that makes some things (e.g., gold) more useful as a store of value than other things.   One practical use is being able to transfer money between people anywhere in the world. Even if exchanging with currency at both ends, the fees are typically lower than other systems like card fees, Paypal, or international bank transfer fees. Individuals have a way to receive money without signing up to Visa. Some companies accepting Bitcoin pass the savings of lower fees onto customers.   In terms of anonymity: all Bitcoin transfers are public, but the catch is you then have to match up the Bitcoin addresses with people. So someone would still have to be careful: if the first thing the virus writer did was exchange it for currency through a Bitcoin exchange - well the police could then go to that exchange and ask for the details of where the money was then sent (or ask for the identity documents that are typically required by exchanges). But they could also spend or exchange the bitcoins in ways that don't have any way to track who they are.