Which game are people going to buy?

1. The one their friends are playing.*
2. The one with better reviews.
3. The one with better marketing (which is related to #2).

(* I'd snark about Slashdotters not having friends, but let's pretend we do for this exercise.)

There are a lot of reasons to buy (or not buy) a game. Given that Crytek is fairly well known and there are people who will buy their games and magazines that will give them high scores for eyecandy anyway, they can probably afford to not produce free demos. Not every game company will have that luxury, though.

Some insight from a game developer who knows too much about the business side of things.

Usually adding the modifier "for free" means that you're asking them to do something they would normally charge for. I don't know any real consultant who would ask to get paid for something like you describe, so the qualifier "for free" isn't necessary and is, in fact, misleading.

So, you failed to get some possibly good programmers because you have an insufficient command of English. I hear overseas outsourcing works cheap, though, and those workers might speak your native tongue.

That very attitude would sink another company.

Yes, it's a shame about how airlines, cable companies, phone companies, and all those other industries that failed to provide great customer service went under.

One time I spent 10 hours delayed at an airport because United didn't have a plane ready for the scheduled flight. What did they do to make it right? Offer me $100 off the next time I bought a ticket from them. Maybe I could just not fly United again, but that attitude isn't going to be any different than any other airline out there.

The reality is that a corporation has one goal, and one goal only: to make money. For some, the best way to make money is to help the customer out the best they can. For many, it means realizing that there is little to no alternative and that all their competitors are going to be doing the same thing, so cutting costs is the best way to make more money. Don't like your bank's policy? Go to another one. Just don't be surprised when you see the exact same behavior there, too. Or, perhaps, different annoying policies that simply treat you like a walking wallet.

Were your parents too poor to afford books? That's kind of the point of the post you're replying to. If your parents could buy you all the books you wanted to read, then you were lucky.

See, my parents were too poor to buy books, especially as much as I read when I was young. My parents were more worried about keeping our home repaired and food on the table than buying me all the science fiction books I wanted to read. So, they took me to the library and I got to read A LOT.

I was additionally blessed in that the local library didn't just carry books, but also had computers. I had a keen interest in computers from playing with them when visiting friends and relatives, and the local library could loan out Commodore 64 computers for a while. My parents got the computer for me several times. It was a great way for me to learn about programming without them having to spend money buying the computer. Yeah, sure, I spent most of my time coding up games (no surprise I'm a game developer today), but it gave me a deep appreciation and love for computer programing that informed my education and career choices.

I went to college and got a B.S. in Computer Science, a B.A. in Spanish, and a minor in Business all in 5 years if we want to compare degrees. I might have still gone into CS without getting the computer from the library, but I believe it gave me a huge advantage in figuring out how much I enjoyed technology that playing computers at friends and relatives houses didn't allow me.

So, even if it doesn't benefit you, don't think its useless to everyone. To others, it can be a life-changing experience. It was to me, and it probably would be to some kid today who grows up in a family that can't afford a computer and internet connection.

To put it succinctly: a college degree isn't enough. It is, however, a good start.

I think the real benefit is that college gives you the time and resources to do your own thing. For example, it's easier to do an unpaid internship if you already have room and board covered through student loans or from your parents.

I got a CS degree (and Spanish, minor in Business) in the mid-90s. About the time I was graduating, I saw people get into CS because the dot-com boom showed that programming was big money. I'm sure lots of people were disappointed when the crash came along a few years later. I didn't do an internship in school, so the first job I got was one that literally nobody else wanted to do. I only got it because I called back after everyone else had turned down job offers. It was a soul-sucking job, though, working at a small company owned by a huge company and experienced the worst of both worlds.

When I was in college, I spent a lot of time working on text MUDs (predecessors to MMORPGs) while I was working on my CS assignments. I eventually got the opportunity to be a programmer ("Wizard") on a game and spent a lot of time creating and designing. It was this experience that let me get my foot in the door in the game industry. I've been working on the game industry for nearly 12 years now, first as a mook, then owning my own company, and now doing mostly consulting and contract work. I'm relatively well-known in my small niche. But,I owe a lot of it on working on MUDs. That experience got me my first job working on Meridian 59 at 3DO which lead to other opportunities.

So, take this advice: do something else while you have the time and resources in college. Internships, volunteer for a open source project, work on games, whatever. Just get something to help you stand out from the crowd.

I think part of the issue is what the audience expects. The biggest audience for CoD4 is the North American market, so pronunciations conform to that. Even voices with supposedly British accents will probably pronounce words the American way to conform with American expectations. Perhaps this isn't accurate to the real world, but meeting player expectations makes them enjoy the game more.

Some thoughts from a game developer/designer.

This is inaccurate from what I remember. After launch, there were more PVP realms (servers) than PvE realms. You couldn't see exact populations on each server, but the PvP realms were reported to be just as full as the PvE realms, leading most to believe that the PvP realms were more popular. This lead some MMO developers to hope that this might spark an interest in PvP again....

However, WoW has always been a PvE-focused game. Not surprising that things have shifted over time.

The reality is that the number of people who find being griefed fun is smaller then the number of people who don't.

Actually, I think it's more accurate to say that people don't like losing. Most games, WoW included, make fighting a virtually zero-sum game in that each winner requires a loser. It doesn't help that most PvPers will take any advantage they can, and the winning strategy is to pick a fight you will most likely win (much higher level, opponent is fighting NPCs, etc.) If you feel like you're only ever going to be on the losing end, PvP competition loses a lot of its appeal.

Actual griefing is pretty rare these days. Losing a fight, however, is very common.

It's been said before, but Slashdot needs a (+1, I can believe some no-life made this, but it's AWESOME) moderation option. :)

Most of the whining about "deletionism" is from fans who want to blither endlessly about their favorite movie/comic book/Star Trek episode/vampire.

I don't know about "most", but I know it's not all mindless whining about fandom. My own disappointment with Wikipedia comes in the form of an article that was specialized, but useful in my professional field: Dragon Kill Points (DKP). There used to a fairly detailed page about this player-based MMO mechanic. (That's a link a user made to preserve the old page.) A few scholarly works on MMORPG economics referenced the article. I used to send it to young designers who didn't know much about raiding and how player created systems can impact design.

Then some admins decided that this topic wasn't notable enough. When a few of us experienced MMO people said, "No, this is in fact notable in our field," they started attacking it for not having enough references. After failing twice the request for deletion succeeded the third time in a rapid decision only a month after the second failed deletion attempt.

Oh, hey, guess what? An abbreviated article is back on Wikipedia. Not nearly as useful as the previous version was, but I guess enough notability and reference were found to make it worthwhile now. (If you look at the talk page of the new article, you'll notice I point out the old article and suggest the article could be expanded to its old glory. Someone has the audacity to tell me to "be bold". Not throwing my time away just to see someone else go on a power trip and delete it again, thank you very much.)

I've seen this happen other times, too, with other topics. But, lesson learned: Wikipedia is not a reliable reference, even ignoring the fact that vandalism happens. I don't link to it anymore because I never know if the useful article I found will remain undeleted a few weeks from now.

So, you can dismiss the complaints about deletionists as mostly bellyaching from people who want to write about Star Trek (on a site with multiple articles with info about every Pokémon), but I've had a very different experience.

What's interesting is that Bioware merged with Pandemic before being bought by EA. Seemed odd that an RPG developer would get together with an FPS developer like that. Also seems strange that if Pandemic was so poorly managed as indicated in other comments that an amazingly well-run company like Bioware would merge with it. Another oddity here is that Riticello, the current CEO of EA, was one of the people who orchestrated with Bioware/Pandemic merger before EA acquired them and he became CEO.

Given all these facts the closure of Pandemic could be a deep betrayal or someone getting their freedom after a big payout. Ah, the world of game business.

At any rate, I keep reminding people that Bioware is now owned by EA. Other studios manage to put out a few good games before they're killed off by EA, too. So, keep hoping the streak lasts.

When they finally mailed it out to us, 6 months after billing my company / me thousands of dollars for it,

Is your company in the habit of paying bills for items you haven't received yet?

And if so, what is your company name and address, please?

Do your companies send out goods before they are paid for?

If so, what are the names and addresses for each of your companies? ;)

A few thoughts.

First, I don't imagine Rowling is sitting in her castle of money laughing at your suffering. It's probably the publisher that deals with what formats the books come out on. So, desiring to "punish" her for not putting out a book in the specific format you'd prefer seems misguided to me. As someone who writes, I suspect Rowling would prefer to get her work in the hands of every fan possible, whereas the publisher prefers to turn a profit.

Second, remember that the Harry Potter books are intended for children. In that context, it makes sense that the audio books would be "about as slow as your mother read to you as a child." Personally, I loved the audio books when I borrowed them from a friend and listened to them with my better half; the slow pace didn't bother me as an adult.

Third, you should realize that what you're asking for seems highly specialized. Listening to your example file, it nearly sounded like random noise to me. Not that I'll claim to have golden ears (far from it), but this is quite different than a large print book where someone without significant visual impairment could still enjoy it. This seems to be a step beyond, "I'm visually impaired and just want a version of the book I can enjoy."

Finally, have you contacted the publisher or a publisher association about this? Have you worked with the visually impaired community to demonstrate to publishers that there would be a sizable market for this specialized version? I honestly don't know, and perhaps you have. But, as you've pointed out, a lot of people don't keep in mind the needs of others so they may not be aware that a market for this exists. As a game developer, I know a lot of other developers don't even keep common things like color blindness in mind when designing games, so I know information is the first vital step.

I remember TV stars saying that Hulu was a system to turn human brains to mush to make them easier to consume. Charging for it is going to hinder that plan, it makes no sense! ...wait a moment, did Hollywood lie to me?!?

All these mod points, and no (-1, Threw up a bit in my mouth) option....

Region locking also allows for licensing of content to different distributors. As a simple example, say I develop a game and get EA to publish it in the U.S., then later Ubisoft wants to publish it in Europe. Ubisoft will have to invest some effort in translating the game, so they want need to see a minimum amount of sales to recoup costs. This type of arrangement wouldn't be as appealing to Ubisoft if people could easily buy the other region's copies on the gray market.

Admittedly this is less of an issue as the larger publishers are more international and localization issues are being handled earlier in development. And, yeah, it still doesn't help the consumer. But, there is a real business reason behind this rather than just being mean to consumers.