Having used both, I can't wait for Max to die in a fire...
I can't comment about usability myself, being a programmer, but I've heard similar sentiments from a lot of my artist friends.
Having used both, I can't wait for Max to die in a fire...
I can't comment about usability myself, being a programmer, but I've heard similar sentiments from a lot of my artist friends.
Honestly if Metro doesn't go away, I will... lol
Away to Linux or Android...
That will be a while though as they will have to pry Windows 7 from my cold dead hands.
It's pretty sad, I do love me some Windows and I have been using it for a long long time since the 3.11 days, I even liked Windows ME. But I just can't love Windows 8 and it's abomination of a UI. I can't count how many times I have installed Classic Shell in Windows 8 machines because the owners couldn't stand Metro.
I am sure it is fantastic on a tablet though? I have an Android tablet so yeah.... I am already in the process of ditching Windows
Yeah, I could have written this. I've heard arguments that "oh, you W8 haters just don't like change". True, people are generally resistant to change, but I don't think I necessarily reject all change out of hand. I liked the Vista-style Aero visual improvements (never cared for XP's look), although the OS performed poorly and had lots of small problems. I did like the improvements to the task bar in Windows 7 as well. I thought the Ribbon interface in Office was a necessary and fairly bold step in UI innovation. Power users tended to dislike it because it was such a radical change, which is understandable, but I think the products are more accessible and much easier to learn now.
But Windows 8 feels so utterly broken to me. I don't even hate the idea of metro apps - I think they could have been pretty cool if they had been more seamless integrated with the more classic desktop (leaving the full screen mode for the devices where it makes sense). There was no need to foist a full screen app launcher on the desktop user, especially since it has such a hard time figuring out what even the relevant "apps" to launch are (pulling in uninstall icons, documentation links, dozens of small and rarely used utilities, etc), and the usefulness of an actual hierarchy to keep things organized and tidy was completely smashed in favor of a paradigm designed to favor the simplistic requirements of tablets and smartphones.
So, no, I'm not resistant to change. I'm just resistant to change for the worse. And yeah, I'm going to be sticking with Windows 7 for while unless MS figures out a way to make some pretty significant improvements for the desktop user.
...and don't use a laptop with a web cam.
I know you're trying to be snarky, but it's probably good advice to physically block your web cam's vision if you want to guarantee privacy nowadays. Oh, and if you actually use that webcam and transmit those images or video to someone over the net, expect big brother to be watching as well.
It used to sound like tin-foil hat nonsense, but the government is making fools of those of us who didn't think they'd go to those lengths. In this Snowden-era surveilance state, anyone who dismisses privacy issues out of hand looks like the bigger fool.
As far as I've seen, most developers in the game industry use Maya. A few that I've seen used Max years ago, but that seems to have been in rapid decline as well. Honestly, it makes sense to focus development efforts on your top products.
Definitely a plus. Seeing some sort of coding project through to completion is important, at least in my opinion, and the more the better. There are simply things you can't really learn any other way except through experience. If you've completed projects, then you know what I'm talking about - all those little details that can potentially swamp an elegant theoretical design with all-too-inconvenient reality.
DX12. Microsoft is the sole definer. Implemented for only ONE Operating Environment, according to the defining body. May be implemented for two OSs at Microsofts leisure.
May or may not be upward or downward compatible with itself or anything else.
So PLEASE. STOP calling DX ANYTHING a standard. You may call it a library or an API.
PHIGS is the standard. OpenGL has pretty much supplanted PHIGS but is still not a standard. OpenGL is also an API but with broader support.
Microsoft works with hardware vendors to release software that's compatible with the current capabilities of that hardware. Said hardware is also branded to be DX 'some-version' compliant. May or may not be upward or downward compatible? Nonsense, it will be compatible with a large set of the more recent hardware (or hardware ready to be reased), or the vendors would have told MS to go jump in Lake Washington. And so far, every version of DX has been forward compatible with all existing MS consumer operating systems, which is a pretty decent track record to bet on for compatibility. You can argue semantics about whether it's a "standard" or not (I'd lean 'not' if we're being pedantic), but ultimately it will be broadly recognized by the gaming public as a defacto 'standard' at the very least.
Microsoft does plenty of stupid things (see Windows 8), but let's not start making up imaginary issues.
These sorts of announcements have the effect of freezing developers and keeping them from moving to superior technology.
Which developers are you talking about? I'd wager that the biggest money makers and users of these APIs (AAA game developers) already have good enough relationships with Microsoft, Sony, etc where under NDA they are able to offer feedback on existing and proposed API/platform directions and allow themselves to be in sync with where it is going.
Correct. It always depended a bit on the company, but the engine teams graphics programmers generally talked both with MS as well as hardware vendors about upcoming technologies on a semi-regular basis. A number of years ago a programming team I was on visited MS to give some feedback on upcoming features (I think it was maybe for DX8? So yeah, a while ago). We'd also get the latest and greatest reference hardware to test with too, which was always fun. Now that I've gone indie I have to buy my own hardware like everyone else again...
If you're a developer out there, please, don't let Microsoft get away with this.
Developer here. Get away with what? No one is going to put their game on hold waiting for a new version of DirectX. You're barely starting to see DirectX 11 required games finally emerge, now that XP and the 360 are rapidly diminishing platforms of importance, and you're worried about MS creating a new version of DX? It's been four years since DX11 was released, you know.
Besides, with it's relatively new policy of tying new versions of DX to OS upgrades, you won't have to worry about games supporting DX 12 exclusively until relatively few people are left on Windows 7 (assuming they don't back port it). The only way you'd see a rush to adoption of DX12 is if:
* A reasonable percentage of modern graphics cards already meet the minimal DX 12 requirements
* DX 12 was made available on Vista and better OSes
* DX 12 became the XBone's preferred API
If not, we're going to see exactly what we saw with DX 10 and 11, which was a slow trickle of adoption as older technologies are slowly phased out. What really hurt was that both XP and the 360 ended up hanging around a lot longer than folks expected. This time around, it could very well be Window 7 that ends up creating a long-term lock-in at DX 11.0 as a minimum requirement.
XBOne can't use DX12. Reason being, the hardware in XBOne is not DX12 compatible. I can't see how a GPU manufactured atleast 9 months earlier than DX12 release will ever be compatible with DX12.
Firstly, it's not necessarily the case that DX12 will require brand new hardware features. It will probably, in fact, simply require some minimal baseline set of hardware in order to be "compliant", and it's highly likely that relatively recent mid-to-high-end cards will support that minimal set. Don't forget that MS doesn't create these DirectX standards in isolation. They're naturally working very closely with the three major videocard manufacturers to ensure proper hardware and driver support, or the whole thing is completely pointless.
Secondly, Microsoft created both XBone and DX12, so it's likely the teams have talked to each other and ensured future compatibility. It seems highly unlikely that MS's flagship console would be missing critical features required for DX12. That would essentially cripple it out of the gate, stalling mass adoption for years like what happened with DX10/11 because of Windows XP and the Xbox 360 minimum requirements. It would be a monumentally stupid and shortsighted thing for them to do.
Then again, we have Windows 8, so I guess anything is possible.
I've been a profession game developer for well over a decade
How much money did you have to save up in order to relocate to search for your first job in the industry? What did you have in your portfolio in order to qualify for an interview? And how has the entry-level environment changed since then?
I needed roughly $10K or so to move if I recall correctly, since it was just me and I didn't have to move an entire household. At the time, all I needed in terms of qualifications was some good demos and a phone interview. This was at a very small company. Keep in mind this was over fifteen years ago, though. It's hard for me to gauge accurately now though, since I've got much more experience and a solid enough resume that I now have a pretty good shot at being hired no matter where I apply. It was definitely a lot harder to get hired earlier in my career, but I guess that's to be expected.
I think that what hasn't changed is that having at least one demonstrable game-related product that you've either created on your own or contributed significantly is very helpful. No one wants to hire a rookie that is going to make all the mistakes that are bound to be made on your first big project, so you essentially want to get that first project out of the way as soon as possible. Also, having a finished product on your resume demonstrates that you can actually finish products that you start. When I was involved in the hiring process, this was always something I looked out for at least. In my case, I had some game demos and a non-game related product I was already selling on the side, so I could offer that up as a demonstration of my coding style and ability.
Of course, this assumes you can pass the technical portions of the interviews, where you have to demonstrate your coding and analytical competency. That's sort of a given as well, and I don't think that part of things has changed much at all.
So what are two guys in a garage supposed to make instead in order to get into the industry?
Just build a fun, entertaining, and highly polished game, price it realistically, and hope for the best. It's certainly still possible for "two guys in a garage" (actually, it's just me working on this game) to create games independently.
I've been a profession game developer for well over a decade, and worked on some of the industries biggest games, so I understand all too well the enormous volume of modern art, design, and programming assets that are poured into a modern title. I turned indie (started making my own game full time) over a year ago. My first game was deliberately chosen in a style that would allow a single developer to produce the code, design, and art assets within a reasonable timeframe. There are simply some games for which this wouldn't work, so you have to choose pretty carefully. In other words, don't choose a design that's meant to compete with the AAA titles out there. It's just not feasible.
In my case, I'm completely eschewing 3D, and sticking to 2D tile-based worlds, albeit with a game engine that supports modern hardware and effects. Even within this limited subset of game options, I also chose a specific game design that would work to my strengths instead of requiring a massive amount of art, something I just don't have the resources to produce myself.
There's nothing I can really do about a "race to the bottom" in terms of pricing, but I think indie games are well positioned here. It won't actually take a lot of game sales even at a low price point, relatively speaking, to support my next game's development, and since I've already got the engine and base game finished, I'll be able to get the sequel out the door a lot faster.
I just have to hope that people are still willing to actually pay for small, entertaining games instead of always looking for freemuim products, because I'd much rather that people have a "pure" gaming experience unencumbered by attempts to suck out more money. This does mean a purchase is required up front, though.
I guess we'll see in about a year's time. I'd really love to keep doing what I'm doing, but if all else fails, I guess it's back to the big game companies for me. I'm not complaining, of course, since even working for others, making videogames is pretty awesome as a career, but I really hope that the two years I've invested in this game pays off.
You cannot create anything in a vacuum. Your time and resources may be of your own but, your effort is build upon the effort of those who came before you. Asking for repayment of your time and resources is reasonable. Asking for indefinite repayment on all similar creations, while holding to the naive idea that all effort was yours alone, is disingenuous if not fraudulent. If you have enhanced society with your contributed effort then, society should reward you.
The only debate is the terms of that reward, nothing more, nothing less. The false notion that effort entitles one to complete dominion over similar effort is new, relatively speaking, and not universally agreed upon as being reasonable. I would argue that, monetary rewards be the only reward, and that false dominion is for those who are selfish and lack awareness.
An honest man borrows and stands on the shoulders of others. A dishonest man claims he alone is the progenitor. See original quote.
From your previous statements, it would seem you are dishonest, if not selfish
I always hear this "but you get so much from society, so you can't hog your property forever" argument, but keep in mind that the author has invested just as much in the establishment and payment for those societal protections as anyone else (on average, of course). In fact, it's society (or our representative government, more precisely) that established these artificial constraints on "intellectual property rights" precisely in order to provide incentives for people and companies to generate and sell creative works, with the understanding that they will be able to profit by those works. I think that, while some disagree with the details, the majority of people think it's reasonable for an individual or company to retain the commercial rights to creative properties for a significant amount of time.
Honestly, I don't see how society is creatively impoverished because a single individual or company CAN hold intellectual property rights, even indefinitely. Are you telling me that there is such a creative dearth that if an author retains the rights to the world that he or she has created for life that we're somehow poorer as a society? That others won't step up and create new and exiting competing content for people to use and enjoy? It just feels like a nonsensical argument to me. It always feels like it boils down to: "They've made a lot of money over the years on product x, and I'm not exactly rich, and I'd like to get it for free. Therefore, --insert grandiose-sounding argument about bettering society, etc--".
This brings up a good point. While attribution and copyright are lumped together they should not be.
You should have the right for your work to carry your name indefinitely, others shouldn't be allowed to claim your work as theirs.
Copying your work to give away for free or to sell should have a much much shorter leash, as should the privilege to restrict others from creating new things based on your work. 5 years seems more than enough to me in this digital age.
And if a company is so dependant on that one product, let them have the monopoly longer, have the state take a percentage cut out of that company's income and increase the tax over time.
That should get the creative juices flowing.
I'm currently developing my new company's first videogame, and I've drained many years of savings in order to spend two years of my life with zero income building it. I'm not expecting to get rich selling it (hoping to sell enough to just sustain future development), but I'd like to start building up a portfolio with a "long tail" of many products that will sustain me into eventual retirement. I'm creating this game entirely on my own, and taking a huge risk to my financial future to do so. It's easy to spout this sort of nonsense when you are thinking of giant commercial corporations and how to stick it to those "evil profitmongers" (keep in mind they employ a lot of people), but keep in mind that stuff like this would severely impact very small developers like me, and probably hurt them far worse.
Or maybe you just don't give a crap because you're not the one putting in the work to actually create these products. Let me tell you, yeah, it's fun to make videogames for a living, but don't kid yourself. It's also pretty fucking challenging work, and an incredibly risky and unstable industry already. We really don't need your help to put additional handicaps on us developers who are already facing lottery-like odds just trying to stay afloat.
How is Windows 8 "in the way" on a tablet? It's probably the best tablet OS out there right now.
Yep, at the expense of their desktop operating system unfortunately. I really like Windows 7, and can't see myself upgrading anytime soon unless they decide to reverse the insane decisions to smash together two completely incompatible user operating paradigms into a single OS. Metro is a fine interface for tablets, phones, and touchsceens, but it's just hideous for traditional desktop-oriented work.
Still, MS seems to be backpedaling on shoving Metro in our faces on the desktop, so maybe the next OS will be actually usable. We'll see.
The sooner we decriminalize drugs, the sooner this sort of idiotic "war on drugs" can end. It's one that the US law enforcement can never win, which is the perfect sort of war for a government agency, isn't it? I'm not saying there aren't well-meaning people in those agencies, or among those that advocate such policies, but it's those same well-meaning policies that also gave us the mob during the Prohibition era. Same dance, different partners.
BTW, we recently decriminalized weed here in Washington State, and now people are setting up shops to sell the stuff. I'm betting the world won't come to an end.
I THINK MAN INVENTED THE CAR by instinct. -- Jack Handley, The New Mexican, 1988.