Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Overblown (Score 0) 170

I have to disagree with you there.

My take on OpenArena was based largely on this comment from last year which reads in part:

I had done all the work necessary to update the OpenArena port to the latest version at the time, and then played "follow the patchlevels cause their dev practices suck" for several more versions. I edited their wiki, writing out directions for getting the game running from source on FreeBSD, which was pretty easy to do...Which they promptly deleted and said, "just use the Linux version."

When I was working on the port I asked them repeatedly what the build deps were and such...They didn't know. They generally just banged on it and installed stuff until OA built and ran. Never once did they actually document what it took to build the game. They were truly representative of the kids-table level of QA/RE that seems to be commonplace in the small-project OSS development community at large. How many times did they make a major release, followed quickly by several patches to fix minor oversights that resulted in major problems and could have been avoided with checklist of "what to check before we release?"

The person who you reference, Time Doctor, who heads up the ioquake3 project, is the polar opposite: someone who's probably done more for Linux gaming than just about every other developer combined. Also, the original posted said he had to switch to using ioquake3's code for the FreeBSD port because of the OA assholes.

Time Doctor posted a follow-up comment:

The experience of working with the OpenArena project was similar to that described by HEMI_426. At this point they have cut off communication with us and I would be surprised, but happy, if that relationship ever improves.

So, now we are attempting to create our own freely distributable, creative commons licensed, game to distribute whenever anyone downloads ioquake3 that won't be "adults only" and won't have anything to do with OpenArena's direction.

Time Doctor is widely credited as being the "go to" person if you want to make a Linux port of your game and don't know how. He's personally responsible for the Humble Bundle having Linux games, which is one of the biggest catalyst for the recent surge in Linux gaming and may have led to SteamOS.

Your AC hit and run bashing makes me wonder if you're part of the OA project, which if true basically means that no, it hasn't changed.

Comment: Overblown (Score 0) 170

I'm a Quake Live Pro subscriber (got a year as part of a QuakeCon package) and I've been playing Quake 3, then Quake Live, since 1999 when it was released.

I'm sure the hardest of the hardcore players will find something to complain about but really, the changes are fine. If the changes attract a lot of new players at the expense of the old guard then fine, the game will be better for it in the long run. The real test will be when the game hits Steam soon and a critical mass of people will have access to it. And like even the article points out - there's still a way to play the old way, and the most popular mode - duels - is unchanged.

And really, the original Quake 3 game has been open source for nine years now, if the old guard really wants to all you would need to do is make a version that uses Quake 3's assets but adds a matchmaking system or a server browser that's up to 2014 standards. To some extent that's what the original goal of Quake Live was, whether or not it ever achieved that is debatable but I know I can fire up QL and be in a game I like in less than a minute. If you think you can do better, go for it.

And as I write that it occurs to me that this is to some extent what the OpenArena project was supposed to be about but nine years in all we have is a dodgy 0.8 release and a core group of developers who are reportedly representative of the absolute worst qualities of the open source movement (slow to release, hostile to newcomers, actively sabotaging any FOSS ports that aren't Linux, etc.). So to some extent people who did think they could do better (albeit slightly different aims - OA wants to not rely on Q3 assets) have tried and not really gotten much of anywhere with it.

Comment: Re:Remove old apps. (Score 1) 249

Perhaps just recompiling it against the latest SDK (still targeting 4.0 or whatever) would be sufficient.

I'd say have some sort of "hey are you still there?" email from Apple but making sure you can still compile the thing and re-submit it would be enough of a barrier that people with the Justin Bieber Slideshow apps wouldn't bother with.

App doesn't compile in the latest SDK? Well you better get on that. Don't like it? Go to a non-curated platform.

Just an idea.

Comment: Re:schadenfreude (Score 1) 121

by Schnapple (#47576049) Attached to: Crytek USA Collapses, Sells Game IP To Other Developers
Well and I say maxed out but there's other factors like screen resolution. If you were willing to ratchet down to 1024x768 you could probably beef up a rig of the era to handle max settings. Plus this may have been before widescreen had really taken off so there was only 4:3 to worry with.

Also, define "ran fine" - ran at max settings at 60fps with no stuttering or framerate drops? It definitely ran acceptable in some configurations on release but no one could max it out at a high resolution on day one.
But yeah that was a new idea at the time - the idea of a game being so graphically advanced that it outstripped the hardware of the era. It was always a thing that so long as you had the beefiest system then any game on the market could run perfectly. Games like Quake 3 just gracefully added features like curved surfaces when it was possible to do so. Crysis and ports like GTA4 were the first to say "no your shit still can't run the max".

To some degree it was about the messaging (had the mode been labeled "extreme" instead of "high" it might not have bothered the high end people so much) but really I think the initial issue was that the demo they released proved to everyone that it ate shit on their system. I had a 7800GT (I think) and even at the lowest settings it was crap.

Comment: schadenfreude (Score 4, Informative) 121

by Schnapple (#47574291) Attached to: Crytek USA Collapses, Sells Game IP To Other Developers
As much as I like the Crysis games and Crytek's work in general, I've got a little schadenfreude going on because they were kinda pretentious dicks a few years back when they switched to console development.

For a recap: they came out with Crysis (the first one) in 2007, and it didn't sell as much as they wanted it to. They blamed piracy. I'm sure the game was pirated, probably a lot, but I don't think that's why it wasn't selling like they wanted it to. It wasn't selling like they wanted it to because it was released at a time when PC's weren't powerful enough to run it. By which I mean, in 2007 when it launched it was literally impossible to run it at the best settings. Like, it was impossible to build a PC that could run it at max settings at a high resolution at a high framerate.

And people knew this because they released a demo. You got a first hand look at how this game was going to turn your PC into a slideshow. So people didn't buy the game because they knew they didn't have the pipe to smoke it. Releasing a demo probably hurt Crysis' initial sales.

And this wasn't unforeseen - in the runup to the game's release people expressed surprise that EA, who had been all about cross platform development or cutting off the PC, here they were releasing a game just for the PC which a lot of people couldn't run.

So, the game didn't sell either because of system requirements or piracy or both. And again, I'm not saying the game wasn't pirated, I'm just saying that Crytek claimed this was the only reason it wasn't selling, and in no possible way could it be linked to the fact that they released a game which just told every PC owner on earth their system wasn't good enough.

That's not the real dick part to me though. The real dick part was when the CEO said their "proof" of piracy was that the patch for the game was downloaded more times than the copies of the games that had been sold.

OK, think way back to 2007. Hard as it is to believe, Crysis wasn't on Steam. Back then it wasn't a given that your PC game would be on Steam. Consider Fallout 3 was released in 2008 on disc-only, no digital services at all, and had GFWL baked in. Two years after that Fallout: New Vegas launches as a Steamworks title on Steam on day one, no GFWL in sight. The switch was quick but in 2007 it hadn't happened yet.

So by that logic when Crytek released a patch for Crysis, people had to go manually download it. So I can see a shred of logic to the idea that if more people are downloading the patch than buying the game then some number of pirated copies are getting patched.

The thing is, the statement doesn't make sense. How many more times are we talking here? I know back then I personally downloaded the patches a few times, usually after I would format and reinstall the game (this being before Steam made that sort of unneccessary). If the patch was downloaded 10x as much then you might have a point. But how do you even know how many times it was downloaded? The file was mirrored everywhere (I think FilePlanet still existed, etc.) did you add up all the downloads? Do all those services even give download numbers? Why are you not providing more evidence for your case?

Crytek's CEO also lamented how the Call Of Duty games were selling more copies. At the time, Crysis had sold less than a million copies whereas the CoD game of the year had sold ten million. The CoD games which had the advantage of being on consoles as well. Disregarding the fact that Crysis would hit the 1M mark soon (and according to Wikipedia has sold over 3M overall as of 2010), the CoD game sold better due to better marketing and just generally being a better game.

To be fair this was that dark era in PC gaming of the console games selling 9-10x their PC counterparts, to the point where some developers wanted to drop the PC entirely. However, if Cryek wanted to get into console gaming just do it, don't give us some sort of "you're all horrible software pirates" argument on your way out the door.

So they released Crysis 2 on PC, 360 and PS3. How did that go? They sold about three million copies, and less than the original game has sold on PC alone. Crysis 3's sales figures have not been fully revealed.

THIS is the problem I have with the "piracy is the problem" argument. Yes piracy is a problem but there's so much more to it and going to console development didn't fix their issues. Their real issue seems to be that they can't run a company worth a damn.

Comment: Re:the problem is not coding, but coding well. (Score 0) 372

by Schnapple (#47522521) Attached to: 'Just Let Me Code!'

Anyone can write software

No they can't.

If you switched me with a sales guy I could do the sales guy's job on a technical level. I could talk to people, I could make calls, I could ask for money. I couldn't do it nearly as well as the sales guy and I'm an antisocial introvert so I'm all wrong for the job on a proficiency level but I could do their job, albeit poorly.

The sales guy can't do my job at all. He wouldn't know an IDE from his own ass. He has no idea how to write code. He sure as fuck doesn't know how to interface with COM objects or write cross platform code or perform code signing to get apps to run on mobile devices. Not "I can do it but not do it well", he can't do it at all. Not even halfass.

This isn't me trying to say programmers are special snowflakes, this is me saying that programming is fundamentally more difficult than anything normal people do, and most normal people don't actually want anything to do with it, which is why you often hear "hire a programmer" and not "learn how to program"

So with all due respect, no not just "anyone" can write software.

Comment: Maybe this is for our parents? (Score 3, Interesting) 192

by Schnapple (#47265775) Attached to: Amazon Announces 'Fire Phone'

The Fire Phone runs Mayday, Amazon's live tech support service for devices.

I haven't experienced it myself but when I see the Amazon Kindle Fire commercials where they demonstrate you can talk to a live Amazon person to help you use your tablet, my first thought was "that would be great for my parents", especially since it would lessen the number of calls I would get from them on how to do something with their technology device du jour.

You would think that something locked down like an iOS device wouldn't lend itself to needing this kind of tech support help, but in certain areas - especially phone calls - there's a certain level of resistance to technology complexity with the older crowd. It sounds like I'm being mean with regards to age but I have known several older people over the last few years who went out and bought an iPhone because it was the new shiny thing and then took it back because they couldn't figure out how to use it or didn't like how complicated it made things. As much as it makes perfect sense to you and I that the phone is a more generalized computing device nowadays and wanting to make a phone call is basically launching a program, the older set knows that you used to just open the fucking thing and start dialing.

I'm not sure if the Fire Phone will make all that better (in particular I can almost guarantee my parents in particular would fucking hate the 3D screen thing) but I do think perhaps there's an untapped market out there for people who want a less-smartphone. After all, isn't that basically what "locked down" Android tablets like the Kindle Fire and the Nook are? Google, Apple and Microsoft are all trying to outdo each other on technical whiz-bang, and this entry from Amazon doesn't seem to impress the Slashdot crowd at all. Maybe this one is for our parents?

Comment: Re:Lol... (Score -1) 329

by Schnapple (#46983275) Attached to: EA Ending Online Support For Dozens of Games

Or state very clearly (not in the fine print) that said device or software will likely cease to work past some date, but is guaranteed to work until that date.

They have done exactly that for many many years.

Look at the back of the Battlefield 1942 box - the game was released in September 2002 and it states that they only guarantee it can be played online until September 2003. This isn't in the fine print, it's on the back of the package like you said it should be, so that you can read it before you buy the game.

This caused quite a stink back in 2002 because people thought it meant that they absolutely would cause the games to stop working at that time but really EA was just covering their ass because they had been sued already by people who didn't get that Ultima Online required a subscription fee because it wasn't spelled out on the box well enough

Instead, EA has supported online for BF1942 through GameSpy for close to 12 years now. And you think they're assholes for going way beyond what they promised and don't release source code. And your other suggested fix is exactly what they did over a decade ago when they fucking released the game but you're too goddamn stupid to know what you're talking about.

Comment: Run, Print, Wait (Score 1) 230

by Schnapple (#46881445) Attached to: One-a-Day-Compiles: Good Enough For Government Work In 1983

My first gig out of college was for the same University I graduated from, and I worked on a mainframe doing COBOL programming, and some scripting in a proprietary language called NATURAL which I've never seen used anywhere else, ever.

One project I was handed was to update the 1098-T form. It's basically the IRS tax form for tuition writeoffs. Every year we had to produce a 1098-T form for every student which basically detailed what they paid in tuition. Every year the form was a little different (of course) so every year our generation program had to be updated.

What I got handed was basically a program which drew the form and then printed the data on the correct parts of the form. And when I saw drew the form, I don't mean we had a PDF or JPEG or whatever of the form, we actually recreated the form with whatever bog standard graphics package we used. Like, you would literally say go to (X1,Y1) and draw a line to (X2,Y2), then a line from (X2,Y2) to (X3,Y3), etc. It was like programming in LOGO, but for a legal purpose and without the cool turtles.

This doesn't sound like such a big deal, and it wasn't too bad, but what was tedious was the fact that you would program all this in, then run the program against a single fake student's data, and then you headed to the printer. The printer, in this case was the print room and it was three floors down and a few hallways away. Then you waited for the printout. Which would print as soon as anyone else's job who was in (virtual) line in front of you was done. The time it took to accomplish this was basically random.

And when you found out whatever small change you made didn't work, had the wrong effect, got the numbers backwards, etc. you got to do this all over again. Make small change, compile, run, wait hour(s) for result, lather, rinse, repeat. All with no GUI, no preview, no nothing. Oh, and the program I had, comparing the form printed last year to the actual 1098-T form from the IRS' site was not a 1:1 recreation - it had basically the same info as the source form but it wasn't a dead-on match. I'm guessing this was good enough for the IRS, and either no one had ever bothered to make this thing picture perfect, or the motivation to do so got lost along the way. Lord knows I wasn't going to do it either.

Over time of course you started to average out how long it took to get the printout and you'd wait at least that long before going to get it. And of course this wasn't anywhere near as bad as "come back tomorrow to see if it worked", but that whole process sucked and I don't miss that job at all.

Oh, and this was in ~2002 or so. I didn't really want to be a mainframe programmer but I had little experience in a shitty economy and I was told/promised that they'd be moving to an "all new web-based system within the next six months". When I quit two and a half years later to move to a better gig, it was still "within the next six months". I learned a lot from that job, I guess.

Comment: Can we please stop asking this question? (Score 1) 306

by Schnapple (#46515827) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: Can an Old Programmer Learn New Tricks?

Look, I get that we're all getting older and that there's traditionally been something of an age bias in IT but can we please stop having a "hey am I too old do be doing programming?" story every fucking week?

No you're not too old. Yes you might have a harder time finding work at your age (whatever age it is) but there's so many other factors (choice of technologies, state of local technology scene where you're at, whether or not you have people/hygiene skills) that no one can really say what it is. Yes you have commitments and debt and maybe a wife and kids and the fresh kids out of college just have those to look forward to. But come the fuck on.

There's basically two things people worry about - is your age causing you to lose job opportunities and is your age making your mind slower/worse/etc. If you're asking for an absolute answer to either then it's no. We've established this over and over and over. There are just as many jobs out there looking for fresh faced kids as there are looking for seasoned professionals. The reason that the game industry, with its cutting edge technology, is mostly young people is not because young people's minds are more amenable to cutting edge technologies, but because the game industry overworks, under pays, and generally churns through most of its non-Carmack-level talent and causes people to switch to mundane business rules programming for 2x the salary and 100x the stability.

Now can we please move on to something important like whether or not Bitcoins cause Libertarians to commit suicide?

Comment: Compromise: actively sell the game or it goes PD (Score 3, Interesting) 360

by Schnapple (#46152163) Attached to: Why Games Should Be In the Public Domain

OK, see here's the deal.

The RPS author mentions 20 years. I'm assuming it's because 20 years is an arbitrary-ish figure he settled on.

It's 2014, so 20 years ago is 1994.

Really what he was getting at originally was that it was somewhat bizarre that computer games from the 1980's are still considered copyrighted and illegal to distribute, even if the original developers, publishers, etc. have long since gone defunct.

So I really think the author should have said 25 years or something like that but just for the sake of discussion let's stick with 20.

The game Super Mario Bros. from Nintendo was released in 1985. That's almost thirty years ago. So, by a blanket application of his proposition, SMB would have gone PD back in 2005. Anyone could do anything they wanted with the game and there would be nothing Nintendo could do about it.

But this smacks of unfair for one reason - Nintendo is still around. And they're still selling SMB. You can get it on Virtual Console on Wii, Wii U and 3DS.

The author isn't necessarily proposing that a developer should only get to make money off of his or her creation for 20 years, or at least that's not how I'm interpreting it.

Let's take another example - there's a critically acclaimed game called No One Lives Forever, a somewhat wacky spy caper with a female protagonist that has a parody of James Bond in the 60's thing happening. The game was developed by Monolith and published by Fox Interactive. Fox got bought by Activision, Activision merged with Blizzard, and Monolith got bought by Warner Bros. Long story short, no one can release the game on GOG because no one knows who owns it. But someone does, in theory. However it will be a long time before anyone sorts it out because there is, in theory, not enough money for anyone to care.

By the way copyright works today, NOLF will be illegal to distribute until 2090. Who knows what will happen by then? If we lived in a perfect world where piracy and copyright infringement didn't exist, then the only places NOLF would exist are on the hard drives of Monolith and the discs of whoever bought the game - what are the odds either would be functional in 2090?

But a dirty little secret is you can go download NOLF right now on torrent sites. Anyone can download it. Thanks to copyright infringement it will never truly go away.

This happens in other sectors, too. There's about a hundred of the original Dr. Who episodes from the 1960's or so which are lost because the BBC taped over them. I'm not kidding, they seriously never thought that anyone would want to watch them in the future. But every so often a few turn up - they put nine episodes on iTunes a few months ago - all because someone somewhere found some tape they were either supposed to return to the BBC, or someone taped them and didn't realize they still had them.

So going back to SMB, Nintendo is actually sort of doing the right thing here. Sure, they're basically selling a ROM image and an emulator, and the only people who get to play SMB are the ones who paid for it, but the point is they can get it, play it, and pay for it. It's available.

But if Nintendo had closed up shop in 1995 or something would it really benefit anyone to have to wait until 2075 to be able to play SMB again in our piracy-does-not-exist fantasy land?

GeorgeB3DR is getting upset about this because he is still selling those old games and still making a living off of it. The hard-and-fast 20 year proposal would fuck him over. But the point is he's still selling them.

Let's say that we had a different rule - if your game hasn't been available for ten years for sale it goes PD. GeorgeB3DR would be fine. Nintendo would be fine. And we could distribute NOLF all we want.

Of course, under this rule it's possible that ActiVendiFoxoLith would get their shit together and hash out who owns what and release it for sale on GOG or something. Sure, we wouldn't be able to just distribute NOLF for free that way, but isn't it better that we have a nice, convenient and (likely) cheap option to obtain the games now?

Like that release in December of the Beatles 1963 recordings. If EMI or whoever hadn't released those for sale then they'd be PD this year. But aren't we better off with those out there for sale than potentially lost forever or stuck in bootleg traders hell? Yes there's some people upset that they were *this close* to having PD Beatles stuff, but they'll get their wish in 20 years, in the meantime you can just buy them on your phone. Isn't that better overall?

Comment: Re:jerk (Score 1) 1440

by Schnapple (#44939747) Attached to: Georgia Cop Issues 800 Tickets To Drivers Texting At Red Lights
There is such a thing as Fire Fighting simulators. It's like a networked LAN game. The game is perfectly safe and can simulate situations that you can't get easily in live exercises. Due to its nature and limited market they're expensive (like $10K a license or seat) but they exist. They are no substitute for real on the job training and controlled exercises and no one's arguing anything to the contrary, but they do exist.

Comment: Re:Theory vs. Practice (Score 1) 191

by Schnapple (#44887157) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: When Is Patent License Trading Not Trolling?
Yeah... you have no idea what you're talking about.

Listen to Act Two of this episode of This American Life. The example they hunt down to its conclusion has one guy, Chris Crawford, selling his patent to IV and in turn he gets 10% of whatever they get on it (which considering IV was settling with dozens of firms for fucktons of dollars in perpetuity, is not too shabby).

Once IV does your dirty work for you, you'll never need to make widget bolts again.

I don't want to achieve immortality through my work. I want to achieve immortality through not dying. -- Woody Allen

Working...