Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Graphics

Company Seeks To Boost Linux Game Development With 3D Engine Giveaway 140

Posted by Soulskill
from the for-services-rendered dept.
binstream writes "To support Linux game development, Unigine Corp. announced a competition: it will give a free license for its Unigine engine to a seasoned team willing to work on a native Linux game. The company has been Linux-friendly from the very start; it released advanced GPU benchmarks (Heaven, Tropics, Sanctuary) for Linux before and is working on the OilRush strategy game that supports Linux as well."

Comment: Re:Intended Reaction? (Score 2, Insightful) 724

by SilentSandman (#34316320) Attached to: <em>Witcher 2</em> Torrents Could Net You a Fine

I'm actually not sure what I think of this, I've not come across such a situation before. Initially I think I would mostly be wary. The guise of 'donations' has been used inaccurately in the past.

Thankyou for this question by the way. I've been having difficulty coming up with an answer I find satisfactory, which suggest to me that I need to reevaluate.

For the most part I would hope to look at the situation as something I would 'ignore'. As you mentioned in this hypothetical, there is no profit element on your side, and my product (I would hope) would advertise itself. So in a sense you would simply be providing free advertising, and absorbing all the 'demo' bandwidth costs on my behalf. Those are the apparent benefits. There is the issue of 'competing' with my own product for my own profits.

At the end of the day, I don't know. I would likely keep a careful eye on this, and try to find out exactly what sort of effect (positive or negative) such a situation might have for me, and make a decision based upon that instead. In either case, I would do my best to contact you and discuss the situation, possibly for our mutual benefit if such a thing is possible.

I will certainly contemplate this more. (And for anyone who knows who I am/what I sell etc, I'd prefer you contact me before you try to take a casual conversation on the internet as hard-boiled, irrefutable fact and decide to start making websites with my product all over them. ^_^)

Comment: Re:Intended Reaction? (Score 1) 724

by SilentSandman (#34315444) Attached to: <em>Witcher 2</em> Torrents Could Net You a Fine

Curious. There is a significant difference between someone who downloads my products to play them, and someone who copies my product in order to make a profit off my work.

The first makes no appreciable difference to me, with the -possible- gain that I might one day get customers from within that group of people.
The second directly challenges what little money I -do- make, by allowing a third party who has done and added nothing of value, to take a share of the profits from -my- work.

Honestly, no I don't think that big business products would be created in such a situation, but it's a false comparison.

For the record, I would consider the second of those options to be theft.

Comment: Re:Intended Reaction? (Score 5, Insightful) 724

by SilentSandman (#34315144) Attached to: <em>Witcher 2</em> Torrents Could Net You a Fine

I try to avoid this subject, and unfortunately, I'm not always successful in that goal.

I'd like to offer you my perspective as an actual, real, game developer. Not some imagined or particularly convenient for your opinion one, a real one.

I disagree.

Some of what you say is correct, but just because those things are correct, does not mean you can make some wild leap into entirely unrelated contexts and base your reasoning on the previous thing.

Piracy is not theft.
WHEN someone downloads a copy of the games I create, it costs me absolutely nothing. -NOT ONE CENT-. I don't care if they enjoy the game, or thing it's the worst thing to have been created since the wheel. Those people are completely, and utterly irrelevant. The ONLY people who matter, are my customers. I create a product that they enjoy, and they pay me for that service.

I will not spend money paying tha 'mafiaa' thugs to bankrupt some sap because he didn't have the cash to pay me. I won't waste my time, money and effort trying to 'punish' or 'disrupt' the imagined boogey-man. I put every cent I have, and every moment of my development time -exactly where it's needed-, improving the product, and making the next product FOR MY CUSTOMERS.

If people don't want to pay me, that's their business. They haven't 'stolen' from me. "Potential profit" IS NOT PROFIT.

Because I spend my time and effort on making products that people want, they buy them. Occasionally I even get the "big bad evil pirates" buy my products. Not because I punished them (and my customers with them) but because they liked what I had to sell, and knew that paying me for it means I can make more.

Comment: Re:Your patent isn't useless (Score 1) 325

by SilentSandman (#33841542) Attached to: Why Geim Never Patented Graphene

Patents are designed to protect the -greater good-, in that these ideas which have been invented, will not be kept secret, but instead be made known, in exchange for a -limited- monopoly while the inventor recoups their costs. Whatever the current system, I believe the intent was not to make 'inventors' sit around all day without doing any actual work to see their ideas become reality.

From a software developer perspective, 'inventing' an idea is trivial, it's the hard work of turning that concept into a reality that has ANY value whatsoever. There is -nothing- good about the idea of making nothing, but coming up with lots of 'inventions', and forcing those who -can- and -will- do the hard work, to pay in order to actually create.

Comment: Re:I must admit... (Score 1) 181

by SilentSandman (#32908522) Attached to: Wireless PCIe To Enable Remote Graphics Cards

heh, my second thought was, "Oh wait, yet more kinda cool tech I'll never use."

Wireless is interesting and all, but personally I prefer my data to arrive at the other end. I'm more of a fan of the good old ethernet cable all things considered. Will be interesting to see when we start putting more data over those cables (ie: the 'new' idea of plugging your screen into an ethernet cable), avoids a great many of the issues something like this brings up. (Security, packet loss, expected transfer rates, expected transfer distances.)

Comment: Re:Impossible (Score 1) 72

by SilentSandman (#31759022) Attached to: Can a Video Game Solve Hunger, Disease and Poverty?

I'm inclined to disagree here... while these 'uneducated' people may not be able to solve the issue in it's entirety, they have one significant advantage; perspective. Some of the greatest technologies we have today were made not by the 'educated' people who were busy looking at the problem, but by someone having an unusual perspective on the issue which all the rest wrote off before even thinking about it.

This 'game' gives the opportunity for all those -other- perspectives to get a little light, and maybe, just maybe, start growing.

Comment: Re:Getting frustrating (Score 3, Insightful) 375

by SilentSandman (#31746516) Attached to: Game Devs On the Future of PC Gaming

As a game developer myself, I must say that you've got it wrong.

These 'pirates' are NOT A LOSS.

There is -no- appreciable cost to them having a "pirated" version of the software, so spending the millions they do on DRM schemes is complete and utter lunacy. Instead they should reinvest those millions into making their games better, and enticing "those who didn't buy", or even -not- spending it at all, and requiring lower returns to still make a profit. There is NO logical business sense to DRM.

Government

Terry Childs's Slow Road To Justice 253

Posted by kdawson
from the exceeding-fine dept.
snydeq writes "Deep End's Paul Venezia provides an update on the City of San Francisco's trial against IT admin Terry Childs, which — at eight weeks and counting — hasn't even seen the defense begin to present its case. The main spotlight thus far has been on the testimony of San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom. 'Many articles about this case have pounced on the fact that after Childs gave the passwords to the mayor, they couldn't immediately be used. Most of these pieces chalk this up to some kind of secondary infraction on Childs's part,' Venezia writes. 'Just because you give someone a password doesn't mean that person knows how to use it. Childs's security measures would have included access lists that blocked attempted logins from non-specified IP addresses or subnets. In short, it was nothing out of the ordinary if you know anything about network security.' But while the lack of technical expertise in the case is troubling, encouraging is the fact that the San Francisco Chronicle's 'breathless piece reporting on the mayor's testimony' drew comments 10-to-1 in Childs's favor, which may indicate that 'public opinion of this case has tilted in favor of the defense,' Venezia writes. Of course, 'if [the trial] drags into summer, Childs will have the dubious honor of being held in jail for two full years.' This for a man who 'ultimately protected the [City's] network until the bitter end.'"

Comment: Re:viva revolutsion! (Score 1) 458

by SilentSandman (#31148240) Attached to: Operation Titstorm Hits the Streets

No, I don't equate those two. Distasteful as the child pornography idea is, it is still a thought-crime law, and that's a very slippery slope for the government to have gone down. We're already seeing the start of this. First it's possession of images of a criminal act, then it's 'artificially replicated' versions (re; simpsons porn = child porn?), next is 'things that kinda look similar' (small breasted women = child porn?). Add in the fact that our current government has openly equated disagreement with their policy to 'advocating such crimes', and at the very least the slander begins to be an issue.

Sure,... they've not locked anyone away -yet-, for simply disagreeing.

Most public domain software is free, at least at first glance.

Working...