He could also lose all of his customers if he breaks his leg or has another serious medical problem; that's the danger of working for yourself and he accepted that risk when he took the "self-employed" route, if someone can't take over for him then he took the risk and lost, it happens. Additionally, most states have laws that pay jurors more significant money if their services are requested for longer than a certain period of time.
It's not a law, it's a recommendation on a way to implement a law already on the books.
Yes yes, corporations are all evil and all they're out to do is make money. So, you do you'd do your job for free, right? No? Well if you bought stock in a company and they lost it all because they let their "arists" just do their thing you'd be fine with it, right? No? Any company anywhere, from the smallest mom and pop shop to the largest corporation only cares about customer satisfaction because it makes them more money, any company that and any shop owner that tells you otherwise is lying to you. Why should game companies be different from any other company?
Wrong. It's not that publishers don't (generally) want new things, it's that the public doesn't. How many idiots rushed out to buy Halo ODST? It's the same shit as all the other Halos except now you play cannon fodder, woohoo I'm weaker! How many people went out and bought the latest Madden? The new Guitar Hero? Rock Band? The only game players that care about new, exciting and different IPs are people that play a lot of games, sometimes called "hardcore" gamers. The thing is, they also go out and buy the latest Halo, Madden and Guitar Hero; why would the publisher risk money on creative/cool series when the same old shit gives them millions? How many here have heard of Majesty 2? Folklore? Beyond Good and Evil? How many bought them? Not many, the publisher is just giving people what they're asking for.
The Original DOOM and Wolfenstein had only a handful of guys making them. Seeing as how software development tools are far less primitive than they were twenty years ago when these games came out, I don't understand how they can spend millions developing today's games. Except for the graphics I don't see any difference in today's games, except that they just aren't as fun.
If you don't like today's games, then why did you just write about a page on it? While I will admit that badly run publishers can kill great games by under budgeting or pushing the game out the door too soon, well-run publishers produce a lot of great games that people find to be fun. If you're not having fun anymore then I'm terribly sorry to hear that, but video games today have a larger audience than ever; do you honestly think people are buying these games out of charity to the companies? They're buying them because they are having fun with them; this isn't just due to the developers but also due to the publishers.
In a way the publisher being a parent is a fairly decent analogy, just not quite right; the publisher wants you to do well so that they can benefit. I'd say it's more equivalent to the relationship between a manager and another employee; good managers want you to do well so they can benefit as well to make them look good and get the work done. Much like a manager, a publisher that doesn't put any restraint on a developer and just lets them do whatever they please they put out crap like Too Human, if they put too much restraint on a developer they get an underfunded wreck of a game. Some developers already have the proper focus to create something great others don't just like human beings; good managers are there to help their employees just like good publishers. When publishers just let developers create in a "free" environment we've generally gotten shitty games; Too Human, that X-Box game series that died after the first game came out (can't remember the name of it off the top of my head), Daikatana and others are examples of what happens when developers don't have proper focus and are basically just given money.
As to what all the money goes to in development, an awful lot of it goes to paying employees; anyone who hasn't been sleeping under a rock for the past two decades or so knows that most development teams now encompass teams of dozens of highly talented people. The increase of personnel has largely been due to the fact that computer programming has grown even more complex (note that computer software has seen a similar increase) and that most games today have more content in them. More people creating means you need more office space and generally have more overhead etc etc. Finally, marketing has also become more necessary (though the costs have mostly stayed the same compared to inflation) and those fancy new tools for development cost money to make too.
If you really don't like publishers just put your money where your mouth is (and maybe you already have, given that you claim you don't play new games because they aren't as fun) and don't buy any games put out by a publisher. Or if (as you may have just realized) most games you can play today have a publisher, then don't buy from Activision, EA, Ubisoft, Sega, Nintendo, Sony or Microsoft as those are the biggest publishers in America right now. But those of you reading this aren't going to do that, are you? You'll bitch about publishers whenever they nix a game you think you may have liked or drop a series you like, but ultimately you'll still go out and buy the best games out there. For all the supposed evil of publishers, they're funding, shipping and advertising most (if not all of) your favorite games and game series; bitch whine and moan as much as you like but in capitalism your vote is your money and an awful lot of people are voting "yes" for publishers.
Bullshit. What was the last game you played that you really enjoyed that didn't have a publisher? What was the last game you played that was well known (by the public at large) that didn't have a publisher? Making a great game is good, but it doesn't pay the bills unless you can sell it to somebody.
You must be new to Slashdot, welcome! Just for future info, anything with a budget of more than $100 must be either a sinister plot to take away your rights or extremely dangerous here at Slashdot. Slashdot, where crazy hobos that like to hold signs hang out and chat!
Because that isn't accurate to a game's content?
Yeah, but it's pretty much impossible to know what that environment will be like BEFORE the game is released (which is when the ESRB rating is given).
You can play single player games in "offline" mode if you want with Steam.
Yes, but Steam is not a required service; even if you're a developer you have a ton of other options besides trying to "make your own water". Aside from Steam, you can distribute via brick and mortar stores and other online distributors. Granted, Steam is required to play Valve's games, but Valve has the right to do that with their own creations; if you don't like it, don't buy their games. Even if you put a game on Steam, you can put it on other services or brick and mortar stores.
Ironic, since EA owns Valve and most of its game releases are also available on Steam.
I believe Kanye West actually being a popular "musician" is the last sign of the apocalypse, there is only one solution, Kanye must die to avert the Battle of Armageddon before we are all consumed in hellfire! Kill the Kanye!! Oh, what we were talking about? Oh yeah, this guy is full of shit; brain size has very little to do with your intelligence, besides that, wouldn't it make more sense if the intelligence to cook food came first?
And yet, we try to "save" the pandas...has anyone considered that maybe this creature is supposed to die out?
Yeah, when I wasn't able to run the game at the lowest settings in the open beta when I beat the recommended settings by quite a bit, the reply was basically "yeah, this is a game guard problem", I was thinking that I wouldn't pick up Aion. No point in buying a game you can't run (when you beat the crap out of the requirements), but now I will probably pick it up.