Journal of tepples (727027)

Indie HTPC Games: The Rationale

[ 0 Comments | #202630 ]

Sunday May 11, @04:43PM

I'm very curious about your sig:

If PC gaming is dying, HTPC gaming can revive it.

Considering the HTPC itself doesn't seem to be gaining much traction these past couple years, and consoles have been encroaching (albeit very slowly) on the HTPC space, I'm interested to hear what your view on the topic is.

There are two kinds of real-time multiplayer video game. Some games require one machine and screen for each player; these are historically associated with personal computers controlled by a keyboard and mouse, connected in either a local-area network or through the Internet. Other games allow multiple players to share a screen. Incidentally, this can be done without splitting the screen, as seen in Midway's Gauntlet, Konami's Bomberman series and Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (arcade), and Nintendo's Super Smash Bros. series. These traditionally run on arcade cabinets or on video game consoles with multiple gamepads. The historical reasons for this platform divide include the difficulty in connecting multiple gamepads and the difficulty in fitting four players' bodies around one 14- to 17-inch monitor.

But in the late 1990s, the line began to blur. At first, only consoles had hubs called "multitaps" to connect four gamepads to one machine, but starting with the popularization of USB in 1998, the PC has also had hubs that take multiple gamepads. In the early 2000s, more and more PCs have included composite and S-video outputs for a standard-definition television, and high-definintion televisions have included VGA-style video inputs, solving the screen problem. The rise of home theater PCs has led to demand for multiplayer games designed to fit an HTPC.

Yet even in 2008, this demand has not been met, and the stigma of one PC per player remains. A minority of PC titles, such as Serious Sam, Lego Star Wars, and Midway Arcade Treasures, allow two players on one screen, but not much more. Even cross-platform games whose console version works with more than one gamepad tend to need one PC per player. The landscape of HTPC gaming is so barren that some people have recommended loading up an HTPC with emulators to run unauthorized copies of console game ROMs.

Much innovation in software comes from microISVs, or small businesses that develop software and distribute it on the Internet. These are often home-based businesses and in some cases are run more as a hobby or moonlighting enterprise than as a profit-seeking day job. Some microISVs make their money by developing proprietary software, distributing a trial version at no charge, and selling copies of a version with more features. Others, especially developers of free software, just take donations and advertisements. But the console makers have consistently excluded microISVs from the market. For example, from Nintendo's developer qualifications for Wii and WiiWare: "In addition, an Authorized Developer will have a stable business organization with secure office facilities separate from a personal residence ( Home offices do not meet this requirement )".

Imagine that the head of a microISV has written a design document for a video game intended for two to six people in one room looking at one screen. His team has developed a playable prototype that runs on Windows. For which platform should he and the rest of his team develop and market the final version?

[ Reply to This ] -- Keep it civil!

Threading, Digressions, and Offtopic Moderations

[ 0 Comments | #189481 ]

Tuesday December 04, @12:37PM

In this comment, sethawoolley wrote:

if you don't like somebody's reply to an offtopic/hijacking/flamebait post, the best thing to do is to rate it "overrated", that way it doesn't go into moderation as an offtopic post, because, well, it was on the hijacked topic. That's the beauty of threading, isn't it -- topics can change.

Overrated simply means, relative to its current score, it's not something somebody browsing at what it's currently scored at would expect.

I "think" that's what the offtopic moderator wanted to say. Or they just got confused because my reply showed up underneath another topic such that the only way you can tell it's really a reply to a different topic was that there were double angle-lines that are easy to miss.

Tip 1: Be sure to quote the parts of the comment you're replying to. Quote multiple levels to recap the discussion from to your post if you feel it necessary.

Tip 2: If a comment is far enough off topic, and you can't tie it back to the article somehow, put it in your journal. Then, under the original comment, reply "See my journal" without bonus so that it at least shows up in the other user's messages.pl.

Noddy and Mr. Miyamoto?

[ #152554 ]

Sunday November 19 2006, @01:31AM

Tonight, Nintendo's new video game console enters the hands of the obsessive-compulsive Americans who have queued up for over 12 hours. I am not one of them. So to pass the time, I put "Wii" into Google image search. Twice. But one result disturbed me (see image): Why is Noddy with Shigeru Miyamoto?

Blyton will probably take me to court for this given an incident from 1999 where I compared Noddy (pics) to Pinocchio (article) on a web page and got a cease-and-desist.

Bayesian Filtering: Is It Doomed?

[ 7 Comments | #142369 ]

Monday August 21 2006, @05:29PM

Bayesian text classification is a statistical method of determining the probability that a message is in a given category. It works by making a database of how often each word occurs in messages from a corpus that are or aren't in the category, looking up this probability for each word in a given new message, and then using Bayes' theorem on the probabilities to predict how likely the message is to be in the category.

When applied to the corpus "e-mail" and the category "unsolicited bulk e-mail", the method is called Bayesian spam filtering. For example, words such as "Viagra", "mortgage", "Rolex", "Nigeria", and the like are likely to occur in spam, but some other words are more likely not to occur in spam. Many e-mail service providers applied Bayesian filtering to their customers' incoming e-mail and moved likely spam into a separate folder. This worked ... for a while.

After several months, spammers discovered ingenious techniques to defeat filters. First they disguised the operative words by "creatively" spelling them, Some spammers just misspelled key words: "Ciallis", "mortagee". Others randomly replaced letters with near-homoglyphs from l33tsp34k or from foreign languages: "Viagra" became "Wla9ra" or "\/ 1 A G R @", or "porno" might use a Greek omicron or Cyrillic o or replace the 'p' with the Greek rho or Cyrillic er, both of which look like a Latin 'p'. Anti-spam filters eventually began to check for such techniques and flag them specifically.

Later, spammers attacked the method by using innocuous words in e-mail in order to fool the filter into thinking that a message is not spam. First they used random sequences of letters. Filters blocked words with too many consonants for the target language. Then they used random dictionary words. Filters blocked too many long words in a row. Then they used sentences from literature, as seen in so-called Gutenberg spam and Hobbit spam. These techniques are intended to increase the spam probability of innocuous words, introducing noise into the database and causing the filter to misclassify messages.

However, not all people have the same words marked as not-spam. For instance, people on a constructed language mailing list are more likely to have linguistic jargon marked as not-spam, while people on a video game mailing list may have video game terminology marked as not-spam. Thus, a spammer could collect addresses from a newsgroup, a public web board, a public mailing list, or the contact page of a public web site, and associate each address with words that appear on the same page as the address. How will Bayesian filters block this? Can it be blocked at all?