I won't be getting Vista.
After the huge virus fiasco last year (which caused my Windows computer to die a painful death, despite two anti-virus programs, various anti-spyware programs, a firewall, a NAT router, all the latest security patches installed, and every unused port disabled), I switched to Linux and am quite happy with it. Every Windows app I need runs fine under Crossover Office. In a few days, I'll be packing up my Windows XP laptop and putting it in the closet. My primary computer (from which I run my business) operates exclusively on Kubuntu 6.10 now.
When I need to build and test my next game on Windows, I'll just pull my XP laptop out of the closet for a few days.
As for Vista testing, I know plenty of people who have tested for me in the past who will be getting Vista pre-installed on new computers this year. They'll let me know if there are any issues with my games, and I can test fixes on their boxes. So I see no reason to buy Vista. I'll do just fine without it.
I don't know why people are shocked to read about vista's DRM problems.
Hasn't Microsoft been promoting that for years? XP already had a lot of crap like that.
Thought this comic was incredibly appropriate for this thread.
Hahaha! Great comic! Thanks for sharing!
I got is as part of my MSDN sub.. I'm installing it on a dual boot with xp on my new system "monster".
I'm using it for dx10 shader research (gs stuff), so I need it available), I just slammed it on a spare 320gig drive I had so I could boot it for dev work and compat testing.
I think no matter what you do, if youre doing games professionally, you have to do compat testing on your main target OS's and vista is no exception.
Not that I'm in the least bit interested in it as an OS.
www.mindflock.com - social AI-based games
Seems to me that every developer has to get it, for compatibility issues with your games....
Retro64 Computer Games
Half the reason I chose to work with Blitz in the first place was that this kind of low-level compatability testing largely becomes somebody else's problem.
I'll be buying a new PC next month, with vista pre-installed. I'm quite looking forward to it. I remember keeping win98 after win 2000 had become popular, and when I upgraded it was like a breath of fresh air, no system wide crashes, no freezes, much much better to develop on. Then, I was the only one in the office who kept win2k and didn't go to XP, eventually, when I did, a year later, I was similarly impressed with how much more stable and it was.
I won't delay this time, I don't see the point. The new hardware will have drivers optimised for the new O/S. games will be written to use the new O/S.
I'm certainly not bothered by any DRM it might have in it. Any minor inconvenience it would cause me (I'm not aware that it will prevent me listening to music from a CD, or existing mp3s) is outweighed by the bonus (from my POV) of any system which encourages people to purchase legal content. I know many people hate DRM with a passion, but it has become pretty essential, unless we want to dismantle the entire entertainment industry. Did anyone really think the biggest O/S maker in the world would not enforce stricter DRM?
Did you read the article?
Frankly I would say that dismantling the entire entertainment industry (not that this would actually happen) would be preferable to the brave new world invisioned by DRM perpetrators. It really isn't so much about preventing piracy as it is about making sure that all your entertainment continues to be filtered through the same old companies even though it no longer needs to be (and Microsoft-built DRM essentially gives Microsoft the keys to the whole works, since they could revoke your software's permission to run at any time).
A far bigger threat to the entertainment industry than the supposed doomsday of rampant piracy is free access to the public domain, and free content created by ordinary people. What these companies are really trying to prevent with these draconian DRM measures is people getting hooked on watching home movies on youtube and listening to homemade music, instead of corporate-owned products. It could also potentially be the beginning of the end of the PC as an open platform.
However, it is surely a losing battle and market forces will eventually prevail, I hope. I think everyone here is in favour of being able to publish and distribute your own creative output, yes?
I want to publish it and distribute it, but I also want to pay my bills.
Are you saying that I won't be able to sell my games to run on windows Vista without permission from Microsoft? I already have some users running vista, so I know this is not the case.
The Big Boys dont like the idea that they may not matter in the future, and they will spend millions to stop that from becoming a reality. Thats the way its been heading for sometime now. Along with what internet2 are going to take away with QoS, what will we have left?Originally Posted by Anthony Flack
Save the Internet
Just wanted to say that I agree.. that is their problem.. millions of people were watching the Numa Numa dance instead of new video from BritneyA far bigger threat to the entertainment industry than the supposed doomsday of rampant piracy is free access to the public domain, *and free content created by ordinary people*.
I never quite seen it in clear if net neutrality threat is an inside USA thing or it is international risk? By looking at some videos it seems it is USA only, but it is never mentioned.The Big Boys dont like the idea that they may not matter in the future, and they will spend millions to stop that from becoming a reality. Thats the way its been heading for sometime now.
I think that if you made it clear that only USA will have this capitali-filter over the net and with this rare fenomenon join rare non-democratic countries like china, and likes people in US would react stronger.
That's what trusted computing is all about, isn't it? The ability to stop your software from running, if they decide it oughtn't. I'm not saying that you won't be able to sell your games without explicit permission. I'm saying that if they do decide to require permission, then permission you will have to get. They could make it conditional on anything they want. They could decide you have to pay a percentage of royalties. Why not?Are you saying that I won't be able to sell my games to run on windows Vista without permission from Microsoft? I already have some users running vista, so I know this is not the case.
Simply put, I don't trust any of these companies with that sort of power, and I don't see why consumers should have to surrender this power either. Consumers are the ones paying for it all in the end, and no consumer actually wants any of this stuff. Nobody wants to be told their hi-def TV or HD-DVD player won't work because of some dickery with the DRM.
I know that the digital age and the internet changes the way we think about intellectual property and creates a fair few challenges - but we have never before had a situation where companies have had the ability to unrelease things. Stop things from working. Make previously available things simply disappear. Personally, I find that pretty scary and I can't help but think it is in preparation for a massive act of vandalism; a cultural purge... or at least an attempt.
Because, as I say, the mainstream entertainment industry is under serious threat from both sides - homebrew entertainment on one hand, and the huge and ever-growing back-catalogue of old work on the other. Heck, we can see it in the games industry clearer than anything. I have access to literally thousands of old games for pennies apiece, and the ones from more recent years aren't really much different from the new ones either. Wouldn't the mainstream industry love to conveniently make all that disappear?
You all sound like a bunch of stodgy old developers who are far too stuck in your ways. I see a new Microsoft OS, new Office release and soon a new Visual Studio release as a great new opportunity to differentiate ourselves using the latest and greatest tools and features that our customers want. Call them bells and whistles, say it's just eye candy, complain about market share, but the consumers I want are the ones who go out and buy new OS's, new computers, and new games.. and they want a game experience to match.
I'll take off my devil's advocate hat now.
DRM is inevitable. It doesn't have to be evil DRM. There's nothing evil about me not being able to just copy a DVD for a friend. I understand entirely why DRM is used, and why Microsoft want to ensure it can't easily be circumvented. I worked for 3 years on a triple A game that cost millions. I can surf some forums and see people taking that 3 years of work for free right now. That is just not sustainable. Basic trivial economics shows that. Of course we will get locked-down DRM, even if it costs tens of millions of dollars to make it work. The alternative is to give up commercial entertainment entirely.
I simply don't believe that. Hell, I have a fat broadband account right here, and the knowledge to put it to use. But I don't pirate games, and it isn't for moral reasons - it's just that who could be bothered? I have plenty of money, and if I really like the look of something I'll buy it and get it in a nice box rather than mess around with some pirated junk. Much more significant is the fact that I usually won't bother because I already have so many games. If I like something enough to actually want it, then I like it enough to buy an original copy. An explosion of choice is a far bigger threat to the market than piracy is. I can buy original Dreamcast games for about the price of a blank CD these days.The alternative is to give up commercial entertainment entirely.
What if it's a DVD you made yourself, and you find you still can't copy it, or your friend can't play it back? What if it's simply a DVD that you bought but, for one reason or another, wasn't approved, or you're in the wrong region or whatever? What if your expensive new TV and expensive new player simply won't work together, because you have the wrong cable or were unlucky enough to choose the wrong combination of machines? Expect to hear a lot more of these stories in the near future.There's nothing evil about me not being able to just copy a DVD for a friend.
Now, as for the doomsday piracy scenario - consider the music model of DRM. The music industry resisted downloads for far too long, and then when it finally did get its act together, the downloads were too expensive and too bodged full of crippling DRM. Now the word is that DRM is effectively dead for music, or at least soon will be, and people are starting to look at what that actually means in practical terms. One of the proposals that is gaining some momentum is that internet users pay a yearly fee, like a TV licence, that would give them unlimited access to downloadable songs for personal use. The fee would then be distributed among artists. One way or another, a new way of doing business will emerge. You can't beat back progress forever.
The broadband future really needn't be so scary. Who cares about copying DVDs anyway? The near future belongs to streaming, micropayments and content on demand. And the features that consumers will be sold on are speed and convenience. Who has got time to fish around in dodgy warez sites all day looking for downloads, risking exposure to trojans and wasting time? Only poor scavenging teenagers.
I also predict that there will still be demand for premium content provided in a nice box, too.
If you levy your music tax in the US or Australia, do I still get free downloads in the UK? It's totally unworkable. What about people who hate music, or for that matter, deaf people.
Would you like this to be applied to games too? who will do the distribution of money anyway? some totally corrupt international panel that would be so far in the pocket of EA and Sony that you would be right back where you started.
If you want to be 'anti-DRM', then by all means, use linux. There is no law that FORCES you to buy windows, or to buy anything for that matter. Just go without it.
No, it would be a national scheme. It means that anyone in that particular country would have access to unlimited music streaming. Yes, some people will complain that they don't download music or whatever, but that's taxation for you. Personally, I only listen to vinyl records these days.If you levy your music tax in the US or Australia, do I still get free downloads in the UK? It's totally unworkable.
But this isn't a "hey wouldn't it be good" proposition. This is a suggestion based on the fact that people will, are, and fully intend to continue to download and share music, and aren't interested in paying $1 per track for the privilege, don't want tracks that "expire" after 3 listens or whatever, and if the music corporations don't like that, then they will go elsewhere. It is a practical suggestion for dealing with how the world actually is. And it's not the first time something like this has been proposed. Did you know that if you go and drink in a bar, a little bit of your beer money will be used to cover royalties on music that is "publicly performed" in that bar?
There are plenty of artists and record labels that are happy to offer DRM-free content. Interestingly, Apple continues to DRM-encrypt all iTunes music, even against the explicit wishes of artists and publishers. They aren't doing it to protect artist rights, you see. They're doing it because it lets them lock the content to their hardware. The people who control the DRM control both the artists and the consumers.
As for games, well, as I say I think that convenience will be the deciding factor in the end as long as the games aren't overpriced. We'll probably see more web-based stuff in future, more pay-as-you-go stuff, but there will always be people who want a nice box, and there will always be people like me who will be quite happy to pay money for a simple straightforward transaction rather than fishing around with dodgy warez. There is opportunity cost in getting warezed games and the user experience is often less than ideal. As long as the legitimate game isn't too expensive - and doesn't do anything to make the user wish they had a pirate copy instead - I don't think we'll see widespread migration to the warez channels. Those who would warez already are. But usually getting a proper job is the thing that changes their minds... it's a time vs money thing.
The main problem with games, I think is that there are so many now; it's easy to blame piracy for declining sales but I think the truth of the matter is we are spoiled for choice these days and people are much more easily bored. And I think this is the biggest challenge of the internet age - content overload. Even so, a successful game will still make huge amounts of money - more than ever, in fact.
Needless to say, switching to Linux will not make the slightest bit of difference to any of this, as these are trends that are shaping the whole industry regardless of what an individual person might choose to do.
Last edited by Anthony Flack; 01-29-2007 at 06:08 AM.
The free market gives us two vital things:
1)It rewards people who produce content, enabling them to produce more.
2)It sets up a series of signals and incentives to encourage people to produce more X (where X is good) and less Y (where Y sucks).
Doing away with 2) would be disastrous. If we did that to video games, we would get a lot of games that hardcore game developers wanted to make and nothing that anyone who actually just plays them wanted to play.
When people pirate content or use some system as you describe, they bypass the signal to the developer entirely. Every geek who got a pirated copy of firefly just put another nail in the coffin of that series. That's what happens when content is distributed free and the signals don't make it back to the content producer.
DRM is ensuring that for everyone who liked firefly enough to own it, the content provider was rewarded, and incentives were produced to create similar content. *this is a good thing*.
I don't understand why some people are more annoyed about DRM than they are about global poverty, terrorism, the environment and the trashing of civil rights, guantanomo style. Get some perspective, the world won't end because
you can't make a copy of your frasier DVDs .
And DRM is definitely NOT ensuring that the content provider was rewarded for everyone who wanted to own it. It is trivial to make a lots of illegal copies of a DVD and sell it. You simply copy bit for bit, including the DRM parts. Now you have a perfect copy of a DVD that works in regular DVD players, can be sold at a price that is much cheaper than you can find legally, and if someone purchases it, knowingly or not, the original content provider has no signal and no reward.
Unless, of course, you mean that the "content provider" can also include those who sell illegal copies of DVDs. They're making out like the bandits they are.
All DRM is doing in this case is making it tougher for me to legally play my legally purchased DVDs on my open-source-based OS, which as far as I know is still legal to have. It's a felony to play my DVDs on my GNU/Linux machine because of the DMCA.
Is this also a good thing?
I don't agree with the levy either. My old university instituted just such a policy after the RIAA sent letters asking for the names of people using computers at certain IP addresses. Basically, the university caved, and as far as I know it is still paying a fee every year to allow the students to download all the music they want without worry about legal challenges. Not that they advertise this fact to the students, of course. The fee comes out of some part of the tuition and/or fees that students are paying.
If DRM is inevitable, then count me out. I'll stick with the unencumbered media as much as I can. My computer doesn't need to spend most of its processing power preventing me from potentially doing something that the media companies don't want me to do. I'll keep my money instead of allowing it to be invested in infrastructure designed to keep "consumers" obedient.
If it means that I can't play a lot of great games, it's not my fault that the creators decided that they can't trust me. They clearly don't need me as a customer.
What's so special about music formats that everyone thinks that suddenly all the companies have to go against the fundamental principles of competition and work collectively all of a sudden?
That's not how capitalism works. And to think people were saying that I'm the one not "dealing with the world the way it is". Newsflash: Companies want to keep their customers.
It IS, however, illegal in some cases for me to even have the means to take my purchased digital media and convert it to another format. Someone made it possible to watch DVDs on my GNU/Linux system; unfortunately, the law says that I still can't do it.
No one expects the media companies and the technology companies to "go against the principles of competition"; however, there shouldn't be a legal barrier that prevents me from trying or allowing someone to create their own business providing the service for me.
How does turning me into a criminal just because I want to watch DVDs on my own OS help anyone? What incentive do I have to keep purchasing DVDs?
As for music, if I want to take my entire CD collection, convert it to OGG or MP3 or some other format, and save the entire contents onto my hard drive, I should be able to do so. I have the technical means to do so, but the law says I can't always do so. When music CDs break computers because they implement some so-called DRM that prevents the CDROM from working correctly or install rootkits, THAT should be a felony. Instead, it is a felony to just own the means to protect your computer from such problems.
The free market seems to work best when companies don't cooperate to enforce things like DRM on "consumers". If companies want to keep their customers, they shouldn't do things to push us away.
Don't get me wrong, I absolutely agree that DRM should not be quietly installing rootkits, it should not be used to place artificial limitations on format shifting, or doing anything intrusive. I find the practices of most companies like Sony etc to be totally unacceptable. it bugs me to hell to not be able to skip a copyright warning or ads on a DVD. I fully support my customers right to format shift, insofar as I freely provide mac versions to PC customers and vice versa.
The big problem is a technical one. If we make it possible for DRM to be circumvented to allow you to format shift and run files on an O/S which is does not support DRM, then it is technically very hard, if not impossible to prevent piracy.
If there was a technical solution that allowed us to create files that prevented unauthorised copying, but could be backed up by an individual and freely format shifted, that would be fantastic, and I'm sure it would be widely used. Right now, we don't have that solution, and the companies who are affected by piracy are panicking and trying to stop the floodgates. I don't think they are handling the PR very well at all (to put it mildly) but I'm not surprised or outraged that they are doing it.
I really don't think that the motives of the industry are always as evil as they are made out to be, Sure, there are some mad nutcases that want to charge you royalties if you hum a tune in a public place, but these are the exceptions (and the ones that slashdot etc love to get excitable about). Most companies are just trying to ensure they aren't producing products that are freely taken by everyone without being paid for.
If you aren't, then that's not full support of format shifting.
If you are, I'm sure you would agree that not everyone is so accommodating.
The DMCA gets thrown in the face of a lot of such efforts. It's not a technical issue that prevented Red Hat from providing DVD playback out of the box when they supported desktop Red Hat Linux installations. It was an arbitrary legal one.
Yet somehow the general software industry is alive and well.The big problem is a technical one. If we make it possible for DRM to be circumvented to allow you to format shift and run files on an O/S which is does not support DRM, then it is technically very hard, if not impossible to prevent piracy.
I don't need shackles to prevent me from touching boiling water on a stove. You don't have to install filters to prevent "unsanctioned" audio from getting to my ears. I don't need to keep training wheels on my bike to prevent it from falling over when I ride it. Similarly, I don't need my computer tasked with the supposed purpose of preventing copyright infringement when I am perfectly capable of being a good copyright citizen on my own.
What you are advocating is that the media providers should have the ability to do whatever they deem necessary with MY computing resources to verify that they still have control over their media.
You can't tell me that MY media, the stuff I created MYSELF, will be safe from their software. I've already heard of horror stories of artists and composers who have lost access to their own work because the DRM on their computer only allowed X number of views/plays before disabling it.
I also don't like the idea that I may have paid for access to their media and one day find that I no longer have access to such media because my computer wouldn't let me.
Motives? I don't have to think that they are doing things for the sake of being evil. I think that I will be upset at the fact that their efforts a copyright protection are encroaching on my domain. My hardware, my software, my property, my legal rights.I really don't think that the motives of the industry are always as evil as they are made out to be, Most companies are just trying to ensure they aren't producing products that are freely taken by everyone without being paid for.
If a police officer shot at a criminal in a high speed chase, and the bullet hit a child, I am sure the parents of that child wouldn't simply accept it. "Oh, but the police officer wasn't being evil. He was just trying to shoot that criminal."
"Oh, well then. That's different. This whole time I thought he was really trying to get my daughter. My mistake. Keep up the good work."
It's a contrived argument, but I am not sure what you are trying to say other than, "Hey, it's happening. Deal with it. It sucks, and I know it sucks, but deal with it, because it is the only way that they can prevent piracy."
As I said, you can make bit-for-bit copies of DVDs that can be sold with the customer not even knowing that they had purchased an illegal copy. It doesn't sound like the kind of thing that my computer would be able to differentiate, either.
DRM uses a LOT of computing resources. It puts obstacles and hassles in front of legitimate customers while doing nothing to stop criminals from making mass quantities of illegal copies of whatever media we're talking about. With DRM, I am now dependent on the media provider allowing me to do things that would otherwise be considered morally and usually legally fine if the DMCA didn't exist.
Apparently I am supposed to just sit back and relax in a world where someone else controls how I can use my computer.
Crippleware? No, it's Digital Rights Management, here to ensure that you, the user, are not being a criminal in your own home.
Seriously, why am I supposed to be ok with this? Am I supposed to accept the argument that I am not allowed to play certain video games on a laptop that has no CDROM? I ask because I have had to use No-CD cracks before to play games I purchased on my Vaio laptop when I had one. Talking about this on gamedev.net might get me banned because they have a zero tolerance policy. Is that the kind of world I am supposed to just deal with?
who is forcing you to buy any of this?
if you don't want to buy a DRM DVD, just keep your money. problem solved.
No I'm not OK with people reverse engineering my games. My games are available on 2 platforms. I don't support linux. If people want to run my games, they need a window PC or a Mac. I don't feel bad about that. My games don't claim to be available for linux. If someone buys my games and then complains they can't run them under linux, I'd just laugh. They can't run them on their ipod or phone either. Don't use an O/S that makes up 1% of the market, then complain that not everything runs on it.
Harry Potter probably isn't available in ballet form yet. Do you think if you 'format shift' it to ballet, that you should not pay a licence fee to stage the hogwarts ballet?
It's your move in chess anyway
And so that I'm not completely off-topic: I'll upgrade to Vista when I'm forced to by game and software requirements. I'll probably end up going with the Home Premium edition, as I don't see any features in the higher versions that would benefit me much.