Two Brief Plugs: Good Old Games and Mega Man 9

July 25th, 2008

I have two brief plugs for people and products:

1) Good Old Games (http://www.gog.com/)

They will eventually sell you really old games, which will work without hassle on your Windows system for cheap. Like $5 cheap. At that rate, you want to pick up games. $5 isn’t nearly the level of ‘I can’t buy that’ as $50.

2) Mega Man 9

Google for that and you shall find out: retro-style mega man 9 is coming, complete with 8-bit graphics. Mega Man has always been one of my favorite series, and now I can get it in a format that reminded me why I loved it: the 8-bit graphical bling.

From the Mind of a Newly Minted 3 Year Old

July 11th, 2008

Ruth: When you blow out the candles on your birthday cake, what are you going to wish for?
Erin: More cake.

I’m Back

June 27th, 2008

The cookingxp blog is back, now hosted by Laughing Squid.

DRM Updating Old Games

May 7th, 2008

I read Seamus Young’s blog post about the copy protection on Mass Effect and Spore. This is outrageous. I looked into the BioWare forums concerning this. The Technical Producer, Derec French, has this to say about being locked out of the game if the activation servers are taken down:

Theoretically. But this is not a rational activity that is being planned for. No one is doing this, no one is talking about this.

[If the activation servers went offline] Then we would release an update that removes this.

While I appreciate Derek’s statement and believe that he thinks that would be the case, what makes him so sure?

Let’s take a scenario a number of years in the future. EA wants to turn the activation servers off. The game has been out a number of years, and it’s sales have slowed down to a trickle. They have many more new and hot products coming out. As a business decision, the equation comes out to cost of producing the patch to turn the activation off vs. the goodwill they lose from customers unable to play their old game.

Factor 1: Time and effort to produce the patch.

If the patch has been produced and kept updated since release, in case it’s needed, this decision is simple. Put it up.

If not, it needs to be assigned to a programmer and possibly a tester, documentation et al. The programmer probably didn’t work on it originally (not in the company at the time, or the people who originally worked on it are on other projects / left / don’t have the time). Figure out how to create the patch, and what’s needed to make it work with the new hardware and the like probably sucks up a couple of weeks of time. Let’s low-ball it and say that the patch costs $5000 to create and deploy (programmer time, tester time, creating an installer, and so on).

Also, you’re aware that people have cracked the DRM, and that the user-created patch can be downloaded for free and doesn’t cost any developer time.

Factor 2: Customer annoyance and loyalty problems

These are probably estimated at less than $5000, despite the actual costs in customer mistrust. Also, you already have their money.

Now, let’s look at company responses with similar situations, where they could have produced a patch. I’m aware of:

Major league baseball - they didn’t release any program to enable you to play their videos
PlaysForSure (Microsoft) - also didn’t release a utility.
BioShock - as far as I have heard, they did release a patch disabling the DRM

So, the track record on similar situations: not looking good. The last case I’m not sure on, and might just be wishful thinking on my part.

I think that in the end, if EA removes the activation servers, it won’t be considered as bring worth the time and money, unless there’s already something on hand that they can throw up there. Also EA’s reputation is mud, both as an employer and as a company that respects it’s consumers. How much more face do they have to lose?

It’s clear that in past cases like this, customers have been considered useless and not worth spending time to satisfy once they’ve been milked of their money. The company has already profited, and getting a refund is nearly impossible.

Programming to Eat

May 6th, 2008

m3mnoch has a blog post about music being performance. He argues that music is and traditionally has been about performances. CDs and the like are and should be promotion material.

I, like m3mnoch, am a programmer. Functionally, this means I spend time taking what’s in my head and putting it down in code so that my company survives. The question becomes, how do I get enough money to pay the bills? To answer that question, I’m going to step back to quickly review a couple of models that people make money with.

The first way to make money is to directly exchange your time for money, in exchange for providing a service. This is the way we interact with many people: carpenters, electricians, and appliance-repair people. It’s also the way people and corporations interact with computer consultants. Musicians have performances - you’re attending the concert, and the musicians are counting on the fact that there are a lot of audience members. Enough work has to come your way and you have to charge enough for it to make a living.

The second way to make money is to create a widget. It’s the method that goes on when you buy something like a can of Coke, an appliance, or a B-22 bomber. You produce something and then charge money when someone buys the item. The key here that differentiates it from services is that no matter how much time you took to create it, your widget usually has the same value. If someone took different amounts of time to create two instances of a product, the product still (usually) has the same price.

Where does that leave someone like us who creates a program who’s value as a product is large, but value as a service is small? Most of our time and energy is spent creating the widget - the software to sell. If we give it away for free, we can’t eat. Unless your software is really complicated, you’ll have a hard time building a service model around it. In order to make money, you sell all or part of the widgit.

Here’s a brief summary of the models used by different software products. I’ll separate some of these into client/server models, because there’s a lot of software that works that way, from MMOs on down.

# Just Pay For It - You pay a fixed price for it. This is used by most games, and software such as Windows, Word, etc. You make money off of sales of the product. The model here is that you make a widget and then people pay for it.
# Free for non-commercial use, otherwise pay - this is used by some open source software products such as MySQL. In MySQL’s case, it’s done through licensing. MySQL has a commercial licensed version under the LGPL (which allows commercial companies to use it) and a free version under the GPL. In MySQL’s case, they both charge for the product and charge for service (support and the like).
# Client/Server, both not free (server is usually controlled by the company) - this is a specialized case of Just Pay For It. It’s what many MMOs use; you pay for the product, and then pay again for enhancements to the product and server maintenance (service)
# Client/Server, with the client free - the same as client/server above, but you’re not paying for the initial product, only for enhancements and maintenance (service)
# Client/Server, with both the client and the server free - this can get money in a few ways, and is highly dependent on building a solid community before everything is free. Survival is usually based on advertising or microtransactions. However, there’s nothing here to prevent people from starting their own server and competing with you - nothing but the community you’ve built. Build a strong community, and you will still make enough money to continue to enhance the product and survive. Fall below a critical threshold, and you’ll lose money (and thus the ability to continue working on it with any frequency) because you’ll be eaten by competitors making your product better than you do.

To summarize the above, you have to control at least some of what you do to be able to survive. You can build the widgit and distribute it, charging for it. You can charge for service and enhancements (with enhancements being a service, and occasionally a widgit). You can also control the community, and compensate for giving your software away by having so many customers funneled through your channel into the service that you make money that way.

To stray back to the main topic, how does that differ from CDs that musicians put out? Sometimes they’re promotional items, sometimes they are charged for. However, musicians have performances. Only a small amount of software is not just a product - a pure widget. However, it’s just as easily duplicable.

Does that leave us with service-based software as the only option? Will software-as-a-product only survive because some of it is crucial to work (or school)? One thing is for certain: if you’re depending upon sales of your software to be able to eat, you have to charge for it, no matter how easily it can be duplicated. If you only sell the widget, and the widget is free, you won’t get enough money to be able to eat.

Unused topics:

Open source server version fragmenting (no clear control)
VCs - proving that you have a viable plan to make money is essential.

Weekend

April 20th, 2008

Running, running everywhere
Ping pong ball, never stopping
Gee, it’s Sunday night.

Eschalon Book I - Cartography

April 6th, 2008

Cartography in Eschalon: Book I is one of the best game atoms. Last night I found a book that raised my cartography by two points, from six to eight. Cartography in the game is used to construct the minimap that takes up over 1/4 of the display area. It’s a significant chunk of display area, and it’s always visible.

The effects of bringing Cartography up the two points was immediate and significant. The area that I was mapping suddenly rendered as I re-walked the path in brown (the color of the terrain) instead of a generic green. The water and other features changed likewise.

What makes it such a great and addicting game atom?

1) Changing the skill level has an immediate and visible effect - when I found a book that raised my sword skill considerably, it wasn’t as exciting.
2) By revealing or re-mapping the small area that I walk at a time, the game encourages me to re-map everywhere I’ve been.
3) Having a better map is useful - you’re not just upgrading the skill for the aesthetics.
4) The rewards of having the better skill are continuous. I’m seeing the benefit nearly everywhere I go.

The most important of these, in my experience, is that the change is immediate, and the benefits that you see are continuous.

Cat

April 6th, 2008

Picture a cat,
Pink, meowing
Strange,
Nearly hairless
Nimble, lively
Mroww? Looking up
The head,
Long fur
Golden, gleaming
I can has pasta?

Free to use vs open source

April 6th, 2008

Here’s a quick note on when something that is “free to use” like GMail vs. something that is truly open source should matter to you. This will also contain a short digression on actual benefits that can be had from having something be developed by a company.

Let’s first look at what the critical difference is between something like GMail, which is free to use vs. something that is open source. The critical difference is that an open source project gives you the source code. Let me reiterate: it gives you the source code.

What are the criteria that have to be met for this to matter to you? You have to understand the source code, and want to modify it. Therefore, you or someone you know must:

1. Be a programmer
2. Understand the language the program is written in
3. Have a need that is so far off the beaten path, or a bug that needs fixing, that is so critical that you want to change it.
4. Have enough time free to:
a. Understand what the existing code is doing
b. Understand how to change it to do what you want it to do
c. The change itself, and debugging thereof
d. Making sure that your change didn’t do any damage (or at least any damage that you care about).

So: what’s your change? How does it differ from what’s already in the product? Why is it worth investing all of this time (either on your behalf, or your company’s behalf)? Is it worth doing that instead of finding and using a workaround?

Suppose that you change it, and it’s not significant enough for the project maintainers to agree to add it. How do you maintain your change throughout product upgrades (or do you disallow upgrades of the product)? How do you distribute your specialized version internally?

It takes a lot of time, dedication, and effort to make a change to an open source project.

The practical difference is that one cannot be changed by you, and another required a very high amount of effort to be changed.

Do you meet the criteria for needing to be able to edit the source code? If not, why get into a holy war about the differences?

PS:

I was looking at the site the to 50 proprietary programs and their open source alternatives when I noticed a strange comparison. They’re comparing Authorize.net to OpenSSL. That’s an absolutely ridiculous comparison. I’ve used Authorize.net for business purposes in my previous job. It handles credit card charges, chargebacks, authenticating credit cards, and on and on it goes. To say that OpenSSL does the same thing is saying that a fully built house is the same thing as a description saying “houses are made of wood and nails”. Which one is more functional? More to the point, which one am I going to run my business on? Am I going to go in the house when it starts raining, or start trying to build a ramshackle shack with the wood and nails?

World Public Opion: Should the government listen to us?

March 21st, 2008

There is an interesting survey done by the people at World Public Opinion:

http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/home_page/461.php

One interesting question is: should the public have influence at times other than elections? 5% of the people said no, that they should only have influence during elections. What was running through their minds?

Also, the sample size in the study seems a bit suspicious to me. This is a survey of under 1000 Americans. How did they survey them and where? Why not get a bigger number, like 10,000 people or so?

How can you derive much meaningful data from 1000 people in a country the size of ours?