> Today, production of Portland cement accounts for seven percent of damaging carbon dioxide emissions annually.

@JosephWeissman A funny take on L'Enfer, c'est les autres: Using data from your FourSquare account, the web app will monitor recent check-ins of your "friends" and calculate a position where you're almost guaranteed to avoid them entirely.

I love it!

The first word I thought of was: "ideal"

So do I.

Hehe.

@Cerberus Look, I'm not closing something!

@JosephWeissman Of course the paradox is that you would have to participate in a Big-Brother social network yourself to profit from it.

I'm sure there is a better word than paradox for that.

@simchona Well done! I'm so proud. Prudie would approve.

@simchona Hey, the comments disappeared?

@Cerberus It was causing people to flag the question. I deleted them because it I thought the people involved had kind of gotten the point.

I can leave mine, though.

Is there a policy on deleting comments?

Mine is that if the conversation is essentially obsolete, it goes

Also, the tone of the comments was rather brusque

But now other people might come up with the same comments.

I left a comment there

+1

@Cerberus I don't see how not porting a game to a different platform is some kind of vendor lock in. Are you claiming that vendors should be required to support multiple platforms? There are tons of programs that only work on Windows. Is that "vendor lock in" from Microsoft? It's just a simple reality of the way computers work. Sometimes a particular program drives sales of its platform. Sometimes it's vice versa. The console market is no different from every other computer market.

Furthermore every subsequent release of a platform is usually incompatible with each previous release and every other platform. Yet that never seems to hamper sales one bit. Customers obviously don't care that much.

So for Fathers day my wife bought me this

@Mr.ShinyandNew安宇 Nintendo said themselves that they were doing it specifically to make sure their hardware sold better.

If that isn't lock-in, I don't know what it is.

@Cerberus yes. So what?

So they should be forced to port their game to other platforms?

So it's bad for consumers in the two ways I mentioned.

Consumers have lots of choice. It's a fricking game.

It's a trick to make them pay more, and it also has collateral damage.

A trick to make them pay more? Not if they already have that platform.

So it's bad.

They don't.

I would like to play Mario Kart. I would be forced to buy a Wii if I wanted to play it.

And if they don't want to buy it, they can forego that game. It's not like there aren't any other games out there.

So?

I want to play Mario Kart.

I don't want to play another game.

So Nintendo should be forced to port it to your platform of choice?

Why?

And how?

Well, I'm asking you. Should they be forced to support whatever platforms you want them to support? Or can they just decide to support the ones they think will be most profitable.

Are you talking about laws? Then no.

I'm just saying it's bad for consumers and bad for society, because now we can't play Mario on our phones: that's collateral damage of Nintendo's lock-in policy.

So what are you saying then? That it sucks that you have to buy a console to play games on that console? Because if you don't have any console you still have to buy one to play games on it.

Not if you have a PC and a phone.

@Cerberus LOL bad for society? that a game isn't available on a phone? It's hardly bad for society.

Society with a small s.

Less availability of something that people want is bad.

It's totally available.

I can't play it on my phone when I'm on the train.

And furthermore having multiple different consoles helps with competition too. If there could be only one console then we'd be stuck with the Atari 2600

I might like to pay € 1 for a Mario game and play it on the train. It would be fun. Now I'm forced to fumble with emulators (okay, emulators in fact work perfectly fine, so Nintendo is mainly causing monetary damage to their own pockets).

Consider Android. sure, there are tons of "compatible" android phones. But the fact is that there are constant changes and those changes don't filter out that fast. So in reality just because a game works on Android doesn't mean it works on any particular phone. Is it "bad for society" that not all Android phones can run all Android games?

I'm saying there shouldn't be any console, because PCs are competition enough and consoles are mostly just bad for consumers.

@Cerberus emulators, they way you describe them, are typically using illegal copies of the games.

@Mr.ShinyandNew安宇 Most Android games work on most Android phones, and they nearly always work on somewhat-recent phones.

@Mr.ShinyandNew安宇 Yes, exactly. So Nintendo's stupid.

Similarly, people play pirated Mario on PC.

@Cerberus But "somewhat recent" phones... so people should have to upgrade their phones all the time then.

If, instead, they sold Mario for PC...

@Cerberus I'm pretty sure they've accounted for the pirating of the game and the lost revenue in their calculations.

@Mr.ShinyandNew安宇 Phones move very quickly these days, but you can still play the large majority of games on a 3yo phone like the S2.

@Cerberus Then this popular game, which is popular on its own merits, btw, wouldn't serve as an incentive to buy their platform. And if fewer people have their platform, fewer people would buy their other games. So they figure that all out and decide to forego lost sales on other platforms because that makes them the most money.

@Mr.ShinyandNew安宇 They think they have. But that isn't my point: it's that people can't play them.

@Mr.ShinyandNew安宇 Of course.

@Cerberus The Galaxy SII is 2 years old, not 3. And it was revolutionary at the time.

And that's bad for everyone else.

Okay, 2.3 years old, then.

@Cerberus Is it? Consider the downside: Nintendo tries to sell its games on other platforms. As a consequence their own platform declines in popularity and they go out of business. Hundreds of jobs are lost and no sequel to Mario Kart is ever made. Is that a better outcome?

They do not go out of business. They just keep making the games that people like and are prepared to pay for.

Like any other game studio.

@Cerberus Really? History has not borne out that conclusion. Lots of console makers have completely folded when their console flopped. Their own game studios folded too.

If Mario Kart will always remain popular enough to drive their entire console, then it will remain popular enough to turn a profit on.

It doesn't necessarily drive the entire console.

@Mr.ShinyandNew安宇 Lots of things happen. But if you make good games you can do well.

Maybe they could sell the rights to Mario Kart and some other studio could make a sequel.

They could; as one article said, "their developers can crank out another Mario Kart blind with one hand tied to their back".

Rehashing the old formula. It still remains fun.

@Cerberus wow. That sounds like it must be the best game ever and no other game in the market could possibly replace it.

It's funny how you defend the status quo mainly by saying, "this is how it's always been, and therefore it is necessary that it should stay this way, or everything will be destroyed".

@Mr.ShinyandNew安宇 Why fix what ain't broken?

See, I agree that computer vendors can be locking in customers in a very harmful way. One example is Microsoft's file formats. They were notoriously hard to figure out and support in third-party apps. MS did this on purpose, to drive upgrades and to keep away competition. In this way they lock you in to Office and they lock you in to Windows. (and then later Mac, which they partly owned).

I think it's better if game studios sell games mainly on the merit of their games rather than through some trick with a closed platform and lock-in.

But games? No great harm is done if you can't play a certain game.

"Great harm"?

@Cerberus But every game runs on some platform. If you don't own that platform, you can't play the game.

It's just a game.

@Mr.ShinyandNew安宇 But everyone already has a PC.

Like Bard's Tale for Android. Can't play it without an android device.

So buying another machine is just a waste.

@Cerberus Actually, that's wrong.

Lots of people have a Mac

Nearly everyone, then.

Lots of people don't run Windows on their PC

@Cerberus increasingly fewer people as a percentage.

Also lots of people have shitty pcs that are useless for most gaming.

Still, plenty of people.

yeah but plenty of people have a console too.

In fact, Microsoft may be shooting itself in the foot in the long run by focusing on the Xbox instead of PC games—unless they have already given up on Windows entirely...

@Mr.ShinyandNew安宇 All different consoles. And not nearly as many people.

@Cerberus Games are still fully supported on Windows. That platform needs no help.

I don't know about that.

The point is that there are dozens of popular platforms for games. Game makers can only target a few.

They say more and more games focus on consoles because they are more profitable (which I think may be partly because of failing pricing strategies, but OK).

So who will keep the mainstream user away from Linux in the end, if not PC gamers?

@Cerberus No, it's because the console hardware changes infrequently and is easier to develop for. Instead of hundreds of android phones or thousands of different Windows boxes you have ONE xbox and ONE PS3 and ONE wii

That's not what I read.

@Cerberus There are lots of reasons why people don't run linux. Games is one reason.

There's less competition within the little markets that are consoles, so consumers have fewer alternatives, so you can charge them more.

@Mr.ShinyandNew安宇 Yes, but many of those reasons are breaking down. Perhaps they could extend the life of Windows a little bit longer by keeping Windows games popular for longer.

@Cerberus What do you mean, less competition? there are the same number of studios everywhere. Games are typically the same price on each platform, even Windows.

There are many, many, many more games for PC than for, say, the PS4. So more competition.

Especially at launch.

It's all basic economics.

@Cerberus yes but as I've explained before, yet you refuse to believe, games on Windows don't work as well as games on platforms. you should understand this clearly, though, considering how paranoid you are about compatibility, to the point that you run Windows XP still.

@Cerberus No, that doesn't make sense. At launch you want to ENTICE people to buy games. Not gouge them.

Anyway game prices are typically flat across the industry.

@Mr.ShinyandNew安宇 At any rate, there are 1000x more games that work on Windows than on the PS$.

An AAA title at the title's launch usually has the same price on every platform.

@Mr.ShinyandNew安宇 What doesn't make sense? At launch, there will be fewer games available for the PS4 than at any other time.

@Cerberus no, it doesn't makes sense that that smaller game library would cause game vendors to jack up prices. That would only work if the console sales were assured. Otherwise, high game prices would deter console buyers.

I didn't say they jacked up prices. See, you're falling into the same trap as many information sellers (games, music, film): more profit ≠ higher prices.

It can be, but it doesn't have to be.

Volume if often more important.

As in this case: if you have fewer games to compete with, more people will buy your game.

So, you're saying that at console launch, that small games library helps ensure that more of the games in that library get bought.

Again, basic economics.

@Mr.ShinyandNew安宇 No, more copies of game x will be bought.

Okay, so I fail to see the problem here.

Problem?

what does that have to do with anything?

It's just less competitive, so it's easier to make a profit for a developer once he's in.

At any given point in time there are only a handful of PC games on the market that matter anyway.

"That matter"?

All games matter.

@Cerberus For most of the industry, all the developers are in all the console markets.

Every game I could play competes with other games.

@Cerberus no, only the ones people want to play matter.

There will always be someone who wants to play a game, and it all adds up.

I think more games = more competition is a fair equivaluation.

Anyway given that the game market has been huge for decades, and that there have been consoles, PCs, and in-between all that time, and consoles have been really popular, I kinda get the feeling that most people would rather use consoles. Despite any perceived disadvantages.

@Cerberus Not really. I mean, it's true on the surface, but realistically more games = more "press this button to make a fart sound" games.

@Mr.ShinyandNew安宇 As I said originally, there are at least two reasons, probably, why consoles are still popular.

@Cerberus The reason is that they provide good value for the money. People like gaming on the console more than on PCs. For a variety of reasons.

@Mr.ShinyandNew安宇 If you're trying to say that the total quality of all games on PC is less than that on any single console, then I completely disagree, but it isn't worth arguing over.

@Mr.ShinyandNew安宇 They provide low value for the money compared to open, PC-compatible consoles.

What would you rather have, a Steam Box that worked well and on which you could play every game in existence, and do anything you can do on a PC, or a Nintendo that you could only play Nintendo-approved games on?

@Cerberus See, I don't know about that. "open PC-compatible consoles" are PCs hooked up to TVs. The problem is that in order to play an AAA title on a PC you need a $300 video card. In order to do the same on a console you just need the $300 console. In two years you'll need another video card but that same console will still serve.

@Cerberus "play every game in existence" is impossible, of course. I mean, I have Steam, and they sell games that don't work on my PC.

And my PC cost WAY more than an xbox.

Nearly every game, then, except the very latest games.

But consoles CAN play the very latest games.

If you bought the upgrades you bought for your PC back then now, I'm sure they would be cheap now.

seriously, if you are a gamer, and want to play the big-name titles, and you actually PAY for these titles, your software costs will be the same no matter what platform you buy, and your hardware costs will be way lower if you play on PCs.

No, no.

You're looking at it wrong.

Am i?

Maybe you are.

You should compare a mid-range PC game to the latest PS3 game, because PC games are nearly always far ahead of console games (except maybe shortly after launch, for some consoles).

I have no idea what's in a PS3, but I bet my PC is far more powerful.

And my PC is from 2008.

If you want to play the current games, you need a current platform. So if that game is FarCry3, then you need whatever platform that game supports.

And the necessary parts I bought then cost about € 350 then. That's mobo, RAM, video card, CPU. The rest of the parts I already had.

@Mr.ShinyandNew安宇 No: PC games just happen to be way more demanding than console games because the platform is usually far ahead.

@Cerberus yes but that is the world we live in.

Yes, but it is not at all compatible to the latest console games.

If you have a PS3, you couldn't play Far Cry 3 if it were ported.

But the thing is that this is exactly why the console market succeeds. Because the consoles remain static for so long.

@Cerberus yes, actually you could.

Because they would port it with the console's strengths in mind.

Then surely my computer could too.

No, because they don't write games for EVERY computer, only the gaming computers.

Then they could just as well make a way to keep it playable on old PCs.

Well, they could, but they don't. I guess there's no market for that.

In fact, I suspect that there is such a way, at a lower resolution and with all the graphic stuff tuned down.

@Cerberus yes, to some degree they do that sometimes.

And it would probably look better than a PS3 too.

Remember, you're playing both games from your couch anyway.

Streamed through Shield. Or whatever.

The Steam Box.

So anyway, it's bed time.

yeah. me too.

I'll speak to you in ten or twenty years' time, mark my words.

markets can change. I'm trying to explain the current one to you.

I know perfectly well how it works.

I'm just saying it's bad.

in 10 years time gaming might have reached some kind of peak cpu usage, where they don't bother doing any more computing on the client, and so clients start changing less frequently, and then they become a complete commodity.

@Cerberus I don't think it's so bad. I think gamers save money by playing games on a console rather than on a PC.

but anyway. 'night.

Because the factors that make consoles desirable can be partly neutralised by better software (one-click gaming mode attached to TV/controllers and/or streamed), and partly by somehow removing platform lock-in, which alas is only going to be solved by competition from the outside.

@Mr.ShinyandNew安宇 Possibly...but there is still nothing like and end in sight there.

@Cerberus but every platform is some kind of platform lock in.

But the platform that everybody already has 1.) is bigger, so anyone can play any game, platform-wise, and 2.) doesn't require you to buy a secondary, specialised machine, so you can save money and clutter and accessories.

It's wasteful to replace the box that your console comes in: with a PC, you can often keep the case, the PSU, the hard drive, the DVD-drive, the controllers/mouse/keyboard, sometimes even the RAM.

It just has to be more rational to not buy specialised machines.

And it has to be more rational to have a single, open platform for everyone and for all games.

Yes, Windows is not entirely open, but it's close enough for this purpose.

@Cerberus seriously, most people do not keep the case or psu or hdd or dvd. maybe the HDD. never the ram.

They should.

And they will want a TV PC and a desktop PC anyway, so they will still have two.

@Cerberus hell, even I don't. because there have been lots of advancements in terms of case features and PSU features.

@Mr.ShinyandNew安宇 They won't need to, if Shield III finally works well and streams everything everywhere.

@Cerberus of course they'll need to. you can't easily browse the web on a TV. not at couch distance.

it doesn't work very well at all.

and a mouse and keyboard are really handy.

the TV pc and the desktop have totally different use-cases.

@Mr.ShinyandNew安宇 I must admit that I bought a new case and PSU last time, but that's usuallynot necessary with modern PC parts. My case was then 10+ years old, and so was my PSU.

@Cerberus power supplies have changed a lot in the last 5 years.

@Mr.ShinyandNew安宇 No, you just have different screens, but the central PC remains in the basement or something.

And different peripherals.

cases, okay, maybe not. But now there are much smaller form factors available. Also external thingies like IR receivers, and USB ports, etc.

@Mr.ShinyandNew安宇 How?

My PSU still looks all dandy!

@Cerberus they have different connectors to supply the motherboards with power, or PCI-e graphics cards, or SATA.

My PSU is modular.

They also have no-fan, partially-no-fan, etc.

@Cerberus that costs a lot more.

I can add and remove all connectors, and use adapters for all connectors, I believe.

@Mr.ShinyandNew安宇 It wasn't very expensive. It was € 50 or so.

In 2008.

@Cerberus yes, possibly, except maybe the motherboard one is usually not modular like the other ones.

520 watt.

Maybe it will one day not be powerful enough for video cards.

@Cerberus it already isn't. For gamer video cards.

or for systems with lots of HDDs.

@Mr.ShinyandNew安宇 Then you can still use an adaptor.

@Cerberus no, the motherboard connector has tons of wires.

anyway i'm heading off.

cya later.

Bye.

Morning.

Hullahs.

My project lead (or someone anyway) appears to still be trying to access the demo site.

I guess I should disable it.

Good for him. Keeps him occupied.

Before I forget it's there again.

What's new with you?

I am unpacking no less than eight LEGO sets this very second, while also ordering the Tower of Orthanc.

How do you manage it? I thought you had no more room and your wife was about to kill you?

Right.

I like that tower though. It must be huge.

That's almost as many pieces as the Death Star, innit?

Nah.

Death Star was like 4k.

Oh. I thought it was around 3500.

@RegDwighт Good lord. I can barely understand any of that.

3803.

I was closer.

unwanted wisitors.

Anyway, this thing and the Death Star combined are frigging tiny compared to the Sydney Opera House.

That guy is ruining me. Jamie Berard. His is the Tower Bridge and the Sopwith Camel and quite a few of the Modular Buildings. I have to get every set he comes up with. I hate him!

Oh no way! I love that guy.

I haven't finished watching the other one yet.

There's also the stupid Ewok Village. I will have to get that one, too. And it ain't even Jamie's.

Guess how old that guy is.

20?

Oh.

I would have guessed like 35.

He looks older than me. And I only just turned 34.

Really? His face is very smooth.

He's hairy, but he looks young to me.

No crow's feet.

Somehow I never accepted the fact that people at the age of 20 have serious JOBS as DESIGNERS.

Well, he might be older.

Mid-twenties.

He's 25.

He says that in the video.

Oh.

Oh, and happy birthday!

Thank you.

Anyway, the point is, I'm like 34 and I'm like goofing off.

I'm 36 and goofing off.

Almost 37.

And he's like TEN YEARS younger and he's a senior pro designer shit.

I can't believe you are whining. You are some kind of crazy-talented polyglot who works a super-secret job.

He plays with LEGO.

You do that too.

Stuff and nonsense. I can do a bit of everything, but nothing really.

pish posh

Jack of all trades.

Which is fine with me.

I'm just saying it's not clear to me how it's fine with others to be all set and done at the age of 20.

Maybe he isn't.

Silly.

Just because it's what you would be satisfied doing for the rest of your days.

At 20 I was working in a copy shop, had a second job selling gaming consoles, pretended to study three different things, but mostly I was partying and watching TV.

Sounds fun.

I can't do anything for more than five minutes.

You don't want to know what I was doing.

Where the hell did I host the demo site?

punches servers

@RegDwighт Not even LEGO?

@cornbreadninja麵包忍者 not even LEGO.

It's very atypical for me to build a model in one go, even if it's just a couple hundred parts.

That would frustrate the hell out of me.

I don't like to put things down once I've started them.

I'm the exact antipode.

When I'm building with LEGO, I am thinking "I could be playing piano now". When I'm playing piano, I am thinking "I could be cooking". And so on and so forth and for ever.

So if we ever met, the universe would cease to exist.

I made the mistake of wearing contacts yesterday, so I could wear sunglasses.

I left them in all afternoon and then until bedtime.

My eyes are killing me this morning.

@KitFox same. For most things.

Hard or soft?

Soft.

Huh. I wore my glasses yesterday.

But I could be showering now, so I will.

I never tried hard.

Soft contacts are made of silicone, right?

They wouldn't have latex in them?

I think they are made of Flubber.

Could be.

Maybe I'm allergic to something in them.

My mom has hard contacts. Supposedly after many years, they can cause permanent changes in your vision.