That sound like a good idea to me, though the Red Cross business model isn't designed well if it's intended to make money...

You absolutely can blame Microsoft for their methodology. None of the other companies you named gained their dominance through only being interoperable with themselves while business required that all end-users be interoperable with each other. People don't buy Microsoft because they're idiots, people buy Microsoft because they happen to have interests and careers that don't feature computer literacy as a top priority and they still need to be able to interact with the rest of the world.

As for being in business to make money… well, that's an entirely different can of worms, but please do not assume that we will all agree that it isn't a bad thing.

~J

There are plenty of alternatives to Windows. Macintosh is very big in some markets, and it's a pretty easy system to learn. Linux is also pretty big, and easy to learn (assuming you use the GUI and not the command line). Both of those can do everything that your typical office needs: word processing, presentations, spread sheets, etc. They can both even do them in ways that your Microsoft using partners can interact with. Heck, with Linux, when you want to interact with Microsoft Office you go and download Open Office (for free) and just save stuff in Microsoft format. you can do that on the PC as well if you don't want to pay the outrageous prices Microsoft asks for their office tools. www.openoffice.org. Totally free. Almost totally compatible with MS Office. Fewer bugs and less of a memory hog as well.

Microsoft's huge advertisement budget and their ability to beat competitors to the market with a faulty product that will still be bought is what puts them in their position as the home and office computing leader.

If that position were to falter, we would start seeing new games and programs for the Mac and Linux. But Americans are mostly sheep. We stroll blindly over a cliff because TV tells us where to go. Microsoft's business model would crumble if people would stop letting them get away with their crap.

All it would take is for nobody to buy Windows Vista when it first hits the shelves, and instead wait for it to reach a stable and secure release and Microsoft would contemplate changing. do the same with their next couple of products and they would either change or go out of business.

If a business fails to make money, even a charity, that business dies. Even the "not for profit" businesses still require a profit to keep growing and living. Unless you want businesses to fail, then making money is a good thing.

Some folks don't like businesses. Perhaps they think the world owes them something, or that money is the root of all evil, or some other crap. Maybe they actually have a "good" reason (I'd love to hear it). But in today's world, money is what keeps the employees paid and keeps the doors open.

Ah, ok. I see now (I think). You're disagreeing with something I never said. I never said every business is out to make money first and foremost, just that they're out to make money.

Who cares what Microsoft did 10 years ago? We live in the now, not the then. It's peoples' actions now that are keeping Microsoft on top, and peoples' actions in the future that will strengthen or weaken that picture.

the M$ insult indicates that the writer thinks Microsoft is out to make money first and foremost. peoples' actions with regards to Microsoft have no bearing on the insult, nor on the accuracy of the insult.

So what? Every business has a goal, and it's naivete at it's utmost to think that money won't (or even shouldn't) be that goal in places. We as consumers have shown Microsoft that treating us like sheep makes them more money. If we want to change their behavior we have to show them that the change will affect their bottom line.

Do you think that Macintosh's primary purpose isn't to make money? Or Blizzard? Or almost any company you can name? Money and power make the world go around, and if you want to change anything about the world you have to do it through money and/or power.

There's a rather large difference between making money and making money by downright forcing others into using your product (and thereby forcing others out of business).

Now, obviously, the same could be said of Apple as they try to claim that snippets of their repair manuals held by Apple Techs are completely copyrighted and cannot be shown to anyone not a Tech. (source)

Every company makes their outrageously stupid mistakes. Some just get more publicized.

Make the world a better place.

Roughly, yes. Refine the interaction between humans and computers. I don't believe this was what they were out to do between 1986 and 1996 (Jobs' departure), and I hold little hope that they'll continue to have this as their purpose after his next farewell, but that's what I believe they were founded to do and largely have done. Likewise with pre-IPO Google (well, obviously their "how" for "make the world a better place" was different). Likewise with HP before the '90s. Likewise Bell Labs, though it was a division rather than a company in its own right. So on and soforth.

~J

Their goal, however, remains to make money (read: profit) so they could continue said goal.

If you do not make money, you are not for long in the business world.

Just like my goal is not to go to the bathroom, and yet doing so is an essential part of my life, the fact that a business needs to make money does not by itself turn that into a goal.

(The astute reader will notice that all of the companies or corporate arms I mentioned above are tech-related—this is merely because that's the field I am most familiar with, rather than an implication that only high-tech companies can be out to change the world.)

~J

And yet, to do research and development, they need said profit to exist and put out new and exciting products that will make the consumer want to purchase said products.

You don't need new and exciting ways to relieve yourself, do you?

See, now you're changing the discussion—first we were discussing whether money/profit was their goal, now you're talking about producing a product.

Which, incidentally, not everyone does. Google, for instance, sells very few products—they do sell the Search Appliance, but most of their business is in services. Bell Labs didn't produce products at all—they did research that got turned into products by other divisions. So on and soforth.

Nevertheless, providing a product and/or service is no more necessarily the goal than the money received is. In order to go to the bathroom (in the euphamistic sense) I need to physically locate and walk to (and into) a bathroom—like a product or service it's the precursor to a necessary function, but it would be a poor life to live for finding bathrooms.

~J

And mfb states my point even better than I had (not that I don't believe what I've claimed above, but with his statement we don't get dragged into a discussion about the proper nature of business and capitalism).

~J

Them not letting short term profits interfere with long term profits doesn't mean they're not out to make money, it means their methodology differs. While I like the idea that they're trying to "make the world a better place," I think it's kind of naive and speaks of someone needing a little rose removed from their glasses. IMO and YMMV of course.

except that in most cases, if you're not focusing on short-term profits in a creative business, you're doing so because you enjoy what you do and you want to make things that other people enjoy.

By putting the product out without qualified quality assurance testing, perhaps?

They push it out faster, which means getting their profit faster.

on the creative end? no, it probably doesn't. people who enjoy creating things will do so whether it's financially viable or not. people who just want go go for the bottom line don't tend to bother creating interesting things.

Big assumption. People are very, very stupid, especially when it comes to saving a buck.

Not saying that's what happened, but demonizing MS simply because you dislike some of their tactics, however draconian, does not mean they are the only corporation to ever do such a thing.

Of course not. However, they are one of the few recent corporations to have held back an industry for the better part of a decade with it.

~J

Microsoft, for all it's very public excesses, doesn't even rank in the top ten least ethical American corporations, by long-term behavior or single dirty deed.

"We're not the worst!" has never been a rallying cry I could get behind.

~J

Eh, whatever. The Genesis SR game was great. That's all I need. At least it's not 4th edition, but only good clean 2nd edition.


Besides, I love FPS games. What's with all the people here hating on FPS games? I find them to be very soothing.

I've no problem with an FPS.

But Shadowrun is not an FPS.

And this game is not Shadowrun.

If this was Corpwars or somesuch, I may have picked it up because it looked interesting.

As it stands, with "Shadowrun" slapped on it, I will not be buying it.

A Shadowrun FPS could rock. In fact, I think that a good Shadowrun game should be an FPS. However, it doesn't appear that this particuar FPS rocks.

Starting with game mechanics very similar to America's Army would be a good idea. This may be the case but it doesn't appear to be so. It is certainly possible using the Unreal Engine. AA, uses it as well. But, AA also had a bigger budget of courtesy Uncle Sam. Uncle Sam rarely does things half-assed.

Second, it needs stun damage. Magic sucks without stun damage and it isn't that difficult to impliment. It is just another health moniter and another flag for every weapon. Stun damage should cause wound penalities such as slower running speed and shaky aiming just like regular damage. Magic should include most standard spells and the astral plane. Astral Projection may be too difficult but perception should be easy. It is just another visual filter. There should also be a wake-up spell instead of ressurect. Charaters who are knocked out due to stun damage could be awakened with penalites, giving more life to the magician.

Third, there should be a single player adventure, preferably a giant single player adventure with dialog trees, dozens of towns, countless characters, and room for unlimited expansion much like Morrowind.

Fourth, in addition to standard arena fare there should be Tom Clancy-like team co-op adventures and the Single Player adventure should be playable in co-op, too. Character portability could be accomplished by saving character sata seperatly from world data, much like the old Swords and Serpents NES game.

Fifth, personally, I think in multiplayer money sucks. It rewards people who can play all they want to penalizes players who don't have the time to play. A BP based build system could be much better, allowing any character access to any gear at the cost of other gear or stats.

And, of course, elves shouldn't regenerate.

But, most importtantly, it should be fully modable, to the point where some enterprising modders can create an entirely new game with different game mechanics using the official packed-in moddification tools and come ingentuity. And these mods should be runable on both the PC and the X-box 360 without voiding the X-box warrenty as one has to do to mod the X-box version of Morrowind.

your 'point' has fluttered around like a drunken moth ever since you took over this thread. i continue to address your original question, which had to do with why people insulted Microsoft by referring to it as "M$". the answer to that question is: because M$ chooses to value short-term profit over quality products.

That was my original question, yes. But the discussion has moved on since then. Try and keep up, will ya?

yes, you certainly have moved the discussion around in your flailing attempts to not be 'wrong'. since i don't care if you're right or wrong, keeping up with those attempts hasn't been a priority. question asked, question answered. time for me to move on.

Okely dokely. Buhbye then.

Back to the derailing at hand, before we were derailed by someone who wasn't up to speed: making money is what business is all about. No matter what it is you want to do with your business: make the world a better place, assimilate the computer industry borg-style, give charitable donations to those in need, or whatever. If you don't make money, whatever else you plan to do fails. Hence, making money should be the primary goal of any business.

Methodologies obviously differ, and not everyone is going to step away from what they feel are ethical business practices so they can make more money, but in the end, money is the food and oxygen of the business world.

About the only time a business failing to make money is a good thing is if it's done as a loss generator for tax purposes. But even then, money is the root goal. The loss generator is just used to protect other assets rather than generate it's own.

And for the original (pre derailment) topic: All you can do is vote with your wallet. Of course, the votes of the disenfranchised Shadowrun fans may be drowned out by the clamoring of hordes of FPS fans if this game turns out to be really good (or even some good, but with a different enough concept via the addition of magic to make up for the lack of quality).

comment removed because... no. just no.

The PS3, if it is to be saved (and I do hope so), will be saved by being more a cheap, specialized computer than a game console. Which is really somewhat sad. Well, that and the possibility that we're going to see quick price drops after the "early adopter" period in which consoles sell for at least that much anyway—the only difference being that here Sony takes the money instead of leaving it on the table.

Nintendo… I respect their innovation and all, but ultimately I tend to find what it allows to be fun but shallow. Maybe the console-formerly-known-as-Revolution can break free from the trap the Developer System fell into, but that has yet to be seen.

~J

Now that the conversation has gone wildly astray of the xbox/PC Shadowrun FPS, or "Shadowrun" FPS, if you prefer...

I think Nintendo is doing some strange but really cool things. I see it becoming the Apple of the console/game industry. Really good design that innovates.

Huh. If that plays out, I wonder how they'll do.

MS and Sony are gonna be duking it out hardcore come holiday 2006. Wonder what'll happen.

One of my ex-roomates got a 360 and a game for it (Pefect Dark maybe?). The things freezes up a lot. He thinks it's overheating and is going to take it back to exchange it for another. Has anyone else seen this?

I've heard of it. Mine hasn't ever done that. But some folks I know have had similar problems.

I'm not sure what the fixes are, apart from sending it in if possible, but I can say that the 360 does get hot and making sure it has a lot of 'breathing' room should help.

***

Also it appears that 'Shadowrun' is a working title (scroll down)- so those of you who said, "I'd play this if it were CorpWars" or something similar, you can hold out hope... not that it changes who made it or what it's supposed to be.

From what I just watched from the game play footage, this is JAFPS. Just another first person shooter.
Its trying to be Halo. No... really it is.

He's turned it on it's side and aimed a fan at it. That helped but didn't totally solve the problem.