to design a game?

[Oxygen]

I'm not exactly sure what this is about, are you complaining about corporate structure in game design companies or the lack of games available on Linux?

Beleive it or not, there are corporate companies that make games available to Linux (supported fully, not just emulated) that are very successful. Most id games such as Quake, Wolfenstein and Doom are all supported on Linux. And we know id is sucessful!

Most people in game development will of once done freelance work, either coding mods, making models, designing levels and maps. They will of done this for free (Windows or Linux) but the reason they would do it is because they enjoy it! These people have every right to 'sell out' because they would be profiting from something they enjoy (like porn stars). I have done level design for several years, I've worked with graphic artists, modelers and coders. I enjoy it, if I was offered a job to be paid to make games I'd take it!!

[Richard_The_Lionhearted]

Theoretically, a person who wanted to design a game for some type of platform could do so. . . some kind of framework for something to be creative. For example, say there is some idea and that a person had invested a lot of time in this particular idea, "blood sweat and tears" type-investment of an entirely non-monetary origin . . . the whole basis of people doing what they love to do and are good at doing . . .

At some point does the person who put all the effort into the investment require some sort of "compensation" for this effort and therefore attempts to "sell" this investment to a market of people. . . the market, based upon monetary principles, should reward this person for their effort. Theoretically, this is how most economic systems work.

But the framework sometimes requires that people accept short-term losses in favor of long-term gains.

How and when can a person (an individual) decide that short-term losses are acceptable given long-term gains? Does this not fly in the face of an individual's personal liberty and definition of ethics?

Hmm.

I suppose what I'm attempting to explain or to ask here is that a business background and monetary necessity can simultaneously destroy or propel a person to either pursue or not pursue inherent talents. All the people on this board, all the sweet geeks and geekettes. . . please help me to figure out how to ethically sustain without being a sell-out. Is it possible to sustain without being a sell-out? Isn't everyone eventually forced to "sell-out"?

My background is in business admin. . . I freaking HATE business. . . the whole corporate structure of formalities and such; all the pretentious interviews and resume submission and other random ********.

Theoretically, it should be possible to sustain without having to give into the giant corporate structures.

rawr.

How?

What makes a person a sell-out? Only another person. It is a matter of opinion as to whether or not you are one. What are the short term losses and are they worth the long term wait you will have to decide for yourself. A business background and monetary necessity's cannot destroy inherent talents because talents are not inherent but learned. Compensation comes in many forms. Not just money but in praise and recognition. It is a matter of which *you* want.

[Richard_The_Lionhearted]

Why?

Who competes with Microsoft? Nobody competes with Microsoft. Nobody *can* compete with Microsoft. It's like. . . open-source vs. Microsoft. Almost every imaginable "realm" for consumerism has some sort of dual competition of the "big players" at the top of the food chain

Nike vs. Reebok
Coke vs. Pepsi
McDonalds vs. Burger King
Domino's vs. Pizza Hut
Amazon vs. eBay
etc., etc. -- just some random examples

Microsoft has a monopoly. Sure, there are people who buy Apples or Mac just to be different, but there's really not any threat to Microsoft. Not any significant threat, I should say. . .

You say that Microsoft has *no* competition yet you go on to mention "big players" in dual competition. This alone should teach you that there is always competition whether big or small. Microsoft competes on many different levels and in different markets and is not always winning. For instants........

PDA
Microsoft Vs PalmOne
Winning:PalmOne
If you took the number of Palm handhelds sold and compared them to Microsoft's you'd know that Microsoft accounts for less than 1/8 of as many being sold by Palm

Game console
Microsoft vs Sony
Winning:Sony
Add the number of PS2's sold compared to Microsoft's Xbox and see that the Xbox has sold only 1/3 as many as Sony has.

Anyway, you get the point. So let me just say this......."there is always competition". As you have neglected to see that so have they.

[d38dm8nw81k1ng]

and Apache vs IIS ^_^

i see the guy's point. it's apple +linux vs MS in OS markets. except neither linux nor apple or interested in competing with MS. Apple are happy with their premium brand market, and linus, frankly, couldn't care less if linux was the most popular OS in the world. so in consumer OS, it's just MS because nobody will compete with them.

[Richard_The_Lionhearted]

and Apache vs IIS ^_^

i see the guy's point. it's apple +linux vs MS in OS markets. except neither linux nor apple or interested in competing with MS. Apple are happy with their premium brand market, and linus, frankly, couldn't care less if linux was the most popular OS in the world. so in consumer OS, it's just MS because nobody will compete with them.

*sighs*

If Apple and Linux were not interested in competing with Microsoft neither would exist. Competition isn't always something you want, but rather something you get.