I'm sure, the cloud and the SaaS system is the next bubble which will implode just because the buzz behind it has been to big. Like the "new economy".
Civ 5 - Why the protest?
- Thread starter Eddogegr3
- Start date
I'm sure, the cloud and the SaaS system is the next bubble which will implode just because the buzz behind it has been to big. Like the "new economy".
mjs0
The 4th X
I'm sorry, but I can't resist leaving a link to this article on CNN about Cloud gaming.
I had not read it when I made my post earlier in this thread, but I am feeling vaguely uneasy about my new powers of prescience...
(Of course the link is tenuous but I found it amusing when I went to CNN just now)
I had not read it when I made my post earlier in this thread, but I am feeling vaguely uneasy about my new powers of prescience...
(Of course the link is tenuous but I found it amusing when I went to CNN just now)
Commander Bello
Say No 2 Net Validations
Exactly. Trends.
We've had them before.
There has been the "dotcom"-trend, when out of a sudden the whole industry believed in basic economic rules and laws to be outdated just because somebody was doing his business now "on the internet".
The "idea" of cloud-computing is nothing new.
Around 10 years ago it was called "web-based applications" and so on.
At the beginning of this millenium people told you that PC's were dying, just being outdated.
There wouldn't be any need for more powerful processors, because miraculously everything would be provided by "the web". Intel was going to die soon. Better get rid of there shares...
Wait and see.
There was another hype in the past, called "just in time". Your store-rooms would be on the streets and highways and you did not longer have to have your money ineffectively bound to own storage capacities.
And then there were some accidents, traffic jams, bad weather conditions, strikes and whatnotever and people learned that own storage rooms actually aren't that bad.
Exactly.
Because the past is telling us some interesting stories, which typically aren't told by the advertisers of the brave new world.
And the message of these untold stories is: there won't be this one "it will change all and solve any problem"-idea.
Ahriman
Tyrant
Actually, no. Just-in-time is standard practice in most industries. Levels of inventories are massively lower than they ever used to be (in terms of number of days of sales).
*edit*
Amusingly, top story on CNN....
http://www.cnn.com/2010/TECH/gaming.gadgets/06/16/e3.cloud.gaming/index.html?hpt=C1
mjs0
The 4th X
I completely agree...the idea of cloud computing is nothing new. There are very few new ideas in the world. Paying for compute time on the cloud is the same basic idea as time-sharing on an old IBM Mainframe...but each time the wheel turns and we come back to the same old idea the technology available and the architecture it facilitates is that much more advanced. When I first dialed into my IBM development account from my home terminal I was using a 300 baud modem, now I get over 20million bits per second and soon will be upgraded to 50Mbs. The idea is the same but the possibilities are on a totally different level.
Oh and those web applications...they still exist and are very successful in those industries for which the technology and infrastructure was sufficient to deliver the promised improvements. This time round the technology and infrastructure is better again and the number of industries that will get successful implementations will be correspondingly larger.
As Ahriman said...JIT didn't fail it produced a new way of doing business, not exactly what was expected based on the initial hype but if you want to compete today you don't do business the way you did in the 1970s.
Having seen (and often participated in) trends in the computer industry over 3 decades one eventually resigns oneself to the inevitable roller coaster ride.
Sometimes the future hype will run away with itself and sometimes the inertia of the existing way of doing things will hold the future back.
The trick in identifying when trends are real and when they are pie in the sky is to look not at where the hype is coming from but at where the investment is coming from and where that investment is being made.
The really large industry names are investing very heavily in this Cloud concept. When you see large industry players, both new and old, like IBM, Microsoft, Google, Oracle, Apple, Amazon and HP moving in the same direction, working together with giants in other industries, investing heavily in consumer facing technology, and investing heavily in their own infrastructure to support the change then the change is far more likely to be real. This is fundamentally different than, for example, the new economy boom of the late '90s which was created and nurtured in a far less conservative and more risk-tolerant segment of the industry.
You are right that the past tells us interesting stories...the trick is to know whether you are looking at Pets.com or hackney carriages being supplanted by automobiles.
So, with Cloud computing do we have:
Pets.com: Part of a bubble whose premise was that the way we used to do business would soon be extinct and that the internet was going to change basic economics.
Automobiles: A new technology; superior to the old in several important ways and inferior in others, but fundamentally still a means of getting from A to B.
I would contend that the move to the Cloud is far closer to the second. It doesn't suggest you should tear up the rules to the game; it just suggests you might want to try playing the game with different equipment.
Of course there is no one 'solve everything' idea, but a lot of related ideas moving in the same direction with the natural selection of competition to weed out the duds will result in new and better solutions in many areas...and even though a lot of marketing-rich but product-light startups over-reached and failed they still effected some change. How much more likely is significant change when industry and other corporate heavyweights are all pushing in the same direction?
Like it or not the industry is going to do this experiment, and you are right, the result is unlikely to be one totally new paradigm that solves everything as is often predicted in the hype...but whether the experiment succeeds or fails it will result in a new way of doing business, most likely a set of hybrid solutions comprised of a little of what we have done in the past, some of what is currently being predicted for the future, and a whole lot or something we haven't even thought of yet, regardless, the current status quo will be history.
Thyrwyn
Guardian at the Gate
Regarding "just-in-time". Just watched a documentary on the building of the Empire State building (which still holds the fastest build rate for a skyscraper - 4-5 floors/week): The steel girders were all poured in Pittsburgh - total time from raw ore to riveting was 80 hours. Legend says that they were still warm when they reached the site 
That was in 1931.
That was in 1931.
Ahriman
Tyrant
Interesting. But I think single large major projects have always been different; the real thing with JiT was for using JiT for a more normal retail/day-to-day demand. (So a store doesn't have to carry massive amounts of inventory - which has a heavy cost in working capital.)
Eg: if you order a computer, the computer doesn't start getting assembled until after you place the order.
Commander Bello
Say No 2 Net Validations
Which is not JIT (just in time), but MTO (make to order) in contrast to make to stock.
Just in time would be if the motherboard arrives in exactly the very second at which it has to be placed into the body.
Ahriman
Tyrant
Which they do too. Assembly is separate from component manufacture; Dell pioneered JiT component delivery to the assembly plants in the 90s.
I explained the example poorly, apologies, but it definitely applies.
Isikien
WHOA
- Joined
- May 7, 2008
- Messages
- 299
I'm in agreement with the OP. CIV is CIV. I will play CIV, therefore I am CIV.
I was surprised that people were complaining about CiV being on steam. Although steam itself unfortunately has birthed possibly the whiniest community.
Anyone remember the Left 4 Dead 2 boycott?
Man, that was funny.
I was surprised that people were complaining about CiV being on steam. Although steam itself unfortunately has birthed possibly the whiniest community.
Anyone remember the Left 4 Dead 2 boycott?
Man, that was funny.
LastLegionare
Warlord
The only games I've learn to never, ever, EVER buy are shelfware games like "lemonade tycoon" of "fish sim". You can't judge a book by it's cover, but you can definetly judge a video game! I've dropped around $300 on shelfware, and I can honestly say Civ 5 won't be shelfware. Companies like Firaxis are very rare. Still update, still care, still make good games. In honest opinion, I think of Steam as a fruitfly rather than a purple people eater. A lot of good games are now exclusively on Steam. Adapt or leave. It's civ. If it's not good, get the heck out of this forum. The game still has 98 days.
Unfortunately not. It turns out SaaS is a big force for stagnation and monopoly -- both because of network effects and because the internet hasn't got much of a "high street" (in the real world you have to go past a bunch of other shops to get to your destination; in the Web word you can go direct and be unaware of competitors.) So, the customers' cost of moving is high (they have to transfer all their data) and their knowledge of competitors' advances is low. Also, any updates get forced on all customers (unlike a physical product you don't usually have the choice of not upgrading) so companies are even more motivated to be slow and cautious in their innovations, as many customers are change-averse.
As evidence - consider the progression of iPods and iPhones over the last 5 years compared to the progress of GMail, Google Docs, etc. Cloud apps do advance after they've been introduced, but at a comparative snail's pace to physical products. Sold software falls somewhere between the two -- as it is usually digitally delivered there is still no high street, but at least the 'choice of not upgrading' motivates companies to innovate regularly to get their next sale (rather than to be slow and careful to avoid pissing off current customers).
Ahriman
Tyrant
This took significant learning time?!?? ;-)
More games are coming out using Steam. Based on that data, it seems reasonable to suggest that using Steam has been improving sales/profits of these companies.
1) If, as at least one poster suggests, it is easier to get a no-CD crack for other forms of DRM than for Steam, then Steam is more effective in preventing piracy.
2) Most companies will not continue with strategies that reduces their bottom line, which should be the strongest indirect evidence that Steam has been improving profits.
Some people don't see using a no-CD crack as piracy. There are others who buy/rent a used game, install it, get no-CD crack, and then resell used game, which would clearly be piracy.
The whole topic of lending, re-selling, and renting games is tied to this as well. Steam makes all of that more difficult than disk based DRM.
I'm not fan of DRM, I got CIV IV complete only because it was DRM Free. I love the fact that Sins of a Solar Empire was released as a DRM free game. Generally, I feel that Impulse is less intrusive as a service than Steam.
Unlike many other forms of DRM that has been used before, Steam and Impulse actually provide some services to its users. I like the fact that if my house were to burn down, I would still be able to get my games linked to that service.
Also there are those who make good use of Steam's community, which for many games is bigger than the community for that specific game. This allows them to make multiplayer and achievements more accessible with reduced development effort, a win-win for many folks.
I do consider that the monopolization of Steam games has the potential to be bad for consumers. But the detractors should also consider that it also has the potential to be good for consumers.
I already own and play Steam based games, so I'm 100% certain that I will pickup Civ V on day 1.
1) If, as at least one poster suggests, it is easier to get a no-CD crack for other forms of DRM than for Steam, then Steam is more effective in preventing piracy.
2) Most companies will not continue with strategies that reduces their bottom line, which should be the strongest indirect evidence that Steam has been improving profits.
Some people don't see using a no-CD crack as piracy. There are others who buy/rent a used game, install it, get no-CD crack, and then resell used game, which would clearly be piracy.
The whole topic of lending, re-selling, and renting games is tied to this as well. Steam makes all of that more difficult than disk based DRM.
I'm not fan of DRM, I got CIV IV complete only because it was DRM Free. I love the fact that Sins of a Solar Empire was released as a DRM free game. Generally, I feel that Impulse is less intrusive as a service than Steam.
Unlike many other forms of DRM that has been used before, Steam and Impulse actually provide some services to its users. I like the fact that if my house were to burn down, I would still be able to get my games linked to that service.
Also there are those who make good use of Steam's community, which for many games is bigger than the community for that specific game. This allows them to make multiplayer and achievements more accessible with reduced development effort, a win-win for many folks.
I do consider that the monopolization of Steam games has the potential to be bad for consumers. But the detractors should also consider that it also has the potential to be good for consumers.
I already own and play Steam based games, so I'm 100% certain that I will pickup Civ V on day 1.
I can only partially agree here.
Even when you don't know most of the competitors, you most probably know some, at least from the big players, like Amazon's cloud.
And these players normaly advertise their improvements quite loud, so that the others are forced to do something.
But that this is a problem for the small companies, which have maybe better offers, yes, that's true.
Here i also can only agree partially.
This is sure true for private customers, but i'm sure that some parts of the indutry, at least the ones who have to deal somehow with private data, will realize later on that the cloud apps are a problem for the security and will abandon it because of it.
But the private sector...*sigh*...too many people who don't think of it...
I'm fine with more games coming out on Steam. What I'm not fine with is them being exclusives (unless they're Valve developed or published, like Sins and Elemental are to Stardock- that's fine in my eyes. That's like asking for Mario to be on the PS3)
The difference in this case is that Steam and Impulse are platforms for content delivery. Both of these started as a method to distribute their own products, but they have grown significantly and are now providing this service to other publishers. Now many major publishers use this service.
It is a reasonable business practice, they have solid contracts in place for the service. They likely have a separate business unit operating these services, i.e. the development unit does not operate the service. Steam advertises many other games now, not just Valve games. They want Steam to grow, so they are going to act in best interest of all their clients and customers. If Steam were to obviously favor/highlight only Valve games, the other publishers would stop using the service, perhaps even sue them for breach of contract.
The other reason for the strong growth of these services, particularly Steam, it to offer a established gaming community. The PC game makers are trying to compete with console communities like Xbox Live, which is a huge marketing service and cash cow for Microsoft.
Sorry. Those who are too immature to handle criticism of Firaxis, Steam, CIV or whatever should leave the forum.
Yes, whether you intend to buy civ5 or you don't intend to buy civ5, you are equally welcome in the civ5 forum. But eventually I suspect one group will heavily outnumber the other. 
