Props to the people who pointed out that "just making a good game" is not the only suggestion.
Also, your 3 examples couldn't be more perfect examples of the problems with the game industry. You are correct that all 3 got great reviews, know what else they had in common?
The people leading development on all three games were first timers (or very new to managing game development).
WAY over (already high) budgets. I think Psychonauts cost around $20 million to produce.
All 3 had their release eclipsed by something major in the game industry: release of the Xbox for freedom force, release of the Xbox 360 for psychonauts (which worked on the old system), release of the PS2 for System Shock 2.
There were a lot of forces at work and just blaming "piracy" is the easy way out.
"Are thieves everything that's wrong with the game industry? Certainly not. But they are still a very big problem."
Also, who says Minecraft is a "massive abberation(sp)"? What about the Humble Indie Bundle? What about sites like Kongregate which feature flash games by independent studios?
I think people like you read a post like this and then try to analyze it in isolation. There have been many other posts about video games, piracy, and methods for making money on games - why do you insist on commenting on this post as though it's a stand alone treatise on file sharing in the video game market?
I think people are being extraordinarily patient with you after a comment like this.
Who gets to decide how much they deserve to make for their work? Answer, no one. Everyone's pay is determined by someone else; whether I work for McDonalds or the film industry it doesn't matter - a variety of market forces determine what my work is worth.
At McDonalds my pay is based on cost of food, how much consumers are willing to pay, how much others are charging, desired profit margins, investor choices, etc.
In the film industry your pay is based on 1 thing - what people are willing to give you in exchange for viewing your film. It could be a million dollars or nothing. Your film could be wonderful or terrible, but it's irrelevant. Unlike McDonalds you've incurred all the costs of producing the product BEFORE I've agreed to pay, but thats your problem.
This actually brings up a question I've been interested in. Typically when you purchase a business you also inherit its liability; but, what happens when you someone like Google buys a business like YouTube.
I'd be willing to bet that almost none of the code running on YouTube today was being used on YouTube 5 years ago; however, what if it was even more extreme than that? What if Google had bought YouTube only for the domain name and had replaced all of their code outright on day 1? Did they actually buy YouTube, or just the brand? Perhaps a better way to look at it is - should a company that starts using another businesses name, assuming the old business agrees, be responsible for the actions of the old business? Why?
I think the one thing you might be overlooking is the US's level of control over the internet. Because ICANN is still under US authority this type of a bill could easily be a stepping stone to an approval based registration process for domains.
In other words, first pass the part where you can shutdown a domain. Then pass the part where can easily find the owner of any domain so that you can go after them personally.
Actually, the doctors should create a system that rates themselves. After all, the best way to combat the insurance company ratings is to form their own, better, system which provides more information to potential problems.
Of course, that will never happen because professional organizations never enjoy highlighting their crappier members.
Ugh, you are so a part of the problem. You need to read up on that McDonalds lawsuit before you try to summarize (http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm); otherwise you end up sounding ignorant (which means uneducated, in case you were not aware)
To summarize the McDonalds case:
1. The coffee was ~185 degrees, coffee at home is normally ~135 degrees.
2. McDonalds had 700 insurance claims for coffee burning people in the 10 years proceeding this, many of the claims were very similar.
3. The woman suffered 3rd degree burns (permanent loss of feeling) on 6% of her body because the coffee was so hot; she had to have a skin graft. Also, she was not driving as many have claimed.
4. In discovery, a bunch of information came to light that McDonalds knew the coffee was too hot, knew that people were drinking it immediately when it was served, knew that peoples mouths and throats were sometimes being burned and still decided to keep the coffee hot so it would last longer.
5. The woman only filled a claim for medical bills ~$20,000 but McDonalds took it to court ... where she was awarded almost 3 million in punitive damages to punish McDonalds for its willful neglect, which a judge reduced to 800,000. McDonalds then appealed the ruling and ultimately settled out of court and the details are still a secret.
You're right, it doesn't magically change things when something is done on a computer, but it does change things.
In many cases displaying something to a group or communicating something to a group of people reduces your expectation of privacy. And in almost all cases documents are considered fair game in civil proceedings unless you seek specific protections (or the document is protected under some other law.) As to whether you agree with the law ... thats another matter.
We're not talking about the police breaking down her door, we're talking about someone voluntarily filling (what i'll assume is a frivolous) lawsuit and then balking when they realize that the defense has a right to evidence which the plaintiff has chosen to publish and share with third parties (including Facebook, after all she "shared" the photo with them.)
I was actually wondering about this because it is not clear from any of the articles, is the 4th amendment claim in relation to obtaining more information or in relation to the information already obtained?
If the plaintiff is trying to block the evidence that has already been discovered on her profile and subsequently the evidence that could be discovered through her private profile, then I think the judge's reasoning is sound. For example if they made a fake user, friended her, gathered information, and are asking for more ... I'm not sure thats any different than private detective work.
A concern I have always had about "social networking" (going back to the days of livejournal) is that people, especially passive-aggressive types, like to claim that this is "their private diary" or "just something for themselves" but it isn't. Once you publish something, I think privacy becomes a lot more complicated. I think of e-mail as private, and phone conversations, but Facebook doesn't really pass the laugh test when it comes to privacy. If anything Facebook is intended to make the details of your private life public; it's part of our "LOOK AT ME" culture.