£50,000 offered to aspiring PSN developers

Are they giving them dev kits too? Or is this only open to people who already have dev kits?

The linked article talks about prototyping with the winners having the possibility of having their ideas go ahead to development stage.

As far as prototyping goes a PC demonstration would work just as well as a console.

Decent game ideas aren’t about the hardware the game runs on. A lot of people seem to have forgotten that.

Like who?

Hardware trolls. Mostly.

And some game journalists.

I’d name names but I respect people’s privacy.

If they don’t deserve it, why bother.

It should be interesting to see how this turns out.

“I’d name names but I respect people’s privacy.”

And that’s why you spend every day trolling him on this site. <3

Well, yeah – they could prototype it on the PC. But if they don’t already have a dev kit, there’s not going to be much left of that $50,000 prize to actually make their game with, is there?

Edit: unless they’re not expecting the winners to actually make the game, just provide the ideas for someone else to make.

There’s a significant difference between respecting someone’s privacy and being critical of what they say in the public domain.

Before you leap to attack, Michael, try to grasp the fundamentals of what you’re talking about. You’ll look marginally less desperate that way.

Let’s not forget some context here Michael – something your daily and discriminatory crusade seems to persistently ignore. Some people are authors of articles on this site. This site is in the public domain. All articles are presented with the ability for readers to comment on them. Your suggestion is that I single-mindedly only comment in response to one person (which is kind of ironic given your behaviour!). Yesterday (sorry, I know you hate being quoted on things you said in the past, but still) you accused me of lashing out at anyone and everyone. Today you’re suggesting it’s the opposite. I’m breaking no rules. Just because you’ve some grudge and want to attack me for anything I might say and flip-flop on your reasons from one day to the next – well, that clearly makes you a far better human being than those you’re obsessed with. I suspect I’ve not given you an answer that fits in with your view of the situation so, hey, when all else fails, you can just demand people that don’t say things you like to be banned. Right?

And, morriss, the right to privacy has absolutely nothing to do with what some opinion an abitrary third party may have of someone. As a person with a sense of morals and some perspective I’m more than able to respect people’s basic rights even if I happen to disagree with the opinions they express.

Rights are earned.

Blerk, it’s $10,000, not $50,000. It’s just 5 x $10,000 awards.

And no, there wouldn’t be much left to make a commercial quality game out of that award if the money was spent on dev kit. That’s why the award is probably about prototyping and not about making a finished game.

I very much doubt a commercial quality game would see any change out of $10,000 development finances anyway.

No morriss, privacy is a basic human right. If you believe you have a right to exploit someone elses privacy without their consent and that your ‘right’ to do so is more significant than their right to privacy then you’re quite mistaken.

Which is why there’s laws against such behaviour as they often indirectly lead to things like identity theft and fraud. These are particularly applicable in respect of abuse of privacy on the internet.

Oh right, my mistake. $10k definitely isn’t enough, then. I surmise they’d be offering them a contract as well for production of a finished title.

But, let’s give your bravura the benefit of the doubt morriss:

Show me an example where Person A has ‘earned the right’ to abuse the privacy of Person B without explicit permission from Person B first.

Not sure about that Blerk, the linked article states:

“Prototypes will then be shown to Sony Europe with the possibility of going into full production.”

“Possibility” isn’t a certainty and, at this point, there’s gurantee that the prototype would be developed into a commercial game by the same people that produced the prototype.

I’m sure there’s plenty of legal mumbo-jumbo that goes with this that covers that sort of thing though.

It’s 5 x 10,000 POUNDS, not dollars. Do pay attention, Shatner.

No, no. You’ve got it the wrong way around.

No matter.

So I have GordonR, thanks for correction.

morriss, if “rights are earned” then the way round doesn’t matter? You presented your statement as a universal truth. Surely if that’s the case it doesn’t matter which way around you look at it.

morriss and Shatner are just like Tom and Jerry!

I think one might be very sad if the other one wasn’t around…

btw Shats, I sympathise with you. I think what morriss did yesterday was quite out of order, although with the way you two are always at each other, I can see why he felt like doing it.

If one continually acts and behaves in a manner which ostracises him/herself outside of the society he/she has stepped into, thus refusing to adhere to the social contract in place, regardless of the lengths members of that community have gone to to remind our mysterious person that the social contract is there for a reason, it’s important, and it’s for the good of the community as a whole – then surely the right of the individual within the context of the community become null and void. If no Social Contract is abided, man is nothing more than animal.

Well, according to some people anyway.

I just don’t agree with people taking it upon themselves to ‘punish’ mysterious individuals by doing things that could have much more serious consequences.

For example if said mysterious people were found by an irresponsible member of the public and even verbally attacked in any way (whether they deserve it or not), the self appointed ‘punisher’ and those giving him the platform could very well find themselves involved in some sort of legal action.

“social contract”?

I’m not sure how an unspoken “social contract” actually stands up to privacy laws but I wouldn’t base an entire argument for such unprincipled behaviour on something as nebulous as that.

Still, it’s not like I go around calling people cunts, telling them to fuck off or encouraging third parties to limit their right to express an opinion (even if, shock horror, it’s something other than popular opinion). I’m sure there’s some clause in this social contract that covers that sort of thing. I’d certainly like to read it. Just after pat’s finished emailing me this site’s privacy policy following our business proposal of yesterday.

Still, the pious twaddle people peddle out to mask their childish and improper behaviour is really quite pathetic. How horribly unprofessional and what a shame a precedent of mistrust has been set. Oh well.

Still, with any luck a lesson has been learned.

G1Ga: That’s a fair argument. But you reap what you sow in this world.

And being an utter arse every day of the week, upsetting everyone and then simply mocking them when they express their dislike of your behaviour and throwing it back in their faces, has to have some kind of repercussions. Just because it’s on the internet, it doesn’t make that kind of frankly insulting behaviour any more acceptable than if it occured “out there.”

Now, plently of hints and warnings have been given out, people have tried, reason, civility, directness and downright rudeness, but nothing has penetrated or been listened to insofar as that it has been taken on board. Therefore, that individual forfeits any modicum of respect that we all might expect when we enter into a new society.

Still, still, still.

Disgraceful overuse of a paragraph opener. The shame!

What world is that morriss? Bravura internet world or the one where privacy laws exist?

Careful with those bold universal truths. They sound very enigmatic but they don’t always stand up to scrutiny.

I can’t wait till we get a forum

Just… ban him… please? *shakes head*

Everyone needs a home. No one else will have him.

Oh yes they do.

Pat’s just too bloody nice.

“Therefore, that individual forfeits any modicum of respect that we all might expect when we enter into a new society.”

So you’re suggesting that, as judge of this amusingly nameless society that you can override global laws (that apply particularly strongly to internet land) as you see fit?

Hmm. You’re implying you’re above the law and will break it arbitrarily should you happen to feel like it.

People have broken no rules here. Some people choose to call for censorship, some people choose to call others cunts, other people choose to invade another’s privacy. Others voice opinions, defend them, provide substance and deflect abuse from all angles (apparently it’s ok to abuse some people but it’s not ok to reciprocate in this fictional arbitrary society). Others still persistently single out the words and phrases of one at the expense of all others and will damn them for ‘crimes’ that all commit (including those at the top of the hierarchy) – this is a form of discrimination and it’s certainly a clear display of double standards.

If such a society were to exist then it would be instantly identified as corrupt, discriminatory and incosistent in the application of it ‘social contract’.

Corruption, discrimination and double standards are not qualities that should be encouraged or supported. Any society attempting to exploit such behaviours whilst preaching a principled set of arbitrary rules that it’s own principles break on a consistent basis really is living in cloud cuckoo land.

Fortunately, we’re talking about a fictional society, right? No such society would truly exist on such pathetic principles and certainly no society would consider itself above global law just because its principles are petty and unprofessional.

Perhaps it’s best not to go around breaking laws and then having to backpeddle in the first place.

What a mess.

In a nutshell: No-one likes you. There must be a reason. Either, everyone else is an idiot, or maybe, just maybe, it might have something to do with you. And democracies are built on a popular vote, everyone votes that you change or simply go away. How’s that? Easy enough to understand?

“Pat’s just too bloody nice.”

He’s a bit slow though. He’s still not sent me this policy I’ve requested. And what with thanksgiving and all it’s not like it’s a hectic news day.

Pat probably is too nice, but I like pat.

I may disagree with pat sometimes, but I have the greatest of respect for him. He’s got his own opinions and he’s not afraid to stand by them or speak up for them, but likewise he’s not afraid of the opinions of anyone else, either.

I find that the majority of people tend to hold the easiest of viewpoints, in that they’re viewpoints which can’t be argued or views that the majority hold, so they never move outside their comfort zone. I’ve found that many sites hold to this religiously and no one ever really learns anything from their discourse there.

I like VG247 though, because I like how pat handles it. There are such varied opinions here, and people who aren’t afraid to back those up (good for them), there are examples of comfort-zone opinion groups, but they’re far less prominent than on most gaming sites I’ve frequented.

Here’s hoping then that frayed tempers don’t lead to a muted VG247, because frankly… that’d be a bloody shame.

“In a nutshell: No-one likes you.”

I’m sorry morriss. That still doesn’t override privacy laws.

For your information, I have plenty of people that like me. I don’t seek the approval of faceless people I’ve never met on the internet. Nothing personal but such relationships are meaningless to me and their approval or disapproval of my opinions mean far less to me than it means to them.

Some people treat the internet like a popularity contest. I’m not one of those. The same applies to popular opinion. Just because the herd/mob all think one thing doesn’t make a jot of difference to me and just because that same herd/mob all rush to silence those that will express opinions outside the bracket of ‘popular’ doesn’t make that worth of those opinions any less. It simply demonstrates the intolerance and narrow mindedness of such a mob.

Your needs for approval and validation are not shared by everyone so the standards by which you attempt to judge people you know absolutely nothing and the importance you place in your accusations and assumption only serve to show that you are totally incapable of speaking for me.

It must be awfully inconvenient for you that I’ve not gone around breaking laws, calling people cunts or attempting to silence them simply because I’m an intolerant and narrow minded individual. If I had then your attempts to demonise me might be worth something, as it is, I remain a far better behaved and more principled member of this ‘social contract’ than the other offenders that you’re conveniently overlooking in another display of your petty double standards.

Popularity doesn’t make you right. And vice versa.

Oh dear, morriss, the Internet isn’t a democracy, it’s a dictatorship. Even this site is a dictatorship.

And frankly, anyone who regards the law as an optional inconvenience to invasion of privacy isn’t really a well placed spokesman for any sort of principles.

You reap what you sew, isn’t that what you said morriss?

what is this obsession with the term “invasion of privacy?”

When I was younger there was a poster on the wall in the opticians waiting room that I can still remember quite vividly.

It had a picture of a battered and bruised boxer in his corner of the ring and written on it were the words:

Whoever wins all of their arguements loses all of their friends.

I’m glad I saw that poster.

Exactly.

Something is going on in here… I can sense it!

…? What was the aim of that poster? “Dont argue”? Odd…

No, I think it was more along the lines of: Even if you’re convinced that you’re right, you’re only going to make dislike you by always trying to prove the point.

There’s no shame in just shutting up if you’re right in an arguement and someone else is wrong, because you’ll be better off for it in terms of community cohesion in the end.

(I started this before I saw the post above.)

It’s probably more along the lines of learning to concede that another’s view of the World is equally as valid as your own, and you have to admit that unless one is willing to believe that the next person is less of a person than they are.

I could go into more detail than that, but I won’t. I did with the previous draft of this post, but it was turning into a bloody psychology paper, drawing on my education there… and that would’ve bored everyone to tears.

I have to admit that I’m ready to think of the next person as less unless they can demonstrate that they are indeed aware, but I find that demonstrating awareness is a very simple thing to do. So if anyone is unable to do that, then I can’t easily respect them.

I have to say though, pretty much everyone here has proved that they’re not just some bloody drone with the strength of their convictions.

Internet popularity is worthless.

“Internet popularity is worthless.”

That’s a true statement when tied to an identity, because on the Internet an identity means little. It’s only really ideas and thoughts which are popular or not, and they’re usually so (or not) without any regard really given to the source.

It’s nice having popular ideas on the Internet though, I’ve had one or two of those float around, like self-propagating chunks of my own mind. It’s always fun to watch.

—

I suppose though, identity on the Internet can matter where it’s real, and people actually back up their identity. But aside from journalists and site hosts who need to do that, how often do we see that happening?

what is this obsession with the term “invasion of privacy”?

why do you ask questions that you know the answer to?

When the guilty feign innocence it’s just a declaration of guilt.

Guilty of what? Please show me the law that you assume I’ve broken.

Sorry morriss, I’m not going to play that particular game. Unlike some, I know where the line is and despite your pretence at ignorance (ironic!) we both know that, in this case, you’re not quite as clueless as you’re hoping to make out.

If you want to continue this in private be my guest. I’m sure you know how to contact me if you want to.

Try not to misbehave again. And if you could ask pat to sort that email out I’d be grateful.

“what is this obsession with the term “invasion of privacy”"

Must… resist urge… to make… perverted pun…

“It’s probably more along the lines of learning to concede that another’s view of the World is equally as valid as your own, and you have to admit that unless one is willing to believe that the next person is less of a person than they are.”

Them’s bold words from someone who, less than two weeks ago here, was advocating that the world would be a much finer place if the 90% of humanity whose tastes and opinions didn’t match his were suddenly and painlessly killed off.

Esha’s vision of ‘Planet Love’ in an LBP discussion ring any bells?