Some of the differences between trading card games, shareware etc and pay-to-play:
1) The older models have transparent pricing, whereas pay-to-play have opaque pricing. You can tell the price of a deck or full version of a shareware game, but you can't tell how many IAP's you'll need over the lifetime of a pay-to-play game.
3) IAP's are often transient replenishables such as gems or gold. A trading card or full version of a game, you own permanently.
4) It's hard to trust that pay-to-play games isn't specifically designed to make you part with dollars. Players come to doubt the fairness of the game rules. Even for "honest" game makers, there will be suspicion of foul play in the game mechanics.
5) Pay-to-play games, like slot machines, make their money from 10-20% of users called "whales", who are susceptible to gambling addiction. Using psychological tricks to extract money from such people is very shaky, ethically.
When games promote feelings of suspicion, exploitation and even psychological manipulation in the majority of players (i.e. non-whales), you get this kind of backlash, as in the case of clash of clans and other pay-to-plays.
Has it ruined the gaming industry? Not in my opinion - I think (or hope) pay-to-play is a fad which will devolve into a niche. As people become aware of the shady tactics being used, they'll tend to avoid them. Or at least gravitate towards those pay-to-plays, where it really is possible to have a decent game play experience without paying.
You are the one here acting like a troll. You come off as argumentative to the point of combative. You nitpick and swear, all in a highly unpleasant tone. If you really are done, great, the discussion will be better off.
Like the author mentions, he subscribes to the "no silver bullet" thought. Methodologies doesn't ensure project success because it's insignificant compared to the individuals involved and the scope of the product. The focus on process, is because process is easy to implement and change, giving the illusion of control.
What good project managers do is much harder than implementing a Scrum method. It's finding good people, making the hard decisions of removing the bad people and get / make a clear understanding of product scope and goals.
The last point in particular should be a well duh, but in reality it's ridiculously common to encounter projects where the PM (and hence even the customer), have a very vague understanding of what's actually being built. Those projects are guaranteed to go massively over time and budget, or being outright cancelled.
Good process is just the icing on the cake. It should be used, process alone does not make a project success.
I might be speaking blasphemy here, but is the advantages of unit testing worth the increased code complexity?
In quite a few codebases I've seen, the amount of tests was entirely unrelated to how stable and maintainable the system was. Some times developers just fixed the tests, rather than the bugs. And in many cases, there were a slew of failing tests even though the system ran fine.
I'm surprised that both you and tptacek seem to think it's much less of a deal to pay back vendors. Say the vendor is a startup or otherwise small company who's survival is hinged on getting paid what you owe. It's okay to stiff them, because we can get away with it legally?
I think it's downright dishonorable to leave vendors hanging like that.
Terminate your venture in time, before you can't afford to pay what you owe. There shouldn't be any difference whether it's an employee or a vendor.
I'm in favor of paying one's debts, have a credit record which would do a Lannister proud, and would not incur any obligation which I did not have the good faith intention to repay as agreed. It's just that I feel an extra special obligation to employees, on account of their unique relationship to their employer, their (presumed) degree of dependence on that relationship, and a heritage as both a Catholic and a Japanese salaryman which suggests that not paying an employee their due wages is a crime which cries out to heaven for vengeance. (For those folks in the peanut gallery who aren't Catholic or Japanese salarymen: that's a thing for both, and it is a thing called exactly that by Catholics. I'm aware many HNers don't necessarily believe in it, but that doesn't make me believe in it less.)
Vendors do not enjoy this status, although I'd make all reasonable efforts to have a business which I control pay them as agreed. Reasonable efforts includes things like cash flow juggling, taking out debts in the name of the business, or reducing the size of my distributions. They do not include my family experiencing hardship on your business' account.
Vendors are not assumed to be as vulnerable as employees. They typically have far less concentration of income and far higher savvy with regards to the necessity of, e.g., keeping a cushion against the risk of receivables going sour.
I run a small company. I work with lots of other ones. Of the entire set of them, nobody is one invoice from death. If we were, we'd be dead, because we're well aware that individual invoices go missing all the damn time. That's baked into running a business with businesses as clients.
That's also part of the reason why, when I do business with companies as a vendor and not as an employee, I charge a significant premium to what I'd earn as an employee. The possibility of your business going belly up prior to paying my invoice exists. I already priced it into my weekly rate (or your monthly rate for services or whatever). If one of my clients was unable to pay due to their business ceasing to be a going concern, as a responsible businessman, when apprised of that I'd say "Wow, sorry. OK." and write off the debt. It happens. My accountant could probably tell you how much it cost us last year.
If the business owner said "I'd really feel better paying you out of my own pocket for this." I'd literally refuse their money. It's not their family's responsibility to backstop my business' cash flow management. That's my job, and part of the reason why I "earn the big bucks", for values of big which are pretty modest.
(Prudentially speaking I'd probably treat a solo freelancer on a long term contract as an employee for the purpose of "Should I reimburse this guy out of my own pocket?", but as a former consultant, I'd advise any of my freelancing friends to structure their affairs such that they don't depend on payment of every invoice.)
A big question in this is what constitutes a vendor.
People who are experienced enough to price the risk into contracts, manage cashflow and not put all eggs into one basket won't get burned from a customers' insolvency.
But that comes from experience. Young people or the typical specialist such as a carpenter or electrician, are not necessarily this experienced in business.
In my view there's no line between such a vendor, and an individual who happens to be on the payroll. There might be legally, but they are equally entitled to payment for their work.
I'm sure neither you nor Thomas are ones to screw people over. But I think there's too much self-absolution of responsibility in startup circles, and your posts initially seemed to talk that point of view.
It boils down to being a decent person and stopping a venture before puting other people in financial jeopardy. Don't cry over the venture capitalists losses. But do make whole the people who have worked hard for you, whether employed or not.
If you didn't mislead the vendors, there's no dishonor in failure.
We all take risks... you shouldn't do what some retailers often do (load up on inventory, then go bankrupt) but at the end of the day, your obligation is to pay the employees and the government their due. Everyone else gets pennies on the dollar.
Well written code covers the what and the how. The why is what you need to be covering with code comments. This is for the inevitable time when the "simply not so smart" developers has to fix errors in the absentee guru's code.
You consider striking up a conversation to a person behind you in the food/drinks line as "bum-rushing by a random creep"? Jesus Christ, I really don't think you should be dishing out conversation / networking advice!
Bum-rushing is, IMO, strong, but the problem with striking up a conversation with someone in a line, is that they're more or less a captive audience. If, for some reason, they'd prefer not to speak with you, they have to leave their place in order to do so, and forcing that on them isn't really polite, or fair.
That and the fact that Pinterest is actually exploring how to gain revenue. They've used Skimlinks (http://skimlinks.com/) before to affiliate the content posted on their site. Probably the best idea out there.