Exactly, it is a game version of 'work' and it is designed strictly for your enjoyment and tuned to the psychology that brings those rewards.
Work in a game and real-life can be fun if you are accomplishing things and moving in a general progression direction with some success.
In the real world, you can accomplish things and move sideways or backdrift based on many other factors than what you put in as work or capital, in other words, not as fun all the time and not really specifically tuned as a game design for fun.
In theory, a smart forward-thinking country could come along and look at themselves as a company/reserve and make a virtual currency + exchange that is desired because they will not touch it. They could create a killer currency, a neutral country that doesn't play in the theatre of games. Like the Swiss used to do with banking.
However banking is also getting more regulated. Money flow is living under a rule where "papers please" is the norm, untracked cash is suspect. Many of the excuses for this much regulation on a currency is the War on Drugs and the War on Terror.
The demand just keeps getting higher and higher for a killer currency.
The "killer currency" must reach a point where it is robust enough to withstand what Kroll, Davey, and Felten describe as a "Goldfinger" attack. 
They use basic game theory to show that any actor participating within the Bitcoin community would not commit a 51% attack. They go on to identify the biggest threat to a budding virtual currency: some outside actor being able to take a sufficiently large short position on Bitcoin (or otherwise gain utility from Bitcoin's destruction), then mounting or simply threatening to mount a 51% attack. This would start a death spiral that would cause rational actors not to participate in the network at an increasing rate.
They conclude that good, active governance is necessary to make sure that Bitcoin and similar virtual currencies survive.
The creators will need to "touch" the currency in order to protect and maintain its value. A true killer currency would be a virtual currency that is pegged to some well-chosen and largely diversified basket of essential goods such as wheat, lumber, metals, energy, etc. Peg the currency to a broad range of economic inputs and raw materials.
Pair programming physically side by side is not great. Pair programming or integrating/coding together remote over Skype/Gotomeeting/etc screen sharing is great when needed.
It is like having another programmer in your head and you can't see each other type so there are less jibs/jabs. Plus both people can eat, drink, do things rather than just stand around one workstation like people did with TV in the 50s and one person can't see the screen.
I can't remember the last time I pair programmed in person over remote even in the same office/building. Occasionally you need to be in the same room or desk to draw something up but mostly it is more efficient remotely especially during an integration.
Pair programming remotely is like "hey you got a bug on line 441", pair programming side by side physically is like "dude you got a bug down there, btw just just use this hotkey" or doesn't even see it because you can't see the screen.
I agree. I work remotely and do this a lot with team members, but when people suggest pair programming, they are (usually) referring to 2 seats on 1 keyboard kind of thing, which I hate and would probably quit if I had to do it on a day to day basis.
The whiteboard interview attempts to be used as a way to figure out a developers thought flow, however it is a flawed system....
Many programmers are introverted and not always the best at speaking in front of people they just met, most people aren't.
The skill the whiteboard is checking is not the skill that will be used on the job, it is overly focused on an extroverted personality and how well this developer can present to new people. An introverted developer might mess up in an interview but be making the best designs, products and presentations to the team later when the team is known.
The true test is in the trenches and no test in an interview by a select few people in the company can ever tell product delivery and developer skill, the interview steps are just some litmus tests. Companies want the best and brightest but many are getting cut off at the pass from a whiteboard. Is the interview really where we determine who is the best, not the work? What costs more, losing a good developer to an interview process or letting someone in you determine isn't a good fit 1-2 months in on a small project.
I was asked to write code to solve this problem during an interview once:
"You are driving at a constant speed. After a while, you pass a mile marker with a two-digit number on it. One hour later, you pass another mile marker with the same two numbers on it, but in reverse order. In another hour, you pass a third mile marker with the same two digits separated by a zero. How many miles per hour are you traveling and what numbers were on each of the mile markers?"
When I started working at the company, what was the first thing they had me do? Convert all the tabs in their Ruby source files into spaces.
That right there is the problem with whiteboard questions.
Civil forfeiture law is one of the most despicable aspects to our current system. The echoes to monarchy and state power greater than individual rights is too much. If you are in the US, this is exactly what smarter people before us crossed the ocean to get away from.
> Civil forfeiture law is one of the most despicable aspects to our current system.
And yet, under Democratic and Republican presidents; under Democratic and Republican House control; and under Democratic and Republican Senate control, the policy persists. Why is that? How much power do these agencies have over the elected officials?
The system does take advantage of nice people that are bad negotiators.
I guess don't hate the player hate the game as it is all game theory in the end and the complainers or negotiators will always tip in their favor. You can be a team player and get your worth but you have to speak up and be aware.
I think it is better to be fair at salaries even though you could pay the great developer you have lower than the good one that knows the market and is a negotiator. If you don't and they find out they are gone as happened in this instance. Open salaries might even be a good idea with bonuses for performance.
We are all* bad at bad at negotiating when we desperately need a job, this is one of the biggest reasons I suggest people look for a different job while they're still employed, if they have that luxery.
Job hunting while you don't need to helps you overlook those places where you know you might not be a good fit for whatever reason, and interviewing when you don't need to helps you build your negotiating skills.
I got my current job while happily employed at my last one, the only reason I applied was quite literally for the interviewing experience. But I liked what I saw, they agreed to a salary that I decided ahead of time was the bar that had to be met to be seriously considered as a potential new job, so I said yes and so did they.
2 years later, I'm loving my job, my team, and my management team. Job hunt while you don't need to.
How do I know I'm making market rate? I check glass for periodically and share salary info with colleagues who reciprocate.
* we aren't all bad at negotiating but enough of us are that I think its a safe generalization here.
That happened to me today. They asked me my rate. I said $X. They said they could offer $X-20%. I declined the interview. (I was getting bad vibes for other reasons, so I don't feel bad.)
If I was unemployed, I might have considered $X-20%. Since I have a job, there's no reason to accept a job for a lower salary than I'm getting now, especially when the interviewer is being a jerk. (If it seemed like an awesome opportunity, I'd consider equal or slightly less. This was not one of those, it was a contracting company looking for a warm body RIGHT NOW to fill a client need.)
One other lesson I've learned that's surprising: You would think that in a job where you're underpaid, you'll be appreciated, and in job where you're paid well, you'll be abused more. My experience has been the opposite. In the jobs where I was paid well, it was a more pleasant experience than in the jobs where I was underpaid. In business, money equals respect, so if you're underpaid, that means they don't respect you.
> ... it is all game theory in the end and the complainers or negotiators will always tip in their favor.
But what is "in their favor"?
Hypothetically, I'm new to a field, interviewing with a company in another city. If I'm completely honest with them, then I might say, "You can make me a lousy offer if you want; I'd probably accept it. I don't know the job market, and I don't know your city. But soon, I will. And when I do, unless you offer me enough now to encourage me to stay, I'll be gone. And all your effort in finding me and interviewing me and moving me there and training me and bringing me up to speed on your business will be wasted. So why not just make me a decent offer now?"
Of course, no one ever says that.
But, viewed through that lens, I think it's clear that many businesses are awfully poor players of "the game", as well.
Many people stay even after they realize they're underpaid, simply out of inertia. Companies knows this, and by getting you to accept a low-ball offer, they're just taking a calculated risk, and reaping the benefits in the interim, if not the long run.
The trouble with an issue like this is that it is difficult to disentangle a calculated risk of the kind you are talking about from mere short-sighted thinking. People proceeding from the two different viewpoints could end up acting identically.
And then there is the fact that the company is often not really the one making the salary decisions. Rather, someone has had hiring authority delegated to them. And this person's motivations in making an offer might not aligned with the long-term best interests of the company.
I've heard several hiring managers say "recruiting is very expensive in both money and attention; while we don't want to significantly overpay you, we also don't want to underpay you and then have to go through the whole process again in six months when you discover your market value."
nope, "don't hate the player, hate the game" is a massive cop-out, and excuses people who perpetrate broken systems because they benefit from them. there is no abstract "the game" written into the fundamental nature of human psychology; there is only the collective behaviour of all the players, some of whom end up influencing the game more than others.
> massive cop-out, and excuses people who perpetrate broken systems because they benefit from them
> there is only the collective behaviour of all the players, some of whom end up influencing the game more than others
You drew the wrong conclusion from your own example. The sum of all of the players actions is the game, and it delivers results similar to the Nash Equilibrium. Everyone works in their own best interest and the system is actually not "broken". This is the system working. If you would work for half what another employer might pay you, fine. Obviously, I weight the benefits of saving money on your salary, with the negative (and likely outcome) that when you find out, you may leave taking talent away. Some employers pay well to prevent this (google, yahoo, amazon come to mind), and thus their talent is largely safe from financial poaching.
This is how the system works, and how the world works. It isn't equitable and it isn't a fairytale. However, it is true.
> Everyone works in their own best interest and the system is actually not "broken".
You assume that all actors are rational. It ignores things like office politics, people building fiefdoms, people holding grudges, the idea that you aren't a "team player" if you're asking for more money, the idea that one should be "loyal" to the company (but that the company can be "cold and calculating" when it comes to you), gender/racial/whatever discrimination, etc...
People often do not work in their own best interest. Or maybe they work in their best short-term interest while ignore their medium- and/or long-term interests.
Yes, many of us have been fortunate in that we've actually had managers or clients encourage us to raise our rates to what they knew were market standard. Unfortunately, not everyone experiences those lucky moments.
I am currently reading through Thomas Schellings The Strategy of Conflict, which is brilliant, but even the first chapter is enough to outplay the normal plays that you will encounter (e.g buying a car, demanding a certain wage etc). It is a surprisingly easy read for an old book.
> Given that the "passionate content providers" only make 25% of what users pay, I think that's a very generous interpretation.
True however market rate for platform/store is 30% + 20% royalty if you use an IP + 5%-10% for engine or more for publishing dollars.
Many regular game breakdowns are the game developer only get 40-60% revenues, 70% if they have no other costs on most stores including Steam.
With the paid mods Valve took 30% (industry average although it should be challenged -- set by Apple), Bethesda took 45%, 25% for royalty and 20% for their take. Leaving 25% for the content creator.
Other developers could have given up to 50% to the content creator which is as good as many developers get on an original title. Valve probably wants to give more but they can't because other developers would be scared away due to unfairness since Valve owns the platform. 25% is low yes but it is more than people make at a crappy job or more than anyone gets at their day job in terms of ownership or points on profit/work.
I think with the backlash it is good that people can influence companies but much of it was black and white. Mods will always exist with or without Steam. Free mods would only grow with a paid mod side market as any economy grows when money is added in, the free side would have grown. Many of the sharing issues could have been alleviated with a shareable license the creator could add. Pay what you want with a simple breakdown could have been default like Humble Bundle. They also should have launched it with a better breakdown on the initial developer and game chosen.
The mod market will get money invading it again as it is immense and we live in a capitalist system where nothing of sufficient size evades money, but it will be smarter next time. Over the long term, it will make mods more prevalent and overall quality will go up at the top. There may even be a mod professional job someday, I think it is good when people can make income from making or playing games. If you can make money doing what you love then you can spend more time doing it. And donations aren't enough for good mod makers to keep doing it when there are other things they can do.
Close your right eye, your nose will appear on the right of your left eye. Close your left eye, your nose will appear on the left of your right eye. They have this correct. When you put the goggles on it will seem the same as you currently see, the nose fades because it is on the far side of your vision field of view and on opposite sides.
I always wondered after seeing this a bit ago if the addition of a torso might also help. Part of the disorientation might be that it seems like your body is not there. A nose with a torso and eventually LeapMotion like hand controls/arms, may help reduce VR sickness.
Content is where I expect much of the real money will be made on the Internet, just as it was in broadcasting.
The television revolution that began half a century ago spawned a number of industries, including the manufacturing of TV sets, but the long-term winners were those who used the medium to deliver information and entertainment.
When it comes to an interactive network such as the Internet, the definition of “content” becomes very wide. For example, computer software is a form of content-an extremely important one, and the one that for Microsoft will remain by far the most important.
But the broad opportunities for most companies involve supplying information or entertainment. No company is too small to participate.