The Economist Explains

http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2014/09/economist-explains-15

WHEN Activision, a big games publisher, released "Destiny" on September 9th, it was not just covered in the gaming press. Many newspapers commented on the game's eye-watering budget, reported to be around $500m. How could a video game cost half a billion dollars to make? The truth is, it didn't—Activision hopes that "Destiny" will become the first game in a long-running franchise, and $500m is the amount the firm has set aside to make that happen. But game budgets are, nonetheless, swelling.

Click to expand...

I wonder when the first billion dollar game will be made

They've been using that number to generate hype and it worked wonders. The game has great core gameplay - but everything else is hollow and void.

Still, it's selling like hotcakes. Another example of how to do marketing and how the actual game doesn't have to be special for massive success.

I wounder how much of those $500m was spent on marketing and how much was spent on the actual game ?

It can be frustrating to see how much money is getting put into these AAA titles. However, it's not all bad. With gaming becoming more and more accepted as a hobby (it's not just for geeks etc), that "middle tier" where RPGs are usually developed will also likely grow.

Also, the technology developed for games like Destiny will also benefit us in the long run, as it's made available over time without costing a fortune. It's somewhat similar to what Mercedes, BMW etc do with their top-of-the-line cars: They put a lot of expensive tech into it, see what works, sell the cars for a fortune as luxury cars, and then use the tech that actually worked well in the next generation family car.

A perfect example is how BioWare is now gaining access to Frostbite. Would EA ever develop such an engine for RPGs? My guess is they wouldn't even consider it.

So yes, it is a lot of money, and it's being put into games I am very unlikely to even try. However, it could be beneficial to us in the end. At least that's what I hope.

Of course that's the same with science and innovation ...

NASA itself only benefits itself in the short term, but in the long term could yield benefits we do not think would ever have existed without it.

GPS is a military 'invention' that was later used commercially too.

Indeed. Another example: The moon landing was considered a massive waste of resources by a lot of people, but it resulted in quite a few technological breakthroughs.

Pladio said:

I wonder when the first billion dollar game will be made

Click to expand...

Star Citizen's crowd funding level isn't there yet?

It's a bit off I think

A few more bucks

Well, if we're looking at things in terms of the progress or the advantages that come after something happens, then WW2 was a wonderful event.

I'm not quite sure that's the way to look at it, though.

DArtagnan said:

Well, if we're looking at things in terms of the progress or the advantages that come after something happens, then WW2 was a wonderful event.

I'm not quite sure that's the way to look at it, though.

Click to expand...

No, it wasn't. There were certain short term advances due to the war, but losing 50 million people is a serious set back no matter how you look at it. Economically it's a disaster, leading to decades of rebuilding, which in turn leads to less technological investments and so on. A few years of advances is not worth decades of set backs.

It's a myth that war leads to advances, as the aftermath is always a disaster. And when that aftermath in turn leads to another war, such as in Afghanistan, various African countries and so on, the overall result is evolutionary ruin, where an entire culture can go from sophisticated to stone age in a relatively short amount of time.

Maylander said:

No, it wasn't. There were certain short term advances due to the war, but losing 50 million people is a serious set back no matter how you look at it. Economically it's a disaster, leading to decades of rebuilding, which in turn leads to less technological investments and so on. A few years of advances is not worth decades of set backs.

It's a myth that war leads to advances, as the aftermath is always a disaster. And when that aftermath in turn leads to another war, such as in Afghanistan, various African countries and so on, the overall result is evolutionary ruin, where an entire culture can go from sophisticated to stone age in a relatively short amount of time.

Click to expand...

Are you seriously denying the technical advances made during WW2 - as well as the effect of the nuclear deterrent?

Technical advances don't just come around - especially not big advances without funding. When you have a war to win, you tend to be motivated to fund major projects that would never have gotten funding in peace time.

You've got to be kidding me.

You're the one perpetuating myths.

Also, you're missing the point. I'm saying we should not just look at the "good" things that come from an event, but the combined picture. You're the one arguing spending 500$ million dollars on a mediocre game is a good thing, because it might lead to other good things.

If you actually read what I said, WW2 was a wonderful event ONLY if we look at the advances. You can dream and fantasize about the war not bringing any advancement, but that has nothing to do with reality.

Here's a random link for some inspiration and a reality check:

http://www.expertreviews.co.uk/general/1286401/top-10-technical-innovations-of-world-war-2

DArtagnan said:

Are you seriously denying the technical advances made during WW2 - as well as the effect of the nuclear deterrent?

Click to expand...

Nuclear research was well under way long before the war, and its intended use was as a power source. Turning it into a weapon is hardly a good thing.

DArtagnan said:

Technical advances don't just come around - especially not big advances without funding. When you have a war to win, you tend to be motivated to fund major projects that would never have gotten funding in peace time.

You've got to be kidding me.

Click to expand...

That's what I'm trying to say. Technological advances requires money and work force, which is exactly what we didn't have after the war.

We know about the technological advances during the war, I'm not denying that at all, what we don't know is what kind of advances we would've been able to achieve in the 50s and 60s if we hadn't blown away 50 million people in addition to an absurd amount of resources.

And it's complete hogwash that the greatest advances come during times of war. Nonsense. It's a myth, like I said. The single greatest advancement of all time is writing, enabling us to pass on knowledge. It came about due to trade, not war. Then there's the printing press, electricity, computers, the internet and so on and so forth. None of it came during times of war.

DArtagnan said:

Also, you're missing the point. I'm saying we should not just look at the "good" things that come from an event, but the combined picture. You're the one arguing spending 500$ million dollars on a mediocre game is a good thing, because it might lead to other good things.

If you actually read what I said, WW2 was a wonderful event ONLY if we look at the advances. You can dream and fantasize about the war not bringing any advancement, but that has nothing to do with reality.

Click to expand...

The point is that sustainable technological investments are a good thing, and yields positive results for years to come. Non-sustainable investments, such as the technological jump starts that are found in wars, or similar to the investments the Soviets made during the Cold War, are not a good thing, as they always lead to an aftermath of poverty and rebuilding, which in turn leads to significantly slower advances for a long, long time. The end result is then a net loss in terms of advancement, even though it seemed like a gain in the start.

Maylander said:

Nuclear research was well under way long before the war, and its intended use was as a power source. Turning it into a weapon is hardly a good thing.

Click to expand...

"Well under way" is a very subjective term, isn't it. The War was what made it actually happen. As for the weapon being good or bad, it sure prevented a lot of wars if you're to believe the experts.

You could argue that all technology would eventually come around. The key to appreciate here is what all those years without widespread and smart use of penicillin or even computers would have been like. The reason tech in a short time is good, is how much time is saved without those advances.

That's what I'm trying to say. Technological advances requires money and work force, which is exactly what we didn't have after the war.

Click to expand...

What are you saying here? That all the technical advances didn't actually happen because some countries needed to rebuild?

We know about the technological advances during the war, I'm not denying that at all, what we don't know is what kind of advances we would've been able to achieve in the 50s and 60s if we hadn't blown away 50 million people in addition to an absurd amount of resources.

Click to expand...

No, we don't know anything for sure. But if you're being just a tiny bit realistic, you'd acknowledge how much of a push forward those years meant.

And it's complete hogwash that the greatest advances come during times of war. Nonsense. It's a myth, like I said. The single greatest advancement of all time is writing, enabling us to pass on knowledge. It came about due to trade, not war. Then there's the printing press, electricity, computers, the internet and so on and so forth. None of it came during times of war.

Click to expand...

Ehm? You're talking about computers. Have you ever heard of the Enigma? Do you know what it meant for computers? That leads directly to the Internet, by the way.

You can have an opinion about what's a myth and what's not, but an opinion does not make it so. If you're claiming that the advances made in such a short time weren't significant or "good" - then you're living in a dream world. Fine, but that's what it is.

I'm not saying it was worth it - once again. I'm saying WW2 was wonderful if we ignore the bad things.

The point is that sustainable technological investments are a good thing, and yields positive results for years to come. Non-sustainable investments, such as the technological jump starts that are found in wars, or similar to the investments the Soviets made during the Cold War, are not a good thing, as they always lead to an aftermath of poverty and rebuilding, which in turn leads to significantly slower advances for a long, long time. The end result is then a net loss in terms of advancement, even though it seemed like a gain in the start.

Click to expand...

The technical advances are separate from the rebuilding you're talking about. The war and the killing is not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about technology that we're basing all our modern technology on, including many of the things you mentioned yourself.

I'm not talking about weapons technology here, apart from the nuclear bomb - which I happen to think has saved a lot more lives than it's destroyed. Also, as you point out - nuclear technology has had other uses.

Maybe you have a source for this rebuilding fantasy? As in, all the advances made during the war are actually responsible for the destruction and rebuilding efforts?

DArtagnan said:

What are you saying here? That all the technical advances didn't actually happen because some countries needed to rebuild?

Click to expand...

I'm saying that Europe ended up in a rather sad state due to the war. Europe and the US were roughly equal in terms of technology before the war, but there's only been one super power after it, and that's because the US weren't bombed into oblivion. Without WW2, Europe would probably have been able to rival the rate of technological breakthroughs that the US had, but instead we ended up being a limping dog for 50 years. We're finally starting to catch up, but how would the technological landscape have looked if the US hadn't had a complete monopoly for so long? The added competition alone means we'd have flying cars or something by now (that's a joke by the way, as every sci-fi setting has flying cars, yet they never seem to come around).

DArtagnan said:

Ehm? You're talking about computers. Have you ever heard of the Enigma? Do you know what it meant for computers? That leads directly to the Internet, by the way.

Click to expand...

I studied computer science, and history was one of its subject. Enigma was a very small step, in a very long history. Computers are hundreds of years old, and there have been many iterations over the years, ranging from calculators to punch cards to the digital computers we use today.

As for Enigma, it was based on the ideas of Turing, who had loads of ideas regarding computers and is considered the father of modern computing. In fact, many of his ideas, including the ones that lead to Enigma, were developed and published in the 30s, long before the war broke out.

DArtagnan said:

The technical advances are separate from the rebuilding you're talking about. The war and the killing is not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about technology that we're basing all our modern technology on, including many of the things you mentioned yourself.

I'm not talking about weapons technology here, apart from the nuclear bomb - which I happen to think has saved a lot more lives than it's destroyed. Also, as you point out - nuclear technology has had other uses.

Maybe you have a source for this rebuilding fantasy? As in, all the advances made during the war are actually responsible for the destruction and rebuilding efforts?

Click to expand...

I think I know what you're trying to say here, that if there were no losses at all, the advances would be a good thing, but even then I'm not sure that is actually the case, as the economic investments alone were not sustainable.

The Soviet Union is a perfect example: During the Cold War, they had impressive progress, but it came at such a huge cost they're still struggling to this day. They might have gained a short term advantage, but in the long run the economic ruin meant they couldn't invest anything in technology for decades.

Maximizing technological advancements over time means using a sustainable model. It's a never ending marathon, not a short sprint, and while the short sprints look impressive, they won't decide who's winning.

Maylander said:

I'm saying that Europe ended up in a rather sad state due to the war. Europe and the US were roughly equal in terms of technology before the war, but there's only been one super power after it, and that's because the US weren't bombed into oblivion. Without WW2, Europe would probably have been able to rival the rate of technological breakthroughs that the US had, but instead we ended up being a limping dog for 50 years. We're finally starting to catch up, but how would the technological landscape have looked if the US hadn't had a complete monopoly for so long? The added competition alone means we'd have flying cars or something by now (that's a joke by the way, as every sci-fi setting has flying cars, yet they never seem to come around).

Click to expand...

As for rebuilding Europe, you're blowing that WAY out of proportion. If we're talking about military power, that's true - but US has always had a RIDICULOUS amount of resources. They didn't magically appear because of the war. The War simply enabled their war machine and, as a result, they ended up being FAR ahead. But they were always in that position in terms of resources, they just had no real reason to be involved - being so far away. Back then, it was a real problem with such distances - and it still is for many.

Just look at the size and the amount of resources available to US, which is one combined nation - very much unlike Europe.

As for Europe, we've enjoyed a great amount of prospering post-WW2, ESPECIALLY in terms of technology. I have no idea what you're talking about when you're saying we'd have been able to compete with the US here. Europe isn't some single powerful nation - we're a bunch of individual nations, and there's no single one that could have competed in terms of resources at all.

I studied computer science, and history was one of its subject. Enigma was a very small step, in a very long history. Computers are hundreds of years old, and there have been many iterations over the years, ranging from calculators to punch cards to the digital computers we use today.

Click to expand...

I studied computer science as well, but that's irrelevant. I don't see how studying computer science means anything if you don't know the impact of Enigma. The very first machines established as "computers" were a DIRECT result of breaking German encryption during WW2. These are the Colossus and the Bombe.

If you want to downplay their importance in your own mind, that's ok. But know that you're going up against pretty much everyone else, including historians dedicated to WW2.

As for Enigma, it was based on the ideas of Turing, who had loads of ideas regarding computers and is considered the father of modern computing. In fact, many of his ideas, including the ones that lead to Enigma, were developed and published in the 30s, long before the war broke out.

Click to expand...

So? Again, the war made things happen. Ideas are a dime a dozen. Right now - RIGHT now - there are people sitting around with ideas that could change the ENTIRE world.

The reason that's not too interesting, is that nothing will come of them in most cases.

That's what war can change.

I think I know what you're trying to say here, that if there were no losses at all, the advances would be a good thing, but even then I'm not sure that is actually the case, as the economic investments alone were not sustainable.

Click to expand...

Again, I have no idea why you consider the entirety of Europe broken and unable to sustain any significant technological advance. It's certainly the first I've heard of it.

Even Germany, which is obviously among the most affected countries during the war - managed to turn it all around COMPLETELY and develop an insanely solid work/quality ethic - as a DIRECT result of how they behaved during the war, and how they wanted to retain their dignity.

The Soviet Union is a perfect example: During the Cold War, they had impressive progress, but it came at such a huge cost they're still struggling to this day. They might have gained a short term advantage, but in the long run the economic ruin meant they couldn't invest anything in technology for decades.

Click to expand...

That has nothing to do with WW2 or the technical advances made during that time. That has to do with an utterly corrupt leadership and the complete failure of human kind when combined with communism.

Maximizing technological advancements over time means using a sustainable model. It's a never ending marathon, not a short sprint, and while the short sprints look impressive, they won't decide who's winning.

Click to expand...

Again, I have no idea what you're talking about. Please point to just a single source that supports this insane fantasy of making post-WW2 Europe (as a whole) unable to sustain the advances made during the war.

DArtagnan said:

As for rebuilding Europe, you're blowing that WAY out of proportion. If we're talking about military power, that's true - but US has always had a RIDICULOUS amount of resources. They didn't magically appear because of the war. The War simply enabled their war machine and, as a result, they ended up being FAR ahead. But they were always in that position in terms of resources, they just had no real reason to be involved - being so far away. Back then, it was a real problem with such distances - and it still is for many.

Just look at the size and the amount of resources available to US, which is one combined nation - very much unlike Europe.

As for Europe, we've enjoyed a great amount of prospering post-WW2, ESPECIALLY in terms of technology. I have no idea what you're talking about when you're saying we'd have been able to compete with the US here. Europe isn't some single powerful nation - we're a bunch of individual nations, and there's no single one that could have competed in terms of resources at all.

Click to expand...

Actually, the US was going through the Great Depression (started in 1930, roughly) right before the war started. Their economy was in ruins. Then the war started and all of a sudden they leapfrogged everyone due to their massive sales of war related materials and weapons. Prior to the war, Britain and France were both empires able to rival the US - by the end of it, the US was the undisputed super power of the world and Britain was effectively bankrupt. European industry, such as factories and power plants, was bombed to the point where they were completely reliant on the US industry, indebting the European countries until recently (Britain finally managed to repay the US in 2006).

DArtagnan said:

I studied computer science as well, but that's irrelevant. I don't see how studying computer science means anything if you don't know the impact of Enigma. The very first machines established as "computers" were a DIRECT result of breaking German encryption during WW2. These are the Colossus and the Bombe.

If you want to downplay their importance in your own mind, that's ok. But know that you're going up against pretty much everyone else, including historians dedicated to WW2.

Click to expand...

It means something because we actually had computer history as a subject, which is very rare for computer related studies. I'm not disputing the impact of computers in WW2, which is what historians dedicated to WW2 would point out. I'm disputing WW2's impact on computers, which WW2 historians know nothing about. That impact is negligible.

Simply put: Computers existed long before the war, and continued to evolve during and after the war. Ada Lovelace was the first real programmer, and her work predates World War 2 by at least 100 years! Computer history is far too long and complex to credit Enigma with being anything more than a natural stepping stone.

DArtagnan said:

Again, I have no idea why you consider the entirety of Europe broken and unable to sustain any significant technological advance. It's certainly the first I've heard of it.

Even Germany, which is obviously among the most affected countries during the war - managed to turn it all around COMPLETELY and develop an insanely solid work/quality ethic - as a DIRECT result of how they behaved during the war, and how they wanted to retain their dignity.

Click to expand...

I never said they were "unable to sustain any significant technological advance", but they were able to keep up with the US before the war and not after it. The US was in no way more advanced than Britain, Germany or France prior to the war. However, thanks to economic ruin in Europe and the economic boom in the US, (both being a direct result of the war), they were able to continually invest in technology, leading to a massive technical gap.

DArtagnan said:

That has nothing to do with WW2 or the technical advances made during that time. That has to do with an utterly corrupt leadership and the complete failure of human kind when combined with communism.

Click to expand...

It was primarily the costly arms race. They just couldn't afford it. Brilliant politicians would not have changed the fact that the USSR had less resources to begin with.

To be continued on monday

Now it's time for weekend!

Maylander said:

Actually, the US was going through the Great Depression (started in 1930, roughly) right before the war started. Their economy was in ruins. Then the war started and all of a sudden they leapfrogged everyone due to their massive sales of war related materials and weapons. Prior to the war, Britain and France were both empires able to rival the US - by the end of it, the US was the undisputed super power of the world and Britain was effectively bankrupt. European industry, such as factories and power plants, was bombed to the point where they were completely reliant on the US industry, indebting the European countries until recently (Britain finally managed to repay the US in 2006).

Click to expand...

The Great Depression was about money, not resources. Money is a shared fantasy about resources that people agree on, and it has absolutely nothing to do with the resources available.

We just went through a worldwide recession, and magically, most of the people responsible for most of the issues were compensated because that's what we apparently agreed was necessary to sustain the fantasy.

But you're right, some countries needed to rebuild after WW2. I don't know why those countries represent the entirety of Europe in your mind - or why needing to rebuild nullifies the technical advances. I really have no clue and you've offered no explanation.

It means something because we actually had computer history as a subject, which is very rare for computer related studies. I'm not disputing the impact of computers in WW2, which is what historians dedicated to WW2 would point out. I'm disputing WW2's impact on computers, which WW2 historians know nothing about. That impact is negligible.

Click to expand...

Ehm, what? Are you saying that people who specialise in WW2 history can't actually know about the Enigma? Is this some kind of Maylander rule.

In the real world, titles mean something about what you're likely to know - not what you don't know. All it means to be a WW2 historian - is that you're likely to know a lot about WW2. It doesn't mean anything in terms of what you DON'T know. But the Enigma is part of WW2 history - and to claim historians dealing with that know nothing about its impact on computers is absolutely ludicrous.

Just Google it or read the article I linked to. It had a major impact.

Simply put: Computers existed long before the war, and continued to evolve during and after the war. Ada Lovelace was the first real programmer, and her work predates World War 2 by at least 100 years! Computer history is far too long and complex to credit Enigma with being anything more than a natural stepping stone.

Click to expand...

At the foundation of a computer is math - and math has existed for much, much longer. Does that mean that all the advances made since then are insignificant? I don't get your point here. We're talking about how much WW2 meant for technical advances, and you're saying computers existed 100 years before. Of course they didn't, but I get that aspect of your claim.

The thing is that it makes no rational sense to discount advances because some of the foundation was in place years before.

I never said they were "unable to sustain any significant technological advance", but they were able to keep up with the US before the war and not after it. The US was in no way more advanced than Britain, Germany or France prior to the war. However, thanks to economic ruin in Europe and the economic boom in the US, (both being a direct result of the war), they were able to continually invest in technology, leading to a massive technical gap.

Click to expand...

Yes, and how does that nullify the technical advances? You're saying that the bad things about war for some countries, somehow, means that the good things didn't happen.

Makes zero sense to me.

Again, I'm not saying WW2 was a good thing. I'm saying if we choose to FOCUS on good things and forget the bad things, then WW2 was a massive boon to humanity.

That was my way of pointing out the original bullshit factor of Destiny being a good thing because of the same thing.

It was primarily the costly arms race. They just couldn't afford it. Brilliant politicians would not have changed the fact that the USSR had less resources to begin with.

Click to expand...

Less resources doesn't lead to complete ruin and downfall. It's about how you manage it and how you govern your people.

If you're saying Stalin was a good leader for the people - then I gotta admit I'm not really sure we're on the same planet.

——

In any case, I think I've lost my interest in the subject. Also, once again, we're so far removed from each other in terms of how we deal with logic and how we conclude from actual established history with tons of documentation.

As such, I'll agree to disagree about WW2. You don't think it had much of an impact in terms of technical advances - and I think it had a massive impact.

End of story.