The future of PC gaming - 2009 edition

[DrSpike]

Just so we're clear that you're talking bull****.

Actually I'm talking sense that I will believe until such times as I see evidence to the contrary. Indy devs are just unlikely to follow the same distribution as the general population when it comes to technological adoption.

[Asher]

Actually I'm talking sense that I will believe until such times as I see evidence to the contrary. Indy devs are just unlikely to follow the same distribution as the general population when it comes to technological adoption.

Evidence?

[Asher]

Did you see what I did there? Put on your clever hat and investigate.

[snoopy369]

I think DrSpike is saying that indy devs clearly are not correlated well to the general population, as your suggestion logically translates into 'older people are less likely to be indy devs'; when you select a 'less likely' portion of the population, you cannot reasonably suspect that other general population trends, particularly ones likely to correlate well with your first selection criteria, will hold.

Therefore, your assumption is the one that needs evidence, as it is contrary to the logical expectation.

[Asher]

I think DrSpike is saying that indy devs clearly are not correlated well to the general population, as your suggestion logically translates into 'older people are less likely to be indy devs'; when you select a 'less likely' portion of the population, you cannot reasonably suspect that other general population trends, particularly ones likely to correlate well with your first selection criteria, will hold.

Therefore, your assumption is the one that needs evidence, as it is contrary to the logical expectation.

But this is non-nonsensical. Most indy devs are young. I know this because I know many indy devs myself. The assumption that this is NOT the case even though it follows from societal trends in general as well as anecdotal evidence is the assumption that requires evidence.

DrSpike are claiming the disconnect from societal norms, not me -- that makes the burden of proof is on DrSpike. Let us not forget how ****ing retarded it is to ask for proof of this, as none is likely to exist. It's a cowardly tactic by either a boring troll or an immense idiot.

[snoopy369]

You've got the comparison wrong, however. He's saying that OLD indy devs are not necessarily going to correlate well with OLD general population in terms of technology trends, presumably because (likelihood to become an indy dev) is highly correlated with (likelihood to adopt newer technology), _particularly_ in the older population. Stating that 'most indy devs are young' is entirely irrelevant, as we are not discussing 'likelihood to become an indy dev'.

(Also, your claim of knowing many indy devs -> knowing how they are distributed is entirely meaningless, of course, barring you knowing a very high fraction of indy devs (+50%). But as the whole part of your argument is meaningless, it is irrelevant.)

[Asher]

You've got the comparison wrong, however. He's saying that OLD indy devs are not necessarily going to correlate well with OLD general population in terms of technology trends, presumably because (likelihood to become an indy dev) is highly correlated with (likelihood to adopt newer technology), _particularly_ in the older population.

But this is a FALSE ASSUMPTION.

It's a known fact in the technology world that the older the technologist, in general terms the least flexible they are.

There are very few 60-year old .NET gurus and a ****load of 20 year old ones.

There are very few 20-year old COBOL gurus and far more 60 year old ones.

This is an UNDENIABLE AND OBSERVABLE trend in technology. Older developers use older, more familiar technology -- this extends OUTSIDE of technology to a lesser extent (old people not as good with computers). Look at old ****s like RMS, who think the internet is evil... the trend is true in technologists too.

I'm going to excuse both of you for not knowing this because, as usual, you've no idea what you're talking about.

[snoopy369]

I would still argue that 'indy game dev' automatically is selective for 'flexible', or at least you could reasonably suggest it might. Therefore assuming that indy game devs follow general technologist trends is an assumption you should not make without some evidence.

[Asher]

I'm seeing a ton of baseless assumptions with no real point to them. You have to make a serious of counterintuitive and unsupported assumptions to make the claim that independent game developers are their own category of technologists.

This is patently ridiculous. You really have no idea how far you are taking this argument, it's beyond absurd at this point.

You are making the claim that independent game developers are unique technologists that are NOT AT ALL IMPACTED by well-understood and well-demonstrated trends both in society at large and as well within the technologist segment of society. This is highly unlikely and completely unsupported.

So, yes, it is YOU that needs to provide evidence. Evidence which doesn't exist.

This is such an awesome discussion. I sometimes forget you are a manager and DrSpike is an economist. I let you set up traps of futility and random uselessness like this, it's what you guys do.

[snoopy369]

You made a positive statement (older indy devs don't code for consoles). You base this on an assumption that is true of the general population (older -> less likely to adopt new tech).

DrSpike and I have pointed out that it is not necessarily a safe assumption to make, that the indy dev population correlates to the general (or even general technology-worker) population. We do not have to prove our argument - it is enough to point out that your assumption is not necessarily valid. It is, then, up to you to prove your correlation, or make a coherent argument for why indy devs as a population correlate strongly with (general technologists) as a population.

I could easily make the argument that older indy devs are MORE likely to work for consoles, because console programming is (as you say) easier. Any indy dev who wasn't already developing for years (and most indy devs, I'd suggest, have relatively short half-lives, except for the very successful ones, as there is little reward for being an indy dev) must be starting new on SOMETHING, and consoles are going to be easier to start up with (and thus less new systems to learn).

I see nothing BUT assumptions from anyone here ... and since you're making the positive statement I think you are the one who needs to prove his numbers

[DrSpike]

I didn't realise before that Snoopy was so much smarter than Asher.

[snoopy369]

Nice DanS, Asher, but no. You are suggesting a correlation, therefore you must prove that correlation exists. It must exist HIGHLY, not simply "at all", which it may or may not - I make no statement to that.

And I'm not a manager anymore, but a programmer... One who happens to work in statistical research and has an economics degree, so perhaps (economics degree) correlates highly with (understands basic statistical argumentation)?

[Asher]

You made a positive statement (older indy devs don't code for consoles). You base this on an assumption that is true of the general population (older -> less likely to adopt new tech).

It's true for technologists as well. It's also true for game developers, incidentally.

Anecdotally, it is true as well. The console developers on Beyond3D, indy or not, tend to be 35 and under. The PC developers on Beyond3D tend to be 30+. I'm actually working on an indy game for the Wii (well, it has picked up a big publisher now, but it's still an indy studio) where the average age of the person working on it is about 23. They've been to several GDC in a row and note the same kind of trends in attendees (PC developers trending older, console developers trending younger).

DrSpike and I have pointed out that it is not necessarily a safe assumption to make

That's simply because you and DrSpike do not know the industry at all, and pretend to lecture those who do.

I see nothing BUT assumptions from anyone here ... and since you're making the positive statement I think you are the one who needs to prove his numbers

Making the assumption that correlates with biology (our brain is worse at learning new things as we age), that correlates with sociological factors (older people are more comfortable with things they've worked with for more years, younger people are more adventurous and try new things), that correlates with anecdotes (the attendees of GDC, people we know in the industry) is not the one that needs evidence.

The claim that independent game developers are not at all impacted by these biological and sociological forces that impact everyone else, both in and outside of the technology field, is the one that needs to be backed up.

[Asher]

I didn't realise before that Snoopy was so much smarter than Asher.

He's not, he just thinks he can get away with porous reasoning and verbosity. I guess you bit, so it does work on some people.

[Asher]

Nice DanS, Asher, but no. You are suggesting a correlation, therefore you must prove that correlation exists.

The correlation is a societal rule and you are arguing the exception.

You are saying independent game developers are OUTLIERS. You need to back this up. I'm saying independent game developers are just like everyone else, you think they are as adventurous in trying new things as young developers.

What you're saying does not follow logically, it does not follow biologically, it and it does not follow anecdotally.

And I'm not a manager anymore, but a programmer... One who happens to work in statistical research and has an economics degree, so perhaps (economics degree) correlates highly with (understands basic statistical argumentation)?

Economists are some of the worst offenders in terms of statistics, and are one of the worst offenders in terms of analytical reasoning.

You've just tried to successfully argue to someone with a highly analytical mind that independent game developers are exceptions to the general rule that governs human learning. I don't know what to tell you, other than I can see why you are a "programmer". The last time I held a position as low as "programmer" I was in 2nd year university.