Lego is transitioning towards developing its video games internally. After the closure of TT Games' exclusivity deal, Lego is building internal development capabilities to supplement and potentially replace external studios in the future. While they will continue partnerships with existing studios like Sumo Digital for upcoming titles, Lego aims to gain more creative control and a faster development cycle by bringing expertise in-house. This shift reflects a broader strategy to own more of the Lego gaming experience.
The 2008 blog post argues that Windows wasn't truly "free" for businesses, despite the common perception. While the OS itself came bundled with PCs, the associated costs of management, maintenance, software licensing (especially for Microsoft Office and server products), antivirus, and dealing with malware significantly outweighed the initial cost of the OS. The author contends that these hidden expenses made Windows a more expensive option compared to perceived free alternatives like Linux, particularly for smaller businesses. Ultimately, the "free" Windows license subsidized other revenue streams for Microsoft, making it a profitable, albeit deceptive, business model.
Hacker News users discussed the complexities of Microsoft's "free" Windows licensing model for businesses. Several pointed out that while the OS itself might not have a direct upfront cost, it's bundled with hardware purchases, making it an indirect expense. Others highlighted the ongoing costs associated with Windows, such as Software Assurance for updates and support, along with the costs of managing Active Directory and other related infrastructure. The general consensus was that "free" is a misleading term, and the true cost of Windows for businesses is substantial when considering the total cost of ownership. Some commenters also discussed the historical context of the article (from 2008) and how Microsoft's licensing and business models have evolved since then.
"The Licensing Racket," by Philip Hamburger, exposes the pervasive and often absurd world of occupational licensing in America. Hamburger argues that these boards, ostensibly designed to protect the public, frequently serve as protectionist barriers for existing practitioners, stifling competition and harming consumers with higher prices and reduced access to services. He details the often arbitrary and onerous requirements imposed on aspiring professionals, from florists and interior designers to fortune tellers, illustrating how these regulations disproportionately impact lower-income individuals seeking economic advancement. The book ultimately calls for a reassessment of the necessity and scope of occupational licensing, advocating for deregulation and a return to more open markets.
Hacker News users generally agree with the premise of the WSJ article, lamenting the excessive licensing requirements across various professions. Several commenters share personal anecdotes of burdensome and seemingly pointless licensing procedures. Some highlight the anti-competitive nature of these boards, suggesting they serve primarily to protect established professionals and inflate prices. Others point to the variability of licensing requirements across states as further evidence of their arbitrary nature. A few commenters discuss potential solutions, including deregulation and national reciprocity agreements, while acknowledging the difficulty of implementing meaningful reform. The discussion also touches upon the historical context of licensing, with some suggesting it originated as a way to ensure quality and protect consumers, but has since morphed into a protectionist racket.
This blog post from the British Library showcases a 15th-century manuscript (Harley MS 1760) containing a fascinating early example of medical licensing. The document grants "Master Nicholao" permission to practice medicine in the diocese of Norwich, specifically allowing him to treat internal ailments. Issued by the Bishop of Norwich, it highlights the Church's historical role in regulating medical practice and reveals contemporary understanding of medical specializations, differentiating between treating internal diseases and surgical procedures. The manuscript exemplifies the intersection of religious authority and healthcare in medieval England.
HN users discuss the historical context of medical licensing, highlighting how it served to protect established physicians and potentially stifle innovation. Some point out the inherent difficulty in assessing medical competence in earlier eras, lacking the standardized testing and scientific understanding we have today. Others draw parallels to modern regulatory hurdles faced by startups and new technologies, suggesting that licensing, while intended to protect the public, can also create barriers to entry and limit progress. The elitism and gatekeeping aspects of early licensing are also mentioned, with some arguing that similar dynamics still exist in modern healthcare systems. A few users express skepticism about the overall efficacy of medical licensing throughout history, questioning whether it has truly improved patient outcomes.
Qualcomm has prevailed in a significant licensing dispute with Arm. A confidential arbitration ruling affirmed Qualcomm's right to continue licensing Arm's instruction set architecture for its Nuvia-designed chips under existing agreements. This victory allows Qualcomm to proceed with its plans to incorporate these custom-designed processors into its products, potentially disrupting the server chip market. Arm had argued that the licenses were non-transferable after Qualcomm acquired Nuvia, but the arbitrator disagreed. Financial details of the ruling remain undisclosed.
Hacker News commenters largely discuss the implications of Qualcomm's legal victory over Arm. Several express concern that this decision sets a dangerous precedent, potentially allowing companies to sub-license core technology they don't fully own, stifling innovation and competition. Some speculate this could push other chip designers to RISC-V, an open-source alternative to Arm's architecture. Others question the long-term viability of Arm's business model if they cannot control their own licensing. Some commenters see this as a specific attack on Nuvia's (acquired by Qualcomm) custom core designs, with Qualcomm leveraging their market power. Finally, a few express skepticism about the reporting and suggest waiting for further details to emerge.
Summary of Comments ( 66 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43349296
Hacker News users discuss the potential ramifications of Lego bringing game development in-house. Some express skepticism, questioning if Lego possesses the necessary expertise to manage large-scale game development and suggesting it could lead to less creative and more "on-brand" titles. Others are more optimistic, hoping for a return to the charm of older Lego games and speculating that internal development could allow for tighter integration with physical Lego sets and the broader Lego ecosystem. A recurring theme is concern about the potential loss of TT Games' unique touch and the possibility of Lego repeating mistakes made by other companies that brought development in-house. Several commenters also highlight the challenges of managing large development teams and maintaining consistent quality.
The Hacker News post "Lego says it wants to start to bring video game development in-house" has generated several comments discussing the potential implications of Lego shifting its game development strategy. Many commenters express cautious optimism, acknowledging the potential benefits while also highlighting the challenges Lego might face.
One recurring theme is the concern about Lego's ability to replicate the success of TT Games, the external studio that has long developed Lego games. Several users point out TT Games' expertise in creating polished and enjoyable Lego games, suggesting that replicating this level of quality in-house could be difficult. Some speculate that Lego might struggle to attract and retain the same level of talent as an established game studio. There's also a concern that an internal team might stifle creativity and innovation, leading to more homogenous and less engaging games.
Conversely, some commenters see this move as a positive step for Lego. They argue that bringing development in-house could give Lego greater control over its intellectual property and allow for tighter integration between physical and digital products. This could lead to more innovative gameplay mechanics and experiences that leverage the unique aspects of Lego bricks. Some users express hope that this could revitalize the Lego game franchise and lead to fresh and exciting titles.
Another point of discussion revolves around the potential impact on existing licensing agreements. Some commenters wonder how this shift will affect future collaborations with other franchises, such as Star Wars or Marvel, which have been featured in numerous Lego games. There's speculation about whether Lego will continue to license these properties or focus primarily on original Lego themes.
Several comments also touch upon the financial aspects of this decision. Some users question the cost-effectiveness of building an internal development studio, particularly given the volatile nature of the video game industry. Others suggest that this move could be a strategic investment that pays off in the long run by allowing Lego to retain a larger share of the profits from its games.
Finally, some comments offer personal anecdotes about their experiences with Lego games, reflecting the nostalgic connection many players have with the franchise. These comments underscore the importance of maintaining the quality and charm that have made Lego games so popular over the years. Overall, the comments on Hacker News reveal a mix of excitement and apprehension about the future of Lego games, with many users eagerly awaiting further details about Lego's plans.