Basically think XBox Live Gold, only I don't actually have to pay to play games with other people online. I think it's pretty funny you're raising the boogeyman of people MAYBE having to pay for online PS3 games when you already have to for just about every 360 title.
And I find it amazing how certain you are about the details of a service that no one outside Sony has even seen a glimmer of. Maybe you're right, of course - maybe Sony is unswayed by the proven fact that people will pay $50/yr for a quality online service. Perhaps they're willing to forego that revenue stream, while still providing a service of equivalent or better quality. Perhaps Sony really will provide something for nothing (insofar as you can call $500 or $600 "nothing," of course), knowing full well that they could be selling that something for money, just like the article says.
Just like all those articles saying that the PS3 would come out in spring - they all turned out to be right, too.
The $400 360 is the premium version, which most assuredly has a 20GB hard drive. I say this with some confidence, since I spent $400 on a 360, and it has a hard drive.
You're trying to claim that you can pull data off an optical disc faster than you can off a hard drive? That's the single most ignorant and asinine thing I've read today. And I've been reading slashdot.
$499 for a 1080p BluRay player that also plays almost every major console developers games? Sony must be radiating some kind of Steve Jobs-like Reality Distortion Field, since they've apparently convinced you that you don't want a video game console, you want a Blu-Ray player. Those of us in the market for a video game console, however, will continue to not be impressed with playing Blu-Ray movies that don't even exist. Much less with playing them only at the whim of studios who can flip a bit and break them at any time.
Me, I'll just stick with my 360 and buy a Wii when it comes out. Guess I'll have to forego watching Blu-Ray movies. This will no doubt cause me no end of pain when, someday, there are some, and I won't be able to watch The Fast and the Furious: Moscow Retread in 1080p.
So in a PS3 I get a whole Blu-Ray drive as part of that $100 extra cost Which is dandy if you want to play Blu-Ray movies. I don't. I want to play video games. If they were selling stand-along Blu-Ray players for $100, I wouldn't buy one. Why should I be forced to buy one when all I want is to play video games?
Only now it's not $100 more because I also get the equivilent of XBox Gold for free That's an awful lot of faith you place in Sony Online to provide you a quality experience. But it's justified, because they've done so well with...um. Well, something, I'm sure. It's completely likely that they'll do just as well in their first iteration of the product as MS does with it's second iteration. In Sony Online we trust, and what not.
360 premuum and $500 PS3 both have 20GB hard drives.
360 premuum and $500 PS3 both have component out for HD video (though here the PS3 gets a nod since it supports 1080p)
360 premuum and $500 PS3 both have just as many ports (basically USB and memory ports, the more expensive PS3 also has media ports)
360 premuum and $500 PS3 both support the same networking options (ethernet in)
For one thing, it's spelled premium, even if you use it four times. Secondly, I find it pretty interesting that you list all the features that the two consoles have in common, and use that to lead into an argument how it makes sense that one of them costs $100 more than the other (and actually, it will almost certainly be a more than $100 discrepancy come launch. MS may say they don't plan on lowering prices, but since when does anyone advertise that if you don't buy something now, you'll save money?)
So I'm paying $100 extra for a Blu-Ray player I wouldn't pay $100 for by itself, and for the privilege of going through SOE for my online fix? Oh, and for the privilege of waiting an extra year to play next-gen games? Oh, and for the privilege of being SOL when they turn the content flag on, and I can't even use the Blu-Ray player I had to buy anymore?
You're right, it's a steal.
I just don't think you fully understand who's the thief, here.
All true; I wasn't making a case for buying the 360 as compared to a PC, merely pointing out that if you have a 360, there are several quality games that don't fit the genres named.
That being said, I take issue with your assessments of Kameo and GW. If we only count games as quality games if they're completely dissimilar to other games that are available, the worldwide library of quality games for all platforms ever drops by several orders of magnitude.
And, that being said, I won't make a case for the 360's lineup of exclusives being fantastical by any stretch. Personally, I like the HD, I like the controller, I like the interface, and I love XBox Live. Together with my fundamental loathing for the PS controller, and the paucity of games available on the PS2 that I really want to play (yes, this may very well be just from lack of exposure, but I've never wanted to play GTA, Metal Gear, or Final Fantasy...though I admit I'm considering ganking a friend's PS2 when he gets a PS3 so I can play Kingdom Hearts, Katamary Damacy, and Shadow Of the Colossus), I bought a 360.
But we've drifted rather far from my original point, which was simply that games outside those genres do exist for the 360.
Compared to the PS2 at the same point in its life, the 360's game lineup is kick-ass... Not to post contrariwise to what I already said in this thread, but - while you're certainly right in terms of native games, the PS2 did have the advantage of playing all (or at least, virtually all) PS1 games. It made the game lineup seem meatier than it actually was, but that's really all that matters: how many (good) games can you sit down at your console and play?
(Note that this comes from a guy who neither had nor wanted a PS1 or a PS2)
I want BC as much as anyone and more than many (my XBox is on indefinite loan to a friend of mine), but don't sell the library of 360-native games quite so short. CoD2, Kameo, Oblivion, and Tomb Raider are all quality titles that don't fall into the categories you named. And if you expand to XBLA, you can toss Geometry Wars, Marble Blast Ultra, and Wik on the list as fantastic games.
It's not exactly a selection measured in Libraries Of Congress (or even VW Beetles), but there are good games that aren't sports/driving/fighting out there.
Unlockable content is great; it gives you a sense of accomplishment when you eventually attain it. It's one of the things that causes you to go back to the game after you've run through it once. That doesn't mean it's always the best thing to do.
As an example, I present to you Wik: the Fable Of Souls. The multiplayer boards are some of the best multiplayer "toy" games I've ever played. In fact, I'd argue that it's worth paying the $10 (on XBox Live Arcade) just for the multiplayer portion. Unfortunately, you don't get to play those boards until you've beaten the first five single-player levels. So when I go to a friend's place and convince him to download the game so he can experience the MP, he has to d/l it then beat five levels to get to the good part.
That's the kind of unlockable content that sucks. When you cripple the game in the name of having stuff unlockable, you've failed your purpose as a developer. Unlockable content ought to be related to what you need to do to unlock it. Having extra single player boards that you can only access after beating the game is cool. Even having extra multiplayer boards you can only access after getting some stuff is acceptable (see: Smash Bro.'s). But imagine Smash Brothers if you couldn't play against friends until you'd beaten the game on hard, or some such. Or Goldeneye if you couldn't deathmatch until you'd beaten Facility in under 3:00.
That's the kind of unlockable content that just detracts from the game.
OTOH, earning new cars in racers, or new characters in fighters gives the player a reason to try and do things that he might not otherwise do. But key content should not be restricted to people who've accomplished something unusual. All key content should be available either without strings (in the case of various modes of play), or through normal game progression (as in, "unlocking" the next level by beating the current one).
Of course, prior to the change, I was set to the "low graphics for lynx users" style (or whatever it's called now, I set it to that years ago and haven't looked since). The new version of that sure looks to be using a serif font.
In all honesty take a moment and read some of the posts.
Read before posting? You must be new here.;)
In all seriousness, I did read quite a few comments, and you're right, many people are being perfectly rational about it. But it seemed such an obvious thing to say that I couldn't stop myself. And it's not as though there isn't a kernel of truth to it, either - you have to admit that/. has a pretty well-demonstrated bias against MS in general and VB in specific (I speak of/. as a whole, here; obviously, there is a minority - even a vocal one - that doesn't "toe the party line," so to speak). No matter how reasonable the general tone of discussion may be, we're going to be a relatively unreliable source for objective analysis of MS products.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
If you don't mind my asking, what's that from? It sounds horrifyingly familiar, and it was for quite some time now, but I've been unable to put my finger on it.
If I'm using the wireless adaptor and have two wired joysticks I have no spare USB ports for an HD-DVD player
The HD-DVD drive will be designed to attach to the USB on the back of the machine, and will have a pair of USB ports on it. If you let me do some figuring, here...
3 - 1 + 2 = 4...will result in you having a bonus USB port when you're done.
This is basically the problem. You're not allowed to drive a car until you've spent several months learning how to drive it safely and you've demonstrated (in front of an unbiased examiner) that you've mastered those skills well enough that you're not a danger to anyone else. In addition, your doctor can (and will) take you off the road immediately if he thinks that you're no longer safe to be driving.
But guns? Can you honestly tell me that every gun owner has had several months of formal training *and* a practical examination with an unbiased examiner in real situations, before they're allowed to use a gun? And if you're having some kind of psychological problems, can your doctor immediately force you to hand over your gun for the duration, until you've proved yourself fit to use it again? And are there police patrolling hunting areas to check that people are following the rules and using their guns safely? I don't think so, somehow.
Don't confuse ownership with use - I am unaware of any laws that prevent unlicensed drivers from owning vehicles, or even from using them on private property. All the licensing requirements kick in once someone wants to take a vehicle on the road to use it. This is logical: there isn't anything inherently dangerous about owning a vehicle, it is inherently dangerous to use a vehicle.
I would be entirely comfortable with similar policies on gun ownership vs gun use.
As a sidebar: on a practical level, there is an important distinction between cars and guns, at least in the US. That is, your assumption of an unbiased examiner is warranted (relatively speaking) regarding driver licensing, since driving is not a political hot button issue of any kind. No one is trying to ban cars. I very much doubt the availability of anyone approaching "unbiased" when it comes to firearms training, and there is a serious effort to ban guns. This makes putting the right to bear arms in the hands of a government authority a much riskier proposition than putting the right to drive in the hands of a government authority.
Not that you'll probably read this, since I waited so long to reply, but:
I fully agree with you that some people shouldn't have guns. I also believe that some people shouldn't vote.
The problem in both cases is I further believe that I don't trust anyone, and certainly not the government, to a priori decide which group I (or anyone else) fall into.
Not being completely divorced from reality, I do recognize that there are people that are legitimately mentally incompetent (I intend only the most literal meaning of the term, with no pejorative connotations), such as those suffering from severe mental handicaps. As long as they are also denied all the other rights that people of sufficient responsibility enjoy, I'm fine with them being denied the right to own guns. But anyone that can be trusted to drive a motor vehicle can be trusted to own a gun.
I guarantee that an average person, through either incompetence or malice, can kill more people per unit time in your average town with a car than with a gun. For evidence, compare the number of people killed in even the worst gun crimes with what happens when a sleepy truck driver plows into the pep band schoolbus, or an elderly gentleman confuses the accelerator and the brake near a sidewalk.
And when something like that happens, you don't hear people pushing for legislation to restrict the sale of cars to the elderly, or even people pushing for legislation to restrict the distribution of drivers licenses to the elderly. You hear (quite rightly) people blaming the person who was driving the vehicle, and calling for that person's license to be revoked. Which is precisely the way things should be - we trust you with all your rights until you demonstrate you're not to be trusted.
Half the time, we even trust you with them again: I don't know of any drunk drivers who are banned from buying a car, do you? Hell, most of the time, they're not even banned from driving a car.
And none of that even touches the practicality of the matter. You should look into whether gun violence has increased or decreased in Great Britain since the essentially comprehensive ban on gun ownership went into effect.
Oh, and:
*sigh*
You do realise the irony in selling guns to anyone, no matter whether they have 20/20 mental health or are a whacked-out drooling psychopath, and then saying "we're going to have a war on terror", don't you?
In fact, I do recognize the irony there...but I don't see anywhere in my post that I mentioned anything about terrorism. As opposed to the post I was replying to, which, in the same paragraph, said we shouldn't blame video games for violence, and then implied that we should blame guns for violence. You should make fewer assumptions about what I think about topics I haven't even touched on.
...any more than RockStar can control whether some nutjob goes out with a gun goes out to shoot Haitians - in that case the problem is the lack of restriction of nutjobs to guns.
*sigh*
You do recognize the irony of indemnifying an inanimate object (a video game) against what some nutjob does with it (emulating Haitian-killing), while simultaneously blaming an inanimate object (a gun) for what some nutjob does with it (kills Haitians), don't you?
Controlling guns to restrict crime is based on precisely the same rationale as controlling video games to restrict crime. Or as controlling condoms in schools to restrict teenage sex, for that matter.
Sure, cracking wise about "wee-wee" is immature and and unproductive.
So would be making fun of a girl named Ima Hooker.
But if I run into young Ima Hooker, I'm going to assign just as much blame to her parents as to the other kids. It doesn't matter what people should do, it only matters what they actually do, and any native speaker of American English could have told the big N that this name was begging for abuse.
Slashdot Mirror
Basically think XBox Live Gold, only I don't actually have to pay to play games with other people online. I think it's pretty funny you're raising the boogeyman of people MAYBE having to pay for online PS3 games when you already have to for just about every 360 title.
And I find it amazing how certain you are about the details of a service that no one outside Sony has even seen a glimmer of. Maybe you're right, of course - maybe Sony is unswayed by the proven fact that people will pay $50/yr for a quality online service. Perhaps they're willing to forego that revenue stream, while still providing a service of equivalent or better quality. Perhaps Sony really will provide something for nothing (insofar as you can call $500 or $600 "nothing," of course), knowing full well that they could be selling that something for money, just like the article says.
Just like all those articles saying that the PS3 would come out in spring - they all turned out to be right, too.
Oh, wait.
The basic theme of the PS3 seems to be openess
You'll forgive me if I believe that only when I see it, given Sony's track record.
Huh?
The $400 360 is the premium version, which most assuredly has a 20GB hard drive. I say this with some confidence, since I spent $400 on a 360, and it has a hard drive.
You're kidding, right?
You're trying to claim that you can pull data off an optical disc faster than you can off a hard drive? That's the single most ignorant and asinine thing I've read today. And I've been reading slashdot.
$499 for a 1080p BluRay player that also plays almost every major console developers games?
Sony must be radiating some kind of Steve Jobs-like Reality Distortion Field, since they've apparently convinced you that you don't want a video game console, you want a Blu-Ray player. Those of us in the market for a video game console, however, will continue to not be impressed with playing Blu-Ray movies that don't even exist. Much less with playing them only at the whim of studios who can flip a bit and break them at any time.
Me, I'll just stick with my 360 and buy a Wii when it comes out. Guess I'll have to forego watching Blu-Ray movies. This will no doubt cause me no end of pain when, someday, there are some, and I won't be able to watch The Fast and the Furious: Moscow Retread in 1080p.
I'll be rueing the day, I'm sure.
So in a PS3 I get a whole Blu-Ray drive as part of that $100 extra cost
Which is dandy if you want to play Blu-Ray movies. I don't. I want to play video games. If they were selling stand-along Blu-Ray players for $100, I wouldn't buy one. Why should I be forced to buy one when all I want is to play video games?
Only now it's not $100 more because I also get the equivilent of XBox Gold for free
That's an awful lot of faith you place in Sony Online to provide you a quality experience. But it's justified, because they've done so well with...um. Well, something, I'm sure. It's completely likely that they'll do just as well in their first iteration of the product as MS does with it's second iteration. In Sony Online we trust, and what not.
360 premuum and $500 PS3 both have 20GB hard drives.
360 premuum and $500 PS3 both have component out for HD video (though here the PS3 gets a nod since it supports 1080p)
360 premuum and $500 PS3 both have just as many ports (basically USB and memory ports, the more expensive PS3 also has media ports)
360 premuum and $500 PS3 both support the same networking options (ethernet in)
For one thing, it's spelled premium, even if you use it four times. Secondly, I find it pretty interesting that you list all the features that the two consoles have in common, and use that to lead into an argument how it makes sense that one of them costs $100 more than the other (and actually, it will almost certainly be a more than $100 discrepancy come launch. MS may say they don't plan on lowering prices, but since when does anyone advertise that if you don't buy something now, you'll save money?)
So I'm paying $100 extra for a Blu-Ray player I wouldn't pay $100 for by itself, and for the privilege of going through SOE for my online fix? Oh, and for the privilege of waiting an extra year to play next-gen games? Oh, and for the privilege of being SOL when they turn the content flag on, and I can't even use the Blu-Ray player I had to buy anymore?
You're right, it's a steal.
I just don't think you fully understand who's the thief, here.
How about: your fiancee doesn't play video games (except Diablo II and Guild Wars, go figure), but loves back seat gaming when you play Oblivion?
;))
(Not that I want to brag about my fiancee complaining once that I don't play enough Oblivion, or anything...
All true; I wasn't making a case for buying the 360 as compared to a PC, merely pointing out that if you have a 360, there are several quality games that don't fit the genres named.
That being said, I take issue with your assessments of Kameo and GW. If we only count games as quality games if they're completely dissimilar to other games that are available, the worldwide library of quality games for all platforms ever drops by several orders of magnitude.
And, that being said, I won't make a case for the 360's lineup of exclusives being fantastical by any stretch. Personally, I like the HD, I like the controller, I like the interface, and I love XBox Live. Together with my fundamental loathing for the PS controller, and the paucity of games available on the PS2 that I really want to play (yes, this may very well be just from lack of exposure, but I've never wanted to play GTA, Metal Gear, or Final Fantasy...though I admit I'm considering ganking a friend's PS2 when he gets a PS3 so I can play Kingdom Hearts, Katamary Damacy, and Shadow Of the Colossus), I bought a 360.
But we've drifted rather far from my original point, which was simply that games outside those genres do exist for the 360.
Compared to the PS2 at the same point in its life, the 360's game lineup is kick-ass...
Not to post contrariwise to what I already said in this thread, but - while you're certainly right in terms of native games, the PS2 did have the advantage of playing all (or at least, virtually all) PS1 games. It made the game lineup seem meatier than it actually was, but that's really all that matters: how many (good) games can you sit down at your console and play?
(Note that this comes from a guy who neither had nor wanted a PS1 or a PS2)
I want BC as much as anyone and more than many (my XBox is on indefinite loan to a friend of mine), but don't sell the library of 360-native games quite so short. CoD2, Kameo, Oblivion, and Tomb Raider are all quality titles that don't fall into the categories you named. And if you expand to XBLA, you can toss Geometry Wars, Marble Blast Ultra, and Wik on the list as fantastic games.
It's not exactly a selection measured in Libraries Of Congress (or even VW Beetles), but there are good games that aren't sports/driving/fighting out there.
Huh?
I've never actually benchmarked it, but the amount of time my XBox will keep its clock while unplugged is, at most, on the order of hours, not weeks.
$100 melons
*blink*
Oh, the wisecracks I'm trying to convince myself I'm too old to post...so far successfully.
Warcraft came from Warhammer.
Fixed that for you.
(I'm not knocking on Blizzard by any means, but Warhammer deserves its props)
Unlockable content is great; it gives you a sense of accomplishment when you eventually attain it. It's one of the things that causes you to go back to the game after you've run through it once. That doesn't mean it's always the best thing to do.
As an example, I present to you Wik: the Fable Of Souls. The multiplayer boards are some of the best multiplayer "toy" games I've ever played. In fact, I'd argue that it's worth paying the $10 (on XBox Live Arcade) just for the multiplayer portion. Unfortunately, you don't get to play those boards until you've beaten the first five single-player levels. So when I go to a friend's place and convince him to download the game so he can experience the MP, he has to d/l it then beat five levels to get to the good part.
That's the kind of unlockable content that sucks. When you cripple the game in the name of having stuff unlockable, you've failed your purpose as a developer. Unlockable content ought to be related to what you need to do to unlock it. Having extra single player boards that you can only access after beating the game is cool. Even having extra multiplayer boards you can only access after getting some stuff is acceptable (see: Smash Bro.'s). But imagine Smash Brothers if you couldn't play against friends until you'd beaten the game on hard, or some such. Or Goldeneye if you couldn't deathmatch until you'd beaten Facility in under 3:00.
That's the kind of unlockable content that just detracts from the game.
OTOH, earning new cars in racers, or new characters in fighters gives the player a reason to try and do things that he might not otherwise do. But key content should not be restricted to people who've accomplished something unusual. All key content should be available either without strings (in the case of various modes of play), or through normal game progression (as in, "unlocking" the next level by beating the current one).
Just my 2% of $1.
Huh
I've got serif fonts right now.
Of course, prior to the change, I was set to the "low graphics for lynx users" style (or whatever it's called now, I set it to that years ago and haven't looked since). The new version of that sure looks to be using a serif font.
Running IE 6 on Win XP.
In all honesty take a moment and read some of the posts.
;)
/. has a pretty well-demonstrated bias against MS in general and VB in specific (I speak of /. as a whole, here; obviously, there is a minority - even a vocal one - that doesn't "toe the party line," so to speak). No matter how reasonable the general tone of discussion may be, we're going to be a relatively unreliable source for objective analysis of MS products.
Read before posting? You must be new here.
In all seriousness, I did read quite a few comments, and you're right, many people are being perfectly rational about it. But it seemed such an obvious thing to say that I couldn't stop myself. And it's not as though there isn't a kernel of truth to it, either - you have to admit that
I mean, really.
Asking slashdot for an analysis of why VB might not be ideal is like asking Innocent III for an analysis of Cathar beliefs.
(Or, if you're a Godwin fan, asking Hitler for an analysis of Jewish culture)
AHA!
Thank you; I now recall seeing that episode.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
If you don't mind my asking, what's that from? It sounds horrifyingly familiar, and it was for quite some time now, but I've been unable to put my finger on it.
Of the people I know with GCs, a quarter had to return theirs for randomly crashing while playing Windwaker.
Of the people I know with XBoxen, not a single one has been returned (though a couple people have bought extras for modchipping purposes).
Clearly, the GC is shoddy hardware, and the XBox the pinnacle of engineering.
Or maybe anecdotal evidence isn't all it's cracked up to be.
If I'm using the wireless adaptor and have two wired joysticks I have no spare USB ports for an HD-DVD player
...will result in you having a bonus USB port when you're done.
The HD-DVD drive will be designed to attach to the USB on the back of the machine, and will have a pair of USB ports on it. If you let me do some figuring, here...
3 - 1 + 2 = 4
This is basically the problem. You're not allowed to drive a car until you've spent several months learning how to drive it safely and you've demonstrated (in front of an unbiased examiner) that you've mastered those skills well enough that you're not a danger to anyone else. In addition, your doctor can (and will) take you off the road immediately if he thinks that you're no longer safe to be driving.
But guns? Can you honestly tell me that every gun owner has had several months of formal training *and* a practical examination with an unbiased examiner in real situations, before they're allowed to use a gun? And if you're having some kind of psychological problems, can your doctor immediately force you to hand over your gun for the duration, until you've proved yourself fit to use it again? And are there police patrolling hunting areas to check that people are following the rules and using their guns safely? I don't think so, somehow.
Don't confuse ownership with use - I am unaware of any laws that prevent unlicensed drivers from owning vehicles, or even from using them on private property. All the licensing requirements kick in once someone wants to take a vehicle on the road to use it. This is logical: there isn't anything inherently dangerous about owning a vehicle, it is inherently dangerous to use a vehicle.
I would be entirely comfortable with similar policies on gun ownership vs gun use.
As a sidebar: on a practical level, there is an important distinction between cars and guns, at least in the US. That is, your assumption of an unbiased examiner is warranted (relatively speaking) regarding driver licensing, since driving is not a political hot button issue of any kind. No one is trying to ban cars. I very much doubt the availability of anyone approaching "unbiased" when it comes to firearms training, and there is a serious effort to ban guns. This makes putting the right to bear arms in the hands of a government authority a much riskier proposition than putting the right to drive in the hands of a government authority.
Not that you'll probably read this, since I waited so long to reply, but:
I fully agree with you that some people shouldn't have guns. I also believe that some people shouldn't vote.
The problem in both cases is I further believe that I don't trust anyone, and certainly not the government, to a priori decide which group I (or anyone else) fall into.
Not being completely divorced from reality, I do recognize that there are people that are legitimately mentally incompetent (I intend only the most literal meaning of the term, with no pejorative connotations), such as those suffering from severe mental handicaps. As long as they are also denied all the other rights that people of sufficient responsibility enjoy, I'm fine with them being denied the right to own guns. But anyone that can be trusted to drive a motor vehicle can be trusted to own a gun.
I guarantee that an average person, through either incompetence or malice, can kill more people per unit time in your average town with a car than with a gun. For evidence, compare the number of people killed in even the worst gun crimes with what happens when a sleepy truck driver plows into the pep band schoolbus, or an elderly gentleman confuses the accelerator and the brake near a sidewalk.
And when something like that happens, you don't hear people pushing for legislation to restrict the sale of cars to the elderly, or even people pushing for legislation to restrict the distribution of drivers licenses to the elderly. You hear (quite rightly) people blaming the person who was driving the vehicle, and calling for that person's license to be revoked. Which is precisely the way things should be - we trust you with all your rights until you demonstrate you're not to be trusted.
Half the time, we even trust you with them again: I don't know of any drunk drivers who are banned from buying a car, do you? Hell, most of the time, they're not even banned from driving a car.
And none of that even touches the practicality of the matter. You should look into whether gun violence has increased or decreased in Great Britain since the essentially comprehensive ban on gun ownership went into effect.
Oh, and:
*sigh*
You do realise the irony in selling guns to anyone, no matter whether they have 20/20 mental health or are a whacked-out drooling psychopath, and then saying "we're going to have a war on terror", don't you?
In fact, I do recognize the irony there...but I don't see anywhere in my post that I mentioned anything about terrorism. As opposed to the post I was replying to, which, in the same paragraph, said we shouldn't blame video games for violence, and then implied that we should blame guns for violence. You should make fewer assumptions about what I think about topics I haven't even touched on.
...any more than RockStar can control whether some nutjob goes out with a gun goes out to shoot Haitians - in that case the problem is the lack of restriction of nutjobs to guns.
*sigh*
You do recognize the irony of indemnifying an inanimate object (a video game) against what some nutjob does with it (emulating Haitian-killing), while simultaneously blaming an inanimate object (a gun) for what some nutjob does with it (kills Haitians), don't you?
Controlling guns to restrict crime is based on precisely the same rationale as controlling video games to restrict crime. Or as controlling condoms in schools to restrict teenage sex, for that matter.
And you can count me among them. It's too pocking bad she bought it.
Sure, cracking wise about "wee-wee" is immature and and unproductive.
So would be making fun of a girl named Ima Hooker.
But if I run into young Ima Hooker, I'm going to assign just as much blame to her parents as to the other kids. It doesn't matter what people should do, it only matters what they actually do, and any native speaker of American English could have told the big N that this name was begging for abuse.