Missions are just there to make money. The content of the game is the player vs player interactions, be it combat, trade, diplomacy or whatever.
And therein lies the problem for many and the draw for a few. Replace the space backdrop with anything - the Wild West, a Tolkienesque fantasy world, a giant black box - and it remains the same game. Is there really no problem with players creating the entire game content themselves? Couldn't you just stop paying the $15 a month and be better off playing DnD at local gaming shops?
Nanocomputers are very practical. Consider only the applications in biotechnology - computers that tiny would allow for everything from intelligent nanobots to do cellular level maintenance to a nanobot conglomerate that could actually replace failing cells - even complicated ones like neurons. And if you can create a neuron, you can create a nervous system. And if you can create a brain... I'm oversimplifying it, but you get the idea. We're not strictly talking about biotechnology anymore, are we?
Congress, Supreme Court, Constitution - it's all in some way or another an expression of the will of the people. That's democracy. Not that it's always a good thing.
As publishers try to find more ways to increase profit while decreasing expenses we're going to see them try many new and sometimes creative ways to screw the player.
First, they release games in an unfinished state to see how crappy a game they can release before consumers won't buy it anymore. You get things like HGL and TR. Then they try to sell you the other half of the game later until it becomes acceptable practice, as Blizzard is doing with Starcraft 2. Finally, the publishers will just sell you a monthly subscription that gives you the privilege of being able to buy ever smaller increments of content for as much money as they can possibly charge, a practice already piloted in Asia where the population is already so addicted to online gaming that any content thrown their way is like tossing a small animal into a pool of hungry piranhas. Gotta love capitalism.
There's two kinds of products to consider: those you can build and those you can't.
The products you can build, desktops, can be built to far higher standards by doing it yourself. You can buy the sturdiest, most aesthetically pleasing case and fill it with any product you see fit and I guarantee that it will cost less than buying it outfitted similarly from Apple (or Dell, or HP, or anyone else). So the solution to have it all in that case is to do it yourself provided you have a bit of technical know-how and the patience to do the job.
Then there's the products you can't build: music players, laptops and the like. You're stuck on these. You can have a technically robust product, an aesthetically pleasing product, or a cheap product. Pick 2 out of 3. And remember... if you pick wrong you'll be paying for it, literally.
The only things Apple really has going for it are good marketing and a following whose dedication would rival many religious cults. I currently work with both Apples and PCs. I've provided tech support for both in the past. I even got an iPod Nano so I can safely compare between it and the Creative Zen I currently own. I can't say any of those Apple products had anything that made them stand out and I still prefer the PC alternatives (or the off-brand alternatives as the case may be). Maybe I'm just a cheapskate.
I can understand the mindset that Apple caters to, but I think it's unfortunate that Apple has carved out a niche for itself by overwhelming its customers with flashy marketing and blinding them to the alternatives. It really makes them no different from Microsoft who makes their own customers think there are no alternatives, just for different reasons.
Wow. When you put it that way, it really almost makes me want to shell out twice as much to buy an Apple product as it would to buy any other comparable product.
Drive through Buffalo sometime. Or Albany. Or Syracuse. You'll see more abandoned commercial and industrial buildings than occupied ones. The NY economy is already dead.
Slashdot Mirror
Missions are just there to make money. The content of the game is the player vs player interactions, be it combat, trade, diplomacy or whatever.
And therein lies the problem for many and the draw for a few. Replace the space backdrop with anything - the Wild West, a Tolkienesque fantasy world, a giant black box - and it remains the same game. Is there really no problem with players creating the entire game content themselves? Couldn't you just stop paying the $15 a month and be better off playing DnD at local gaming shops?
Nanocomputers are very practical. Consider only the applications in biotechnology - computers that tiny would allow for everything from intelligent nanobots to do cellular level maintenance to a nanobot conglomerate that could actually replace failing cells - even complicated ones like neurons. And if you can create a neuron, you can create a nervous system. And if you can create a brain... I'm oversimplifying it, but you get the idea. We're not strictly talking about biotechnology anymore, are we?
Congress, Supreme Court, Constitution - it's all in some way or another an expression of the will of the people. That's democracy. Not that it's always a good thing.
As publishers try to find more ways to increase profit while decreasing expenses we're going to see them try many new and sometimes creative ways to screw the player.
First, they release games in an unfinished state to see how crappy a game they can release before consumers won't buy it anymore. You get things like HGL and TR. Then they try to sell you the other half of the game later until it becomes acceptable practice, as Blizzard is doing with Starcraft 2. Finally, the publishers will just sell you a monthly subscription that gives you the privilege of being able to buy ever smaller increments of content for as much money as they can possibly charge, a practice already piloted in Asia where the population is already so addicted to online gaming that any content thrown their way is like tossing a small animal into a pool of hungry piranhas. Gotta love capitalism.
I propose legislation that mandates the education of consumers. Who's with me?
There's two kinds of products to consider: those you can build and those you can't.
The products you can build, desktops, can be built to far higher standards by doing it yourself. You can buy the sturdiest, most aesthetically pleasing case and fill it with any product you see fit and I guarantee that it will cost less than buying it outfitted similarly from Apple (or Dell, or HP, or anyone else). So the solution to have it all in that case is to do it yourself provided you have a bit of technical know-how and the patience to do the job.
Then there's the products you can't build: music players, laptops and the like. You're stuck on these. You can have a technically robust product, an aesthetically pleasing product, or a cheap product. Pick 2 out of 3. And remember... if you pick wrong you'll be paying for it, literally.
The only things Apple really has going for it are good marketing and a following whose dedication would rival many religious cults. I currently work with both Apples and PCs. I've provided tech support for both in the past. I even got an iPod Nano so I can safely compare between it and the Creative Zen I currently own. I can't say any of those Apple products had anything that made them stand out and I still prefer the PC alternatives (or the off-brand alternatives as the case may be). Maybe I'm just a cheapskate. I can understand the mindset that Apple caters to, but I think it's unfortunate that Apple has carved out a niche for itself by overwhelming its customers with flashy marketing and blinding them to the alternatives. It really makes them no different from Microsoft who makes their own customers think there are no alternatives, just for different reasons.
Wow. When you put it that way, it really almost makes me want to shell out twice as much to buy an Apple product as it would to buy any other comparable product.
Drive through Buffalo sometime. Or Albany. Or Syracuse. You'll see more abandoned commercial and industrial buildings than occupied ones. The NY economy is already dead.