Um, no. The "you don't have to have a Mighty Mouse with a Mac" theory doesn't always work. For example, the desktop systems (iMac, Power Mac and, presumably, the eventual Intel-based Power Mac replacement) come with the Mighty Mouse by default and the only other selectable option is upgrading to Mac's bluetooth KB/M combo which adds to the cost and is a step backwards to a one-button mouse with no scroll wheel - yuck.
That said, I agree with the fundamental premise that if you don't like the MM then get something else. Mouse choices (and KB choices, for that matter) for heavy computer users are very personal choices and there's just no way to please everyone when you're trying to provide a standardized PC (which is the Apple way). I used to tote my MS split-hand keyboard back and forth between home and work because I found that I couldn't tolerate regular keyboards after using it...and because I was too cheap to buy one for my workspace and too timid to ask my boss to buy me one (which she would have done in a heartbeat).:)
The ESRB doesn't stop anyone (over 18) from seeing anything they want to in a videogame. It also doesn't prevent a developer from putting anything they want to in a videogame. If you're looking for people to blame, look no further than the store from which you buy your games. Virtually all stores have a firm policy of selling no "AO" content and some won't even sell "M" rated games. If developers/publishers knew that they could have shelf space for games with more "adult" themes, they wouldn't care a bit about the ESRB rating. As it is, though, if they push the envelope too far then their product goes nowhere.
The source of the data is the critical point. While the ESRB can't base their ratings on third-party content, they have every right to rate the content that actually ships on the disc. So, for a slightly more off-the-wall example, if a T-rated game shipped with a password-protected archive of Playboy photo shoots on the disc - completely unaccessible from, and unrelated to, the game itself - the ESRB would still jack the rating up because the material is being shipped.
I personally don't think bare breasts are that big of a deal (though they can be a lot of fun in RL), but the ESRB isn't there to either protect me (age 34) or to represent me (childless). They exist to keep f***ing legislatures out of the gaming business, and they've succeeded to a large extent. Since they know that politicians and many parents would care a lot about bare breasts, they've got to rate games accordingly.
In other words, I think some people here need to learn to love the ESRB...and the bomb...
I use it. With the right codecs and the right firewall blocking it off from the Internet, I've found I like it better than the free alternatives I've tried (though I do use Mplayer for subtitled and multiple audio files). Given the fact that I use it while being aware of the alternatives, I'd imagine that millions of others use it all the time...the EU, at least, thought so had a big problem with it.
Wow. Typing that list and then saying "revolution by patriots?" I'd be more than happy to sign up with the government if it meant I got to beat the snot out of "patriots" like that.
I think perhaps you're using one of the alternate definitions of "patriot" wherein it mentions "human garbage."
Because when they don't suck (or at least provide decent functionality for the masses) somebody inevitably files suit against Microsoft - see Internet Explorer and Windows Media Player.
What, specifically, are "people" waiting for in Vista?
One specific thing would be DirectX 10 which will be a "Vista-only" feature. Further, anyone considering buying a new computer could be waiting for Vista boxes to ship, both for the pre-installed OS discounts and to ensure that they get compatible hardware.
Then again, I'm a gamer looking at buying a new computer and Vista doesn't even enter into my thinking since there will probably be at least a year or two where games will be compatible with both OSes. And, even if a Vista-only game is released I'm comfortable enough to upgrade my own hardware and software if necessary.
Now, you might argue that the EULA prevents sale of gold. But it actually does no such thing, as evidenced by the fact that gold is sold every day. The EULA merely sets up a contractual situation where you are breaching your agreement with the MMO operator by selling the gold, and that presumably there might be sanctions against you if you are caught doing it.
Actually, the MMO EULAs I've read have stated that everything on their server is their property. In that case, it's possible that selling virtual gold and items to people for real world money is [criminal] fraud since you're selling something that doesn't belong to you (and you've in theory agreed it doesn't belong to you buy "signing" the EULA at login). If that interpretation was laid on the situation, I'm not sure how far the "I'm selling the time it took to obtain [x]" would fly in court - it definitely wouldn't work if the seller couldn't quantify time versus item/gold prices.
Sure, they can tax my swg 'credits' if they wish to take payment in SWG 'credits', CoH influence, CoV infamy, or Auto Assault clink.
Imagine offering that as a perk to government employees: "While we may not pay as much as the private sector, we do offer large sums of virtual currency in the online game of your choice." The number of geeks in government service would swell!
While most of the trades during the life of a contract involve speculators, the contract eventually connects a physical producer with a physical consumer.
That's true to a certain extent, but the argument could be made that the bits and bytes representing the "+4 Sword of Slashing" are as real as any other software. For example, a software company could have a rented computer on which they store their code and make contracts regarding that code. So, it's possible not to own the "physical" hard drive but still own that which is stored on it.
That said, it's still not applicable to MMOGs because as I pointed out above the person playing the game doesn't really "own" any of the bits and bytes representing his/her in-game possessions. If there was individual ownership involved then the company running the game would have more limited rights as to what they could do with that virtual "property."
Wouldn't it be more fun to learn how a real WWII plane handled and what all the instruments did and get closer to the real experience?
Fun? Yes. More fun? Well, that's the magic of different games for different tastes. I'd love a return to the days when there were multiple flight simulators released every year. Unfortunately, I think the development costs have gotten too high compared to the size of the target audience. The action/arcade flight games have much broader appeal and so that's what we're getting. Personally, while I miss playing multiple "realistic" flight sims every year, I still have fun with games like Crimson Skies. So, I'll probably give Blazing Angels a try, too. After all, not buying these games isn't going to encourage anyone to develop the games I'd prefer.:)
The most fundamental problem is that the people selling these items and gold are not the owners of the property, nor are they representatives of the owners of the property (such as on a stock exchange). The EULAs for MMOGs usually specify that users have only those rights granted to them, limited to use of the game on the developer/publisher's terms and that the folks running the MMOG retain all rights to the game (and, thus, everything in the game - including the individual characters). For the virtual items/money to be taxable, even theoretically, there would have to be a transfer of ownership from either the owner of the game to the person with the character, or from one character to another. Since that transfer never occurs in most MMOGs (I don't know about games like Second Life which seems to have a fairly robust crossover between virtual and real lives), there's nothing to tax.
Now, the people who sell these virtual items could theoretically still be taxed (even criminal income is subject to taxation, though it's also subject to seizure) but folks who are just playing the game and following the EULA never really "own" anything.
Your point about purpose-built versus general-purpose processors is well taken, and it's a big part of Ageia's marketing. As others have noted, though, right now a developer has to cater to that particular hardware when designing the game. This is something that has been done before (I remember having to choose my audio card from a list in the DOS days) but it requires an installed base to really take off.
I think you hit on something potentially big, though, in your second paragraph. Many have talked about adding a PPU to graphics cards. If Ageia got together with Intel or AMD and got their physics processor designed into a multi-core AMD or Intel CPU, that could really get a lot of gamers to upgrade. Right now, the CPU is just about the last thing the average gamer (or even the hardcore gamer) replaces because, invariably, the main bottleneck is graphics performance.
I like the idea, too, though in practice I've got two big questions: 1) Is it going to come down in price? Considering that "mid-range" GPUs are going for around $300, this card at $300 (okay, $299) represents a doubling of the cost to bring a gaming system "up to speed." Right now, with only one option, it's a one-time thing but we all know that if it's successful there will be upgrades. 2) Is this really going to make a huge difference in a world where dual-core CPUs are becoming mainstream, and more cores are coming in the future? Is the performance advantage of their specially designed physics processor so important that, say, an eight-core CPU in 2008 couldn't perform similarly (given enough memory for the software engine), making the existing PhysX cards obsolete?
Considering that one of the titles they tout - Ghost Recon for the Xbox 360 - already implements their technology in software (and they brag about how great it is there), I just don't think that this add-in card has any staying power.
A $350 monitor will display 1600x1200. So if you can afford a $300 video card, I don't see why your monitor won't give you 1600x1200 resolution.
I'm just guessing here, but maybe it's because someone who already has a monitor would be willing to spend $300 for a video card and not $650 for a video card and a monitor?
Make no mistake: Like the name or not, give me a couple of great games and I'll buy it. I hope it works out for Nintendo, and given their aggressiveness on console pricing I think they'll do just fine. But, whichever idiot pushed that name through ought to be looking for a job because "Revolution" was a damned good name and "Wii" is just weird.:)
I don't deny the GC's value at all - price-wise, it's a great option, and has been since it released $100 cheaper than the competitors. And, of course, there are great games for it.
My issue is with the implication that it's a good thing that the GC didn't have as much third-party support, and the idea that continuing that trend with the Revolution...er, Wii...is a good idea. A lack of third-party support should not be considered a virtue, and Nintendo bigwigs themselves have made statements to that effect.
The bottom line in this discussion is whether the newly announced name hurts or helps Nintendo's next console. Personally, I think that it can only hurt because the name just doesn't make any sense (though I think that the Wii/wee similarity in America is the least of the problems). The biggest problem, to my way of thinking, is that the name just sounds "weak" to me. There are no strong consonants and the name just sort of trails off. Saying the name out loud is like a sigh and has no "impact." I think it's just plain terrible.
Unless you believe that only Nintendo can make good console games, then the statement that "I want better games, not more games," while being understandable and laudable on one level, is a crock of BS on every other. I mean, are you happy that if you own only a Gamecube you can't play any of the GTA games? Are you happy that you can't play many of the other good third-party games released for the other two consoles (often both of the others while excluding the GC)?
The fact that GC owners, more than the other two consoles (because the other two have more games), have to buy a second console in order to play most third-party games is a bad thing, yet so many Nintendo fans seem to represent it as a badge of honor. It's not. Nintendo screwed up.
If the name "Wii" causes a significant drop in the number of consoles sold (a stupid reason, but people do all kinds of things for stupid reasons) compared to those that might have been sold had it been called "Revolution," then once again Nintendo will get the short end of the third-party stick. The fact that their bundled controller is very different than the others already puts them into a bit of a hole in that area, and I don't think they can afford for the third-party issue to get any worse.
I don't think any of your three concerns apply in this case.
1. "Future is known": While this is true in a "historical" sense, if the series is set 50 years in the past the only three main BSG characters who could show up are Adama, Tigh and the doc. Given that all of them would be at most late-teens, early 20s, I doubt that they're going to be a focus of the program. Thus, it would be more like watching a dramatization of events happening during World War II, in the sense that we know what happens between 1945 and 2006 but the story could still be entertaining.
2. "Risk to established canon": Since this series would be running concurrently with the only other material from the same reality AND it's being run by the same folks, this holds very little danger. They've really only gone into detail about events in the months right before the Cylon attack, so there's not much "canon" to put at risk.
3. "Anachronistic special effects": For movies and programs separated a large number of years, I can see this being a problem. Again, though, this doesn't apply at all to BSG.
I think I agree with you in general, mainly on the issue of screwing up what has gone before (or after - prequel/sequel tense confuses), but I don't think this particular concept is too dangerous.
I don't think Stargate is suffering because there are two SG shows. I think it's suffering because it's been around for so long. Once the Goauld (sp? and I don't care to remember:D) were taken out/neutered, the show started to lose its way. I don't really blame them, though, because that war had to end (probably a season too late, really).
I think both shows (SG1 and Atlantis) are still entertaining, but the best seasons are probably behind us.
Well, they clearly can't do a sequel, because the series isn't over yet.
I'll tell ya the real reason they can't do a sequel: Because as bad as anyone might have thought the original BSG was, Galactica 1980 was at least a hundred times worse. I don't think anyone could "reimagine" that into anything good.:)
Slashdot Mirror
Um, no. The "you don't have to have a Mighty Mouse with a Mac" theory doesn't always work. For example, the desktop systems (iMac, Power Mac and, presumably, the eventual Intel-based Power Mac replacement) come with the Mighty Mouse by default and the only other selectable option is upgrading to Mac's bluetooth KB/M combo which adds to the cost and is a step backwards to a one-button mouse with no scroll wheel - yuck.
:)
That said, I agree with the fundamental premise that if you don't like the MM then get something else. Mouse choices (and KB choices, for that matter) for heavy computer users are very personal choices and there's just no way to please everyone when you're trying to provide a standardized PC (which is the Apple way). I used to tote my MS split-hand keyboard back and forth between home and work because I found that I couldn't tolerate regular keyboards after using it...and because I was too cheap to buy one for my workspace and too timid to ask my boss to buy me one (which she would have done in a heartbeat).
The ESRB doesn't stop anyone (over 18) from seeing anything they want to in a videogame. It also doesn't prevent a developer from putting anything they want to in a videogame. If you're looking for people to blame, look no further than the store from which you buy your games. Virtually all stores have a firm policy of selling no "AO" content and some won't even sell "M" rated games. If developers/publishers knew that they could have shelf space for games with more "adult" themes, they wouldn't care a bit about the ESRB rating. As it is, though, if they push the envelope too far then their product goes nowhere.
The source of the data is the critical point. While the ESRB can't base their ratings on third-party content, they have every right to rate the content that actually ships on the disc. So, for a slightly more off-the-wall example, if a T-rated game shipped with a password-protected archive of Playboy photo shoots on the disc - completely unaccessible from, and unrelated to, the game itself - the ESRB would still jack the rating up because the material is being shipped.
I personally don't think bare breasts are that big of a deal (though they can be a lot of fun in RL), but the ESRB isn't there to either protect me (age 34) or to represent me (childless). They exist to keep f***ing legislatures out of the gaming business, and they've succeeded to a large extent. Since they know that politicians and many parents would care a lot about bare breasts, they've got to rate games accordingly.
In other words, I think some people here need to learn to love the ESRB...and the bomb...
...Microsoft can stay right where they are and continue milking their cash cows for a long, long time.
I would just like to point out that, cash or not, maintaining a cow at sea has got to be pretty difficult...
I use it. With the right codecs and the right firewall blocking it off from the Internet, I've found I like it better than the free alternatives I've tried (though I do use Mplayer for subtitled and multiple audio files). Given the fact that I use it while being aware of the alternatives, I'd imagine that millions of others use it all the time...the EU, at least, thought so had a big problem with it.
:)
It's better than Realplayer!
Wow. Typing that list and then saying "revolution by patriots?" I'd be more than happy to sign up with the government if it meant I got to beat the snot out of "patriots" like that.
I think perhaps you're using one of the alternate definitions of "patriot" wherein it mentions "human garbage."
Why is it all the stock apps with Windows suck?
Because when they don't suck (or at least provide decent functionality for the masses) somebody inevitably files suit against Microsoft - see Internet Explorer and Windows Media Player.
What, specifically, are "people" waiting for in Vista?
One specific thing would be DirectX 10 which will be a "Vista-only" feature. Further, anyone considering buying a new computer could be waiting for Vista boxes to ship, both for the pre-installed OS discounts and to ensure that they get compatible hardware.
Then again, I'm a gamer looking at buying a new computer and Vista doesn't even enter into my thinking since there will probably be at least a year or two where games will be compatible with both OSes. And, even if a Vista-only game is released I'm comfortable enough to upgrade my own hardware and software if necessary.
Now, you might argue that the EULA prevents sale of gold. But it actually does no such thing, as evidenced by the fact that gold is sold every day. The EULA merely sets up a contractual situation where you are breaching your agreement with the MMO operator by selling the gold, and that presumably there might be sanctions against you if you are caught doing it.
Actually, the MMO EULAs I've read have stated that everything on their server is their property. In that case, it's possible that selling virtual gold and items to people for real world money is [criminal] fraud since you're selling something that doesn't belong to you (and you've in theory agreed it doesn't belong to you buy "signing" the EULA at login). If that interpretation was laid on the situation, I'm not sure how far the "I'm selling the time it took to obtain [x]" would fly in court - it definitely wouldn't work if the seller couldn't quantify time versus item/gold prices.
Sure, they can tax my swg 'credits' if they wish to take payment in SWG 'credits', CoH influence, CoV infamy, or Auto Assault clink.
Imagine offering that as a perk to government employees: "While we may not pay as much as the private sector, we do offer large sums of virtual currency in the online game of your choice." The number of geeks in government service would swell!
I should note that I took GP a bit out of context in that he was specifically talking about contracts written on the commodities market. My bad. :)
While most of the trades during the life of a contract involve speculators, the contract eventually connects a physical producer with a physical consumer.
That's true to a certain extent, but the argument could be made that the bits and bytes representing the "+4 Sword of Slashing" are as real as any other software. For example, a software company could have a rented computer on which they store their code and make contracts regarding that code. So, it's possible not to own the "physical" hard drive but still own that which is stored on it.
That said, it's still not applicable to MMOGs because as I pointed out above the person playing the game doesn't really "own" any of the bits and bytes representing his/her in-game possessions. If there was individual ownership involved then the company running the game would have more limited rights as to what they could do with that virtual "property."
Wouldn't it be more fun to learn how a real WWII plane handled and what all the instruments did and get closer to the real experience?
:)
Fun? Yes. More fun? Well, that's the magic of different games for different tastes. I'd love a return to the days when there were multiple flight simulators released every year. Unfortunately, I think the development costs have gotten too high compared to the size of the target audience. The action/arcade flight games have much broader appeal and so that's what we're getting. Personally, while I miss playing multiple "realistic" flight sims every year, I still have fun with games like Crimson Skies. So, I'll probably give Blazing Angels a try, too. After all, not buying these games isn't going to encourage anyone to develop the games I'd prefer.
The most fundamental problem is that the people selling these items and gold are not the owners of the property, nor are they representatives of the owners of the property (such as on a stock exchange). The EULAs for MMOGs usually specify that users have only those rights granted to them, limited to use of the game on the developer/publisher's terms and that the folks running the MMOG retain all rights to the game (and, thus, everything in the game - including the individual characters). For the virtual items/money to be taxable, even theoretically, there would have to be a transfer of ownership from either the owner of the game to the person with the character, or from one character to another. Since that transfer never occurs in most MMOGs (I don't know about games like Second Life which seems to have a fairly robust crossover between virtual and real lives), there's nothing to tax.
Now, the people who sell these virtual items could theoretically still be taxed (even criminal income is subject to taxation, though it's also subject to seizure) but folks who are just playing the game and following the EULA never really "own" anything.
Until they sign on a vendor like Dell or HP to actually build machines with these chips, then it's a no-go for developers.
:)
It should be noted that Dell/Alienware is (and has been for at least a month or more) offering the PhysX card as a build-to-order option.
Your point about purpose-built versus general-purpose processors is well taken, and it's a big part of Ageia's marketing. As others have noted, though, right now a developer has to cater to that particular hardware when designing the game. This is something that has been done before (I remember having to choose my audio card from a list in the DOS days) but it requires an installed base to really take off.
I think you hit on something potentially big, though, in your second paragraph. Many have talked about adding a PPU to graphics cards. If Ageia got together with Intel or AMD and got their physics processor designed into a multi-core AMD or Intel CPU, that could really get a lot of gamers to upgrade. Right now, the CPU is just about the last thing the average gamer (or even the hardcore gamer) replaces because, invariably, the main bottleneck is graphics performance.
I like the idea, too, though in practice I've got two big questions:
1) Is it going to come down in price? Considering that "mid-range" GPUs are going for around $300, this card at $300 (okay, $299) represents a doubling of the cost to bring a gaming system "up to speed." Right now, with only one option, it's a one-time thing but we all know that if it's successful there will be upgrades.
2) Is this really going to make a huge difference in a world where dual-core CPUs are becoming mainstream, and more cores are coming in the future? Is the performance advantage of their specially designed physics processor so important that, say, an eight-core CPU in 2008 couldn't perform similarly (given enough memory for the software engine), making the existing PhysX cards obsolete?
Considering that one of the titles they tout - Ghost Recon for the Xbox 360 - already implements their technology in software (and they brag about how great it is there), I just don't think that this add-in card has any staying power.
A $350 monitor will display 1600x1200. So if you can afford a $300 video card, I don't see why your monitor won't give you 1600x1200 resolution.
I'm just guessing here, but maybe it's because someone who already has a monitor would be willing to spend $300 for a video card and not $650 for a video card and a monitor?
Make no mistake: Like the name or not, give me a couple of great games and I'll buy it. I hope it works out for Nintendo, and given their aggressiveness on console pricing I think they'll do just fine. But, whichever idiot pushed that name through ought to be looking for a job because "Revolution" was a damned good name and "Wii" is just weird. :)
I don't deny the GC's value at all - price-wise, it's a great option, and has been since it released $100 cheaper than the competitors. And, of course, there are great games for it.
My issue is with the implication that it's a good thing that the GC didn't have as much third-party support, and the idea that continuing that trend with the Revolution...er, Wii...is a good idea. A lack of third-party support should not be considered a virtue, and Nintendo bigwigs themselves have made statements to that effect.
The bottom line in this discussion is whether the newly announced name hurts or helps Nintendo's next console. Personally, I think that it can only hurt because the name just doesn't make any sense (though I think that the Wii/wee similarity in America is the least of the problems). The biggest problem, to my way of thinking, is that the name just sounds "weak" to me. There are no strong consonants and the name just sort of trails off. Saying the name out loud is like a sigh and has no "impact." I think it's just plain terrible.
Multi-Ba'al! Multi-Ba'al! Multi-Ba'al!
i hate myself...
Unless you believe that only Nintendo can make good console games, then the statement that "I want better games, not more games," while being understandable and laudable on one level, is a crock of BS on every other. I mean, are you happy that if you own only a Gamecube you can't play any of the GTA games? Are you happy that you can't play many of the other good third-party games released for the other two consoles (often both of the others while excluding the GC)?
The fact that GC owners, more than the other two consoles (because the other two have more games), have to buy a second console in order to play most third-party games is a bad thing, yet so many Nintendo fans seem to represent it as a badge of honor. It's not. Nintendo screwed up.
If the name "Wii" causes a significant drop in the number of consoles sold (a stupid reason, but people do all kinds of things for stupid reasons) compared to those that might have been sold had it been called "Revolution," then once again Nintendo will get the short end of the third-party stick. The fact that their bundled controller is very different than the others already puts them into a bit of a hole in that area, and I don't think they can afford for the third-party issue to get any worse.
I don't think any of your three concerns apply in this case.
1. "Future is known": While this is true in a "historical" sense, if the series is set 50 years in the past the only three main BSG characters who could show up are Adama, Tigh and the doc. Given that all of them would be at most late-teens, early 20s, I doubt that they're going to be a focus of the program. Thus, it would be more like watching a dramatization of events happening during World War II, in the sense that we know what happens between 1945 and 2006 but the story could still be entertaining.
2. "Risk to established canon": Since this series would be running concurrently with the only other material from the same reality AND it's being run by the same folks, this holds very little danger. They've really only gone into detail about events in the months right before the Cylon attack, so there's not much "canon" to put at risk.
3. "Anachronistic special effects": For movies and programs separated a large number of years, I can see this being a problem. Again, though, this doesn't apply at all to BSG.
I think I agree with you in general, mainly on the issue of screwing up what has gone before (or after - prequel/sequel tense confuses), but I don't think this particular concept is too dangerous.
I don't think Stargate is suffering because there are two SG shows. I think it's suffering because it's been around for so long. Once the Goauld (sp? and I don't care to remember :D) were taken out/neutered, the show started to lose its way. I don't really blame them, though, because that war had to end (probably a season too late, really).
I think both shows (SG1 and Atlantis) are still entertaining, but the best seasons are probably behind us.
Well, they clearly can't do a sequel, because the series isn't over yet.
:)
I'll tell ya the real reason they can't do a sequel: Because as bad as anyone might have thought the original BSG was, Galactica 1980 was at least a hundred times worse. I don't think anyone could "reimagine" that into anything good.