I'm more worried about the perception that young boys are being warped to some ridiculous degree by seeing beautiful representations of women in magazines, video games, movies, etc.
It certainly isn't a new phenomenon for boys and men to be fascinated by beautiful women, particularly famous ones. I had a poster of Vanna White (cut-off shorts, work shirt and hay - YAY!) on my wall as a youth and other generations of men have fantasized about Farrah Fawcett, Sophia Loren, Jayne Mansfield and Ingrid Bergman. Are today's boys in more "trouble" simply because Carmen Elektra's bikini is more skimpy than Farrah's was? And what's the difference if that idealized woman is represented through art, either analog or digital? Any way you slice it, real or not, these women aren't average or they wouldn't be so visually fascinating.
Unless these males you're talking about are completely isolated from the rest of society (like NEVER leaving the house/basement), they know exactly what real women look like. I've never met any guy that thinks every woman looks, or should look, like a "perfect 10" - I'm sure they're out there but in my experience they're the minority. Frankly, I've found that concept to be mostly created in the heads of insecure women.
There is a segment of the feminist culture that really does want everything and nothing at the same time.
On the one hand, it will be argued that there are not enough female protagonists in video games. So video game companies step up and say, "you're right, we'll put some more female characters out there." Then, the complaint is always made [by someone] that the women are just there to be eye candy and that guys love ogling them. It always makes me wonder if these people want female video game characters to be ugly or if they want them to be dressed in ugly clothes. This despite the fact that women often spend thousands per year trying to look as pretty as they possibly can. I'm a fat, ugly, pasty guy but I'm sure not out there agitating for Kilik of Soul Calibur to gain 50 virtual pounds, nor would I ask that Mario get some warts.
Another drum they like to pound is that women in fighting games send the signal that it's okay to beat up women. This one makes me think that those folks have no problem with assault when a male is the victim. Fighting games, in particular, are completely neutral in terms of gender. It's very rare that a female character is so under-powered that she's going to be beaten by any of the male characters. I can recall several successful sessions where I took on all comers as Sonja in Mortal Kombat or Chun-Li in Street Fighter (I like kicking, what can I say?).
Finally, everybody and their grandmother keeps bringing up the killing of women in Grand Theft Auto. My first response is always that if you follow the storyline missions in GTA3 and Vice City you'll find that you won't have to beat down or kill many women, especially when compared to the number of men you inevitably whack. The natural response of these whiners is "That game encourages you to beat up hookers and other women for money." I then ask what percentage of prostitutes are male, followed by pointing out that it's entirely up to the player whether or not they want to beat up female OR male civilians to get cash. If someone is a mass murderer or huge bully in the GTA games, it's because they wanted to be and not because the game encouraged them in any way.
What all this comes down to is that there are more powerful female characters in games than ever before. Whatever they look like, the message that video game women can be just as capable as video game men is being sent by the video game industry every day. As far as I'm concerned, any feminist who thinks that's a bad thing needs to take a huge pill...I'd recommend estrogen but that might be sexist...
Not quite. They actually did Pirates! Gold for DOS in SVGA (640x480x256) mode - nothing like hunting for DOS VESA VGA drivers - and later came out with a version that ran under Windows 3.1.
The game did okay, though it suffered somewhat because the DOS version was released in a very buggy condition. The Windows version corrected the bugs but it was still the same game and as such didn't generate a lot of interest. Also, it wasn't a "real" sequel in the sense that it added real gameplay changes. It was more a graphic and sound upgrade than anything else.
Just to be absolutely clear, and on the off-chance that anyone from Firaxis or Atari are reading this, I would buy new versions of every single one of these games. I played all of them (except CPU Bach and the later ones that were only on PC) on the Commodore 64 and in a couple of cases (Gunship and Pirates!) bought multiple copies when I wore out the floppies.
Covert Action was one of the most interesting games I played back "in the day." It was a nonlinear adventure that inexplicably felt like it had a story. Besides Pirates!, it's probably the game I would most like to see redone with current tech - it could blow away games like Metal Gear Solid and Splinter Cell (or, of course, it could suck but that's always the way).
too bad about the no Star Wars: Galaxies bit. Lucas could have made a mint with the cross-promotion. Instead he's going to have to compete with his own dev company.
"Compete" and "Star Wars" in the same paragraph? Hilarious.
Seriously, the main reason that SWG isn't going to be included isn't because of the differing companies. It's because they (LucasArts and Verant/SOE) are sure that people will pay full price for it separately. If anything, the move is to protect EQ and the rest from having people siphoned away to SWG - this move gives more value to people who WOULD want to continue playing EQ, Planetside and the rest while also wanting to at least sample Galaxies.
To be fair, and despite my appreciation of the quality of the Xbox Live service, Microsoft isn't yet offering any massively multiplayer games that are included in the $50/year price point (even PSO costs $9 a month). Those kinds of games take a lot more work to maintain due to the size of the world, the number of people online on the same server [farm] at the same time, and the overall increased complexity of the gameplay experience - balance issues alone over the time period required to advance in a MMORPG take a lot of work to fine-tune as the game progresses. The increased price of Sony's service is therefore easy to justify, where the Xbox Live service itself is [currently] primarily a matchmaking service.
The nice thing here in relation to Xbox Live is that it will encourage Microsoft to go the same direction when they start offering the big MMOGs. More console gamers will be up for trying (more importantly, buying) Star Wars Galaxies, Phantasy Star Online, True Fantasy Online, Rare's MMOG, etc. if they can get them all for a flat rate, even if it's more than the current $50/year.
Hey, I'm sure it'll be playable with that. I'm sure it'll be playable on my 1GHz PC with a GeForce MX420 once I turn down many (most?) of the special effects. But I guarantee that before two years are up you'll want/need to upgrade again, probably for at least another $100. By the time, the Xbox is replaced with the Xbox2 (or whatever they decide to call it), most dedicated PC gamers during the Xbox's life will have spent at LEAST $200 on graphics cards, if not more.
It's not that I think the Xbox is superior or that I hate PC gaming (I've been playing a ton of Freelancer the past week-and-a-half) - I do think that console gaming will outlive PC gaming but that's another topic entirely. Rather, I was pointing out that the cost of an Xbox isn't a good argument to use against it since a gaming PC will ALWAYS (ALWAYS) cost more.
XBox might be decent if your system is too slow, but to upgrade it decently will still cost about the same as an XBox
The Xbox is now at $180. A top-flight video card would cost almost twice that and even going down two "levels" in terms of card quality would still cost as much as $200. I won't even get started on the fact that there are still people out there who've barely broken the 1-GHz mark and could still be using SDRAM on an old motherboard (oops, I got started).
I'm not going to make any claims that the Xbox graphics quality will match that of a good PC with a good video card as such claims would be false (though the next gen with 1080i might be close enough for jazz), but trying to argue that the price factor is comparable between Xbox and PC is never going to make it in the truth department.
Neither would looking at a lo-poly model of a beautiful actress.
So a hi-poly model of a beautiful actress WOULD get you to buy a game? Please don't spread that around too much - graphical capability already has too much power in the gaming market.
Better yet, how about an RTS where you can control the east coast, west coast or Detroit rappers? The primary activity would be attempting to gain control of key radio stations in order to spread your particular sound. One group could specialize in street fighting, another could have litigation units and a third could have wicked PR flacks. The latter two could handle actual fighting by hiring bodyguards or having solid police relations. I'd buy that for the dollar.
Ummm, yeah, except he didn't say anything about the Xbox having "crap gameplay" as you seem to imply. I would also note that he said they trading the Gamecube for an Xbox title which indicates the little brother is indeed playing Xbox games - either that or he stole the Gamecube from his brother.
I don't think that competition misses the point at all. There were three consoles in the house where one was played more than the others, another is played less and the third was abandoned. I have, and like, all three myself but I too play Xbox more than the others.
I think that cutting the price to lower than the PS2 would indicate desperation. Also, is it possible that Microsoft is trying to avoid anything that looks like "dumping"? IANAL, so I don't know the answer.
Personally, I think the better choice would have been to go the Nintendo route by leaving the price the same and giving away one game (from a selection of 5-10) of the buyer's choice with the system.
Actually the "real news" as regards your EA Sports opinion is that it is "conventional wisdom" instead of fact, at least in terms of quality - I won't argue the sales numbers because clearly EA dominates there. NFL 2k3 and Madden are so close that it's hardly worth preferring one over the other (though I prefer 2k3), NBA 2k3 is rated as superior to EA's product, NHL 2k3 is better and World Series Baseball is just as good if not better.
The EA Sports juggernaut rolls on over the competition NOT because of quality but because it's what people are used to. Say "video game football" and most people are going to think of Madden. Say video game sports and they're going to think of EA Sports (sometimes maybe 989 since Sony pumps the heck out of that name).
Microsoft didn't make any kind of mistake in not wooing EA more. EA believes that they are going to get a huge payday out of online console play at some point - possibly with monthly fees, which they refuse to rule out - and they wanted money and concessions out of Xbox Live that just were not going to be forthcoming - for example, EA wants to disable online play of older sports games in order to "encourage" purchase of the sequels. In fact, Microsoft making any kind of special deal with EA for getting their sports franchises online would have been even more foolish considering that Microsoft (like Sony) is marketing their own set of sports games, all of which had a respectable debut. They aren't as polished as the Sega and EA franchises but they'll only improve.
What it comes down to is this: If EA gave a damn about customer satisfaction, they would take the Sega route and simply enable online play on BOTH the PS2 and Xbox Live. Instead, they have decided to give their Xbox customers the finger. The Sega and Microsoft brands are going to get a huge bump out of this from Xbox Live users and a lot of those people may never buy an EA Sports game again.
You're kidding, right? Everything you described (especially "even more item based") is exactly what people wanted when they bought the game, and it's CERTAINLY what people who are still playing the game want - I'm not one of them but I might give 1.10 a try when it arrives.
I'll admit that "amazing gameplay changes" is hyperbole but what the heck is wrong with someone still enjoying a game and being excited about it? If you enjoy making these kinds of comments, might I suggest visiting the message boards of GameFAQs? You certainly wouldn't be out of place there.
Whatever changes end up coming in the patch, Blizzard is indeed to be commended for their seemingly endless support of an old game for which they charge no extra money to play online.
You're exactly right about "snake eater" being a nickname for members of Army Special Forces (the "Green Berets"). Specifically, it was a derisive term coined by other members of the Army in the 60s who were making fun of their training where they would be sent out on a "mission" without enough supplies to complete it and were expected to live off the land. They were, and I would presume are, taught during training how to prepare wild animals, including snakes, so that they are edible.
No, you don't get kicked out. You're just smarter than some of us.:)
I will note, though, that my callus isn't huge. It isn't even visible to casual inspection. Just a rough spot in the middle of my thumb. Of course, it'll get bigger when I eventually pick up another game that takes me over for a month or two.
I understand that game sales beat movie box office receipts but that's not surprising at all. A new game will cost $40-50 while watching a new movie in the theater costs $5-12 (depending on location and time of day). Four or more movie tickets would have to be purchased to match the price of one new game, and most people don't go to the movies THAT often anymore. Add into that the fact that the experience of going to a theater and watching a movie is FAR removed from that of playing a video game and the apples/oranges problem becomes more evident.
The comparison of box office receipts and video game sales is a meaningless statistic. It's also why I didn't restrict myself to just talking about movies. Television also generates more revenue every year than movies in the theater but most people don't talk about that anymore because it's self-evident and the reason is obvious - there are always going to be more people sitting at home and watching television than there are going to the movies OR playing video games. My argument was simply that it will continue in that fashion for the forseeable future.
Trying to relate the dollar value of video game sales to their mass market appeal even if you don't compare it to anything is misleading, too. For example, in the past year I've bought 30-40 video games, most for $50 a piece. That means that alone I've generated $1,500 or more in video game sales by myself. I'm clearly in the minority, even among gamers, but it gives you an idea of how few people it takes to build up video game numbers.
The advantage that movies, television, etc. have is that they are NON-interactive forms of entertainment. Don't look at me like that, I did indeed say it was an advantage.
When the "average" US citizen (I won't pretend to speak for anybody else - I'm reaching as it is) gets home after work, the first thing s/he wants to do is sit down and relax. The best form of entertainment to go along with that is television, since it requires no effort beyond finding the right program.
When going out with others, movies are a good choice because everyone shares the same experience (barring big hairdos, hats or proximity to that jerk with the cell phone) and, like television, the movie comes to you and you need do nothing but watch. This is particularly true with relatively mindless fare that doesn't even require a lot of thought to appreciate - note the recent success of movies based on comic books.
Video games, on the other hand, require some effort to enjoy. Sometimes, they might require the development of a particular gaming skill set (platform jumping, fighting combos, etc.). They are not, therefore, the best choice for relaxation for most people. I enjoy video games quite a lot (and have for years) yet I still have periods where games will stress me out, leaving me far more open to watching television, going to a movie, etc. where I will simply sit down and let the entertainment come to me.
It's my conclusion that movies and television will ALWAYS combine to be more popular forms of entertainment - thus making more money - than video games for the simple fact that they're more conducive to both physical and mental relaxation...Anyone with calluses on their thumbs and broken controllers from being thrown across the room should surely agree.:)
You've got me there. I always assume that everything at IGN (often including the "reviews") is directly from a press release and so I automatically look at things somewhat whimsically. I figure that gamers should know that themselves. In any case, I should have noted that more clearly.:)
1. Microsoft wants to recover the subscription fee (or the bulk of it) with every starter kit purchase. Given the inclusion of a game, demos and hardware, leaving it at the same price means that those subscribers are getting a discount on a service that's already rolling nicely.
2. The price hike means slightly less pain for Microsoft if current subscribers decide to abandon their current account in favor of getting a new starter kit, because they want the included game, they've ruined their rep on the service or both. They'll still lose a bit on packaging and the software included, but a lot less than if they included the hardware (as in #1).
3. They can justify charging more (if you consider it a price increase rather than finally getting charged for the hardware) for the service because it will be more mature, have many more subscribers and will have many more games than at the start.
Finally, I'd just say that the price increase is NOT immediate. You can go out and get a starter kit today for the $50 price with the hardware. Even if you don't want to sign up right away, you can buy it and simply hold it. Unless I'm mistaken, the current version of the kit (the one that comes with Tetris) has a subscription code that can be activated anytime between now and October 31st. By then, there will be a game type to please just about anyone and people who do it this way will still [hopefully] have several months of Halo 2 action(first quarter 2004 is the current release projection).:)
The headset that comes with the Xbox Communicator has a standard 2.5-mm "stereo" (in/out channels instead of left/right) plug. IMO, the headset that comes with Xbox Live is a piece of garbage. Fortunately, I have a couple of much nicer headsets that work just fine with the Communicator module.
To answer your question more directly, no, the headset won't work out of the box with a standard PC sound card where you need two 1/8" connectors. I'm sure there are adapters that could make it work but you can get much better headsets and cheaper.
The primary reason to buy the Xbox Live Communicator hardware is to get the adapter that plugs into the controller. I suppose the headset works for some people, but the fact that it uses a standard jack means that you don't have to settle.
Before I start my gushing, I will offer this IGN interview which goes into more detail about the changes and includes some digging at the Sony online situation. I really enjoy zealous PR.
Now that that's out of the way, I'd like to first say "nice job" to Microsoft for not trying to gouge its users by charging something more along the lines of $10 a month for the service. I would also like to thank them for finally revealing this so that Xbox Live proponents like myself can answer what is a very basic question about the service: "How much does it cost after the first year?"
As a snippy aside, I'll close by saying "I told you so" to the many folks who kept insisting that I was an idiot when I suggested that Microsoft probably wasn't going to significantly increase the price of the service after the first year. There's no telling where it will go in future years - especially if their next console meets with quick success and they have not only the incentive but the ability to gouge XBL users - but Microsoft is demonstrating that they understand how to grow this service instead of turning its users off.
Re:will have to be carful
on
TiVo Basic
·
· Score: 1
To be even more blunt, if you can't record the same show at the same time over and over again (ignoring for the moment the anti-rerun and other capabilities of the Season Pass feature), it will be all but worthless. You might indeed just as well use a VCR and a TV guide on paper.
Slashdot Mirror
It certainly isn't a new phenomenon for boys and men to be fascinated by beautiful women, particularly famous ones. I had a poster of Vanna White (cut-off shorts, work shirt and hay - YAY!) on my wall as a youth and other generations of men have fantasized about Farrah Fawcett, Sophia Loren, Jayne Mansfield and Ingrid Bergman. Are today's boys in more "trouble" simply because Carmen Elektra's bikini is more skimpy than Farrah's was? And what's the difference if that idealized woman is represented through art, either analog or digital? Any way you slice it, real or not, these women aren't average or they wouldn't be so visually fascinating.
Unless these males you're talking about are completely isolated from the rest of society (like NEVER leaving the house/basement), they know exactly what real women look like. I've never met any guy that thinks every woman looks, or should look, like a "perfect 10" - I'm sure they're out there but in my experience they're the minority. Frankly, I've found that concept to be mostly created in the heads of insecure women.
On the one hand, it will be argued that there are not enough female protagonists in video games. So video game companies step up and say, "you're right, we'll put some more female characters out there." Then, the complaint is always made [by someone] that the women are just there to be eye candy and that guys love ogling them. It always makes me wonder if these people want female video game characters to be ugly or if they want them to be dressed in ugly clothes. This despite the fact that women often spend thousands per year trying to look as pretty as they possibly can. I'm a fat, ugly, pasty guy but I'm sure not out there agitating for Kilik of Soul Calibur to gain 50 virtual pounds, nor would I ask that Mario get some warts.
Another drum they like to pound is that women in fighting games send the signal that it's okay to beat up women. This one makes me think that those folks have no problem with assault when a male is the victim. Fighting games, in particular, are completely neutral in terms of gender. It's very rare that a female character is so under-powered that she's going to be beaten by any of the male characters. I can recall several successful sessions where I took on all comers as Sonja in Mortal Kombat or Chun-Li in Street Fighter (I like kicking, what can I say?).
Finally, everybody and their grandmother keeps bringing up the killing of women in Grand Theft Auto. My first response is always that if you follow the storyline missions in GTA3 and Vice City you'll find that you won't have to beat down or kill many women, especially when compared to the number of men you inevitably whack. The natural response of these whiners is "That game encourages you to beat up hookers and other women for money." I then ask what percentage of prostitutes are male, followed by pointing out that it's entirely up to the player whether or not they want to beat up female OR male civilians to get cash. If someone is a mass murderer or huge bully in the GTA games, it's because they wanted to be and not because the game encouraged them in any way.
What all this comes down to is that there are more powerful female characters in games than ever before. Whatever they look like, the message that video game women can be just as capable as video game men is being sent by the video game industry every day. As far as I'm concerned, any feminist who thinks that's a bad thing needs to take a huge pill...I'd recommend estrogen but that might be sexist...
The game did okay, though it suffered somewhat because the DOS version was released in a very buggy condition. The Windows version corrected the bugs but it was still the same game and as such didn't generate a lot of interest. Also, it wasn't a "real" sequel in the sense that it added real gameplay changes. It was more a graphic and sound upgrade than anything else.
Covert Action was one of the most interesting games I played back "in the day." It was a nonlinear adventure that inexplicably felt like it had a story. Besides Pirates!, it's probably the game I would most like to see redone with current tech - it could blow away games like Metal Gear Solid and Splinter Cell (or, of course, it could suck but that's always the way).
"Compete" and "Star Wars" in the same paragraph? Hilarious.
Seriously, the main reason that SWG isn't going to be included isn't because of the differing companies. It's because they (LucasArts and Verant/SOE) are sure that people will pay full price for it separately. If anything, the move is to protect EQ and the rest from having people siphoned away to SWG - this move gives more value to people who WOULD want to continue playing EQ, Planetside and the rest while also wanting to at least sample Galaxies.
The nice thing here in relation to Xbox Live is that it will encourage Microsoft to go the same direction when they start offering the big MMOGs. More console gamers will be up for trying (more importantly, buying) Star Wars Galaxies, Phantasy Star Online, True Fantasy Online, Rare's MMOG, etc. if they can get them all for a flat rate, even if it's more than the current $50/year.
It's not that I think the Xbox is superior or that I hate PC gaming (I've been playing a ton of Freelancer the past week-and-a-half) - I do think that console gaming will outlive PC gaming but that's another topic entirely. Rather, I was pointing out that the cost of an Xbox isn't a good argument to use against it since a gaming PC will ALWAYS (ALWAYS) cost more.
I knew that I recognized this post.
The Xbox is now at $180. A top-flight video card would cost almost twice that and even going down two "levels" in terms of card quality would still cost as much as $200. I won't even get started on the fact that there are still people out there who've barely broken the 1-GHz mark and could still be using SDRAM on an old motherboard (oops, I got started).
I'm not going to make any claims that the Xbox graphics quality will match that of a good PC with a good video card as such claims would be false (though the next gen with 1080i might be close enough for jazz), but trying to argue that the price factor is comparable between Xbox and PC is never going to make it in the truth department.
So a hi-poly model of a beautiful actress WOULD get you to buy a game? Please don't spread that around too much - graphical capability already has too much power in the gaming market.
Better yet, how about an RTS where you can control the east coast, west coast or Detroit rappers? The primary activity would be attempting to gain control of key radio stations in order to spread your particular sound. One group could specialize in street fighting, another could have litigation units and a third could have wicked PR flacks. The latter two could handle actual fighting by hiring bodyguards or having solid police relations. I'd buy that for the dollar.
Great idea. Then Sega could have been sued out of existence instead of just leaving the hardware market.
I don't think that competition misses the point at all. There were three consoles in the house where one was played more than the others, another is played less and the third was abandoned. I have, and like, all three myself but I too play Xbox more than the others.
Personally, I think the better choice would have been to go the Nintendo route by leaving the price the same and giving away one game (from a selection of 5-10) of the buyer's choice with the system.
The EA Sports juggernaut rolls on over the competition NOT because of quality but because it's what people are used to. Say "video game football" and most people are going to think of Madden. Say video game sports and they're going to think of EA Sports (sometimes maybe 989 since Sony pumps the heck out of that name).
Microsoft didn't make any kind of mistake in not wooing EA more. EA believes that they are going to get a huge payday out of online console play at some point - possibly with monthly fees, which they refuse to rule out - and they wanted money and concessions out of Xbox Live that just were not going to be forthcoming - for example, EA wants to disable online play of older sports games in order to "encourage" purchase of the sequels. In fact, Microsoft making any kind of special deal with EA for getting their sports franchises online would have been even more foolish considering that Microsoft (like Sony) is marketing their own set of sports games, all of which had a respectable debut. They aren't as polished as the Sega and EA franchises but they'll only improve.
What it comes down to is this: If EA gave a damn about customer satisfaction, they would take the Sega route and simply enable online play on BOTH the PS2 and Xbox Live. Instead, they have decided to give their Xbox customers the finger. The Sega and Microsoft brands are going to get a huge bump out of this from Xbox Live users and a lot of those people may never buy an EA Sports game again.
I'll admit that "amazing gameplay changes" is hyperbole but what the heck is wrong with someone still enjoying a game and being excited about it? If you enjoy making these kinds of comments, might I suggest visiting the message boards of GameFAQs? You certainly wouldn't be out of place there.
Whatever changes end up coming in the patch, Blizzard is indeed to be commended for their seemingly endless support of an old game for which they charge no extra money to play online.
You're exactly right about "snake eater" being a nickname for members of Army Special Forces (the "Green Berets"). Specifically, it was a derisive term coined by other members of the Army in the 60s who were making fun of their training where they would be sent out on a "mission" without enough supplies to complete it and were expected to live off the land. They were, and I would presume are, taught during training how to prepare wild animals, including snakes, so that they are edible.
I will note, though, that my callus isn't huge. It isn't even visible to casual inspection. Just a rough spot in the middle of my thumb. Of course, it'll get bigger when I eventually pick up another game that takes me over for a month or two.
The comparison of box office receipts and video game sales is a meaningless statistic. It's also why I didn't restrict myself to just talking about movies. Television also generates more revenue every year than movies in the theater but most people don't talk about that anymore because it's self-evident and the reason is obvious - there are always going to be more people sitting at home and watching television than there are going to the movies OR playing video games. My argument was simply that it will continue in that fashion for the forseeable future.
Trying to relate the dollar value of video game sales to their mass market appeal even if you don't compare it to anything is misleading, too. For example, in the past year I've bought 30-40 video games, most for $50 a piece. That means that alone I've generated $1,500 or more in video game sales by myself. I'm clearly in the minority, even among gamers, but it gives you an idea of how few people it takes to build up video game numbers.
When the "average" US citizen (I won't pretend to speak for anybody else - I'm reaching as it is) gets home after work, the first thing s/he wants to do is sit down and relax. The best form of entertainment to go along with that is television, since it requires no effort beyond finding the right program.
When going out with others, movies are a good choice because everyone shares the same experience (barring big hairdos, hats or proximity to that jerk with the cell phone) and, like television, the movie comes to you and you need do nothing but watch. This is particularly true with relatively mindless fare that doesn't even require a lot of thought to appreciate - note the recent success of movies based on comic books.
Video games, on the other hand, require some effort to enjoy. Sometimes, they might require the development of a particular gaming skill set (platform jumping, fighting combos, etc.). They are not, therefore, the best choice for relaxation for most people. I enjoy video games quite a lot (and have for years) yet I still have periods where games will stress me out, leaving me far more open to watching television, going to a movie, etc. where I will simply sit down and let the entertainment come to me.
It's my conclusion that movies and television will ALWAYS combine to be more popular forms of entertainment - thus making more money - than video games for the simple fact that they're more conducive to both physical and mental relaxation...Anyone with calluses on their thumbs and broken controllers from being thrown across the room should surely agree. :)
You've got me there. I always assume that everything at IGN (often including the "reviews") is directly from a press release and so I automatically look at things somewhat whimsically. I figure that gamers should know that themselves. In any case, I should have noted that more clearly. :)
1. Microsoft wants to recover the subscription fee (or the bulk of it) with every starter kit purchase. Given the inclusion of a game, demos and hardware, leaving it at the same price means that those subscribers are getting a discount on a service that's already rolling nicely.
2. The price hike means slightly less pain for Microsoft if current subscribers decide to abandon their current account in favor of getting a new starter kit, because they want the included game, they've ruined their rep on the service or both. They'll still lose a bit on packaging and the software included, but a lot less than if they included the hardware (as in #1).
3. They can justify charging more (if you consider it a price increase rather than finally getting charged for the hardware) for the service because it will be more mature, have many more subscribers and will have many more games than at the start.
Finally, I'd just say that the price increase is NOT immediate. You can go out and get a starter kit today for the $50 price with the hardware. Even if you don't want to sign up right away, you can buy it and simply hold it. Unless I'm mistaken, the current version of the kit (the one that comes with Tetris) has a subscription code that can be activated anytime between now and October 31st. By then, there will be a game type to please just about anyone and people who do it this way will still [hopefully] have several months of Halo 2 action(first quarter 2004 is the current release projection). :)
To answer your question more directly, no, the headset won't work out of the box with a standard PC sound card where you need two 1/8" connectors. I'm sure there are adapters that could make it work but you can get much better headsets and cheaper.
The primary reason to buy the Xbox Live Communicator hardware is to get the adapter that plugs into the controller. I suppose the headset works for some people, but the fact that it uses a standard jack means that you don't have to settle.
Now that that's out of the way, I'd like to first say "nice job" to Microsoft for not trying to gouge its users by charging something more along the lines of $10 a month for the service. I would also like to thank them for finally revealing this so that Xbox Live proponents like myself can answer what is a very basic question about the service: "How much does it cost after the first year?"
As a snippy aside, I'll close by saying "I told you so" to the many folks who kept insisting that I was an idiot when I suggested that Microsoft probably wasn't going to significantly increase the price of the service after the first year. There's no telling where it will go in future years - especially if their next console meets with quick success and they have not only the incentive but the ability to gouge XBL users - but Microsoft is demonstrating that they understand how to grow this service instead of turning its users off.
To be even more blunt, if you can't record the same show at the same time over and over again (ignoring for the moment the anti-rerun and other capabilities of the Season Pass feature), it will be all but worthless. You might indeed just as well use a VCR and a TV guide on paper.