For every one person who posts (I would say "whines," but that would be too judgmental) on The Star Wars Galaxies board, Sony/Verant likely hopes to have at least 10-20 people playing the game. Making them game friendlier to the "average Joe/Jane" by taking out a particularly common work[cheat]around is a smart move. It was pointed out several times that people aren't stuck with the skills they select so the "try-before-you-buy" theory of RPG playing is moot. It was also mentioned that there will be the ability for crafting professions to be productive while they're offline - this alone makes limiting each person to one character per server a virtual necessity. Sure, people can get around it by buying more accounts, but fewer people will do that PLUS it increases profits - therefore, good for the more casual players AND good for the company.
If this takes away your desire to play the game, then don't. In about a year, I'm sure they'll be able to see - through sales/subscription rates and through surveys - how their restriction is affecting their bottom line, and if it's a negative impact they'll revisit the issue. I expect that it WON'T be a problem and in fact will be applauded by those who want to play one character at a time and not be penalized for it in terms of player-player competition.
I've heard the battery excuse before and it just doesn't wash. Everyone with a taste for electronic battery-powered devices is aware of the fact that rechargeable batteries exist.
The Gameboy won because it was cheaper, it had more games, and it had bigger, more recognizable franchises. Tetris alone could be blamed for ensuring the dominance of the Gameboy...for my mom, it sold two Gameboys, one Pocket Gameboy, one Gameboy Color and finally (once she enjoyed other games) a Gameboy Advance - ALL because she had to play Tetris and Dr. Mario.:)
Love it when ACs make good points. I wonder what people expect when they pay ZERO for content? Fileplanet can indeed be slow at times, and I've waited for hours in lines there. Of course, they do have the option to pay for their service and get preferred treatment in terms of bandwidth and wait times. If you don't want to pay, you certainly have no business complaining about it.
I admit that I curse a little bit at the screen when I go to sites like IGN and can't get to the content I want because I haven't paid for the service, but I try to keep in mind that the REASON it costs money is because I'm probably not the only person who wants that content. Once you have a site getting hit hundreds of thousands of times per month, you just can't give it away for free anymore.
Hey, it's cool to be cheap. I can be cheap, too. But don't whine because you're cheap and have the feeling that the content is owed to you in some way...it isn't.
If I had mod points, I'd mod you up instead of replying. I agree wholeheartedly. How many television shows that women watch feature [relatively] unattractive women? Amongst the shows that I watch, I can think of The Practice, Sopranos and...I know there must be another...Boston Public......Those are the ones I can think of off the top of my head. Anyway, the point obviously is that attractive women form the vast majority of women on television and in film. Women form a significant market for both media.
I've seen screenshots of FFX-2 and it does indeed appear that Yuna is wearing less clothing. But who's to say that she isn't in hotter climates (aside: wouldn't it be nifty if the characters in RPGs like FF had different outfits for different climates) or that her new clothes represent the style of clothing that's considered stylish in her world, or maybe she wants to be more attractive to men (not unknown in this world, and no reason it wouldn't be true in hers).
Everyone harps on gameplay as being the key for gamers. I think this applies to female gamers as well as male. Believing this, I think that women are just as likely to play a game with appealing gameplay and attractive pixel-based women as they would be to play a game with appealing gameplay and pixel-based women wearing ankle-length skirts or baggy sweatpants.
Finally, in the vein of my first paragraph, I would submit that digital women inevitably become more attractive if only because the graphics capabilities keep improving - whether the games are developed by men OR women. As video games approach the visual quality (or, more properly, the clarity) of motion pictures, there's no point in NOT making the characters as attractive as possible. Besides, the women I know have no more desire to see an obese woman with a pock-marked face in their entertainment than men do.
I just have to wonder what this fluffy human rights nonsense being in a license is intended to accomplish. If it's simply to make a point, can't that point be made by opening a text window every time the program runs containing a screed on human rights? I think so, and were I an end-user I really wouldn't have a problem with it (as long as the program is good) - in fact, more people would probably see it, read it and even give it some thought. I don't think it's necessary or desirable to include unenforceable, extraneous clauses in every license.
Again, I'm all for human rights. I even align myself with groups like Amnesty International against my own government in the areas of people being detained without due process of law (whether they're citizens of the US or not) and being firmly against the death penalty in every form. I just don't see the value in making this kind of material a part of a licensing agreement.
Considering how often license agreements come under fire for unnecessary and abusive garbage, I would hope that the open source community ignores this as self-congratulatory and ultimately useless garbage. More extraneous clauses in licenses is a BAD thing. It would be like a lawyer sticking a clause into every contract they draft making clear both parties' love for puppies.
License agreements are complicated enough - too complicated much of the time. I recommend taking a stand against "license bloat."
Oddly enough, QVC has been selling the "N64 controller lookalike" you speak of. You can find it here though it says it is "waitlist only" - probably a lot of aunts, uncles and grandparents cheaping out on the little ones.;)
Actually, I think that it is "holiday buying guides" that are synonymous with buying. Day-after-Thanksgiving sales are synonymous with buying. There's no reason you can't ignore all of it and enjoy your holidays without the crazy side of consumption - just stop by a store or two to get meaningful things for those you care about, or if you're handy make something for them, or if you really hate the whole idea don't buy anything.
What it comes down to is that the hype doesn't have to take over your holiday...unless you let it.
Totally OT, but in response to your news about Angel: Thank "the powers that be"! I've been in some kind of hell dimension with Alias and Angel on at the same time on Sundays (too cheap to buy a second satellite box and ReplayTV, and refuse to use an antenna and a VCR).:)
Yes, posting the above message and doing so on Slashdot marks me as one of the more pathetic nerds frequenting this site. It's a cross I bear with mixed pride and shame - shame when I let anyone find out about my utter an complete geekiness and pride.....Apparently, there's no mixing. It's all shame.
No, but Dragon Warrior was the first game I bought for my NES. It was the first console RPG I really loved...we had something special together, Dragon Warrior and I...that doesn't sound weird, does it?
"This of it as a full fledged console that can do BOTH"
Not to be picking the nits, but since you have to buy an additional $40-50 component for the Gamecube (or an additional $60 component - the GBA), neither actually does "both." I would also not call it a "full fledged console" since it's two generations behind the current crop.
All that aside, I love my GBA and I'll be buying the peripheral for the GC. I'm a gaming whore.:)
I think a maximum "acceptable level of role-playing" would probably be that which still permits function outside the role-playing environment. Since the role-playing in this context is intended to relieve real-life problems, if the role-playing takes over for that real life then it has gone too far.
Then again, I think reality is sometimes overrated, and it's very possible I would have taken the blue pill.
I admit I haven't watched it in quite a while, but the last time(s) I did, there was the bar at the bottom, and the remaining picture was accommodating all the original 4:3 picture, hence the vertical "squeeze." It might be that I'm just oversensitive to it. Either way, TNN doesn't get my support.:)
Re:Green is not the real color...
on
Green Geeks?
·
· Score: 1
Being a lifetime Portlander myself, I have a hard time being as caring about the environment as I might be if I weren't exposed to so many extremists. As soon as people start spiking trees and blowing up logging trucks, I lose any possible sympathy for their cause. The same holds for the radicals of the animal rights movements. While I really do love animals, I can't align myself with the meat is murder, no medical testing crowd.
It gets tougher and tougher to cleave to the middle when one side of the spectrum offends me on such a regular basis.
I have a question, though. I have this hosts file on my system (courtesy of Kazaa Lite - thank y'all) but Mozilla (on Win98, sorry!) comes up with an annoying message - "The connection was refused when attempting to contact ". How do I set myself up so that this message stops appearing?
That's not a bad idea (except for the obvious obsessiveness of the action itself;]). Unfortunately, it would still be in that horrid squeeze vision which I find almost as offensive as the pure "stretch" modes you'll find in most 16x9 TVs (the fancier stretch modes aren't bad at all). In fact, if you combine the two (and I have), the result is a picture so distorted it'll make you queasy.
It's why I won't watch ST: TNG on TNT. They play the shows in "squeeze vision" and have a constant running text bar on the bottom of the screen. I'm not mentally ready yet to start laying out the cash for the DVDs so I just have to do without.
Exactly the point. If a user doesn't see the button then he or she has disabled popups and the site will redirect her/him to the access denied area - which is what happened when I went there with Mozilla.
Of course, this doesn't help them against the pop-up stopping software I turn on when I'm "forced" (by an inconsiderate or evil website - which, oddly enough, does not include www.msn.com) to use IE - "POW" from AnalogX. It's by no means perfect in that you have to see a popup at least once for it to be able to kill it, but one time is the last time until they change the title.
"Try reading the text files in the/etc directory in a typical Unix system:"
blah, blah - look at parent.
"and then try to decode the binary registry file in a microsoft system:"
Though shorter, still blah
"Which is the more intuitive interface, again?"
I would say the "more intuitive interface" is the one where I right-click on the desktop, click settings and see those settings more clearly than either of your two examples - why would anyone with Windows be poking around in the registry for resolution/color depth information?
To be blunt, the "more intuitive interface" is the one which I am used to using.
Good examples except one: Buffy the Vampire Slayer was dropped because Mutant Enemy wanted more money per episode than the WB was willing to pay - UPN picked it up before any groundswell of fandom had a chance to build up. No fan intervention necessary. UPN felt that they needed more than one franchise show (Enterprise), so they were willing to pay the green necessary. The WB, on the other hand, still had Angel to keep a lot of Buffy fans watching, Smallville getting a following, and had Birds of Prey in their sights (a WB property via DC, as is Smallville) - I think they figured BoP would meet their "hot fighting chick(s)" requirement.
I think you are probably right that the paranormal isn't drawing the people it used to. Then again, TV executives are probably only just now catching up to what people wanted five years ago. Then YET again, I'm probably a prototypical geek who is too much into the scifi and video game niche that I am completely out of touch with the mainstream, too.
Slashdot Mirror
If this takes away your desire to play the game, then don't. In about a year, I'm sure they'll be able to see - through sales/subscription rates and through surveys - how their restriction is affecting their bottom line, and if it's a negative impact they'll revisit the issue. I expect that it WON'T be a problem and in fact will be applauded by those who want to play one character at a time and not be penalized for it in terms of player-player competition.
The Gameboy won because it was cheaper, it had more games, and it had bigger, more recognizable franchises. Tetris alone could be blamed for ensuring the dominance of the Gameboy...for my mom, it sold two Gameboys, one Pocket Gameboy, one Gameboy Color and finally (once she enjoyed other games) a Gameboy Advance - ALL because she had to play Tetris and Dr. Mario. :)
I admit that I curse a little bit at the screen when I go to sites like IGN and can't get to the content I want because I haven't paid for the service, but I try to keep in mind that the REASON it costs money is because I'm probably not the only person who wants that content. Once you have a site getting hit hundreds of thousands of times per month, you just can't give it away for free anymore.
Hey, it's cool to be cheap. I can be cheap, too. But don't whine because you're cheap and have the feeling that the content is owed to you in some way...it isn't.
I've seen screenshots of FFX-2 and it does indeed appear that Yuna is wearing less clothing. But who's to say that she isn't in hotter climates (aside: wouldn't it be nifty if the characters in RPGs like FF had different outfits for different climates) or that her new clothes represent the style of clothing that's considered stylish in her world, or maybe she wants to be more attractive to men (not unknown in this world, and no reason it wouldn't be true in hers).
Everyone harps on gameplay as being the key for gamers. I think this applies to female gamers as well as male. Believing this, I think that women are just as likely to play a game with appealing gameplay and attractive pixel-based women as they would be to play a game with appealing gameplay and pixel-based women wearing ankle-length skirts or baggy sweatpants.
Finally, in the vein of my first paragraph, I would submit that digital women inevitably become more attractive if only because the graphics capabilities keep improving - whether the games are developed by men OR women. As video games approach the visual quality (or, more properly, the clarity) of motion pictures, there's no point in NOT making the characters as attractive as possible. Besides, the women I know have no more desire to see an obese woman with a pock-marked face in their entertainment than men do.
Either that or shuffled off to the Army, suffering a serious DEmotion. :)
Again, I'm all for human rights. I even align myself with groups like Amnesty International against my own government in the areas of people being detained without due process of law (whether they're citizens of the US or not) and being firmly against the death penalty in every form. I just don't see the value in making this kind of material a part of a licensing agreement.
License agreements are complicated enough - too complicated much of the time. I recommend taking a stand against "license bloat."
Oddly enough, QVC has been selling the "N64 controller lookalike" you speak of. You can find it here though it says it is "waitlist only" - probably a lot of aunts, uncles and grandparents cheaping out on the little ones. ;)
What it comes down to is that the hype doesn't have to take over your holiday...unless you let it.
Yes, posting the above message and doing so on Slashdot marks me as one of the more pathetic nerds frequenting this site. It's a cross I bear with mixed pride and shame - shame when I let anyone find out about my utter an complete geekiness and pride.....Apparently, there's no mixing. It's all shame.
No, but Dragon Warrior was the first game I bought for my NES. It was the first console RPG I really loved...we had something special together, Dragon Warrior and I...that doesn't sound weird, does it?
Not to be picking the nits, but since you have to buy an additional $40-50 component for the Gamecube (or an additional $60 component - the GBA), neither actually does "both." I would also not call it a "full fledged console" since it's two generations behind the current crop.
All that aside, I love my GBA and I'll be buying the peripheral for the GC. I'm a gaming whore. :)
Then again, I think reality is sometimes overrated, and it's very possible I would have taken the blue pill.
I admit I haven't watched it in quite a while, but the last time(s) I did, there was the bar at the bottom, and the remaining picture was accommodating all the original 4:3 picture, hence the vertical "squeeze." It might be that I'm just oversensitive to it. Either way, TNN doesn't get my support. :)
It gets tougher and tougher to cleave to the middle when one side of the spectrum offends me on such a regular basis.
I have a question, though. I have this hosts file on my system (courtesy of Kazaa Lite - thank y'all) but Mozilla (on Win98, sorry!) comes up with an annoying message - "The connection was refused when attempting to contact ". How do I set myself up so that this message stops appearing?
That's not a bad idea (except for the obvious obsessiveness of the action itself ;]). Unfortunately, it would still be in that horrid squeeze vision which I find almost as offensive as the pure "stretch" modes you'll find in most 16x9 TVs (the fancier stretch modes aren't bad at all). In fact, if you combine the two (and I have), the result is a picture so distorted it'll make you queasy.
It's why I won't watch ST: TNG on TNT. They play the shows in "squeeze vision" and have a constant running text bar on the bottom of the screen. I'm not mentally ready yet to start laying out the cash for the DVDs so I just have to do without.
Of course, this doesn't help them against the pop-up stopping software I turn on when I'm "forced" (by an inconsiderate or evil website - which, oddly enough, does not include www.msn.com) to use IE - "POW" from AnalogX. It's by no means perfect in that you have to see a popup at least once for it to be able to kill it, but one time is the last time until they change the title.
blah, blah - look at parent.
"and then try to decode the binary registry file in a microsoft system:"
Though shorter, still blah
"Which is the more intuitive interface, again?"
I would say the "more intuitive interface" is the one where I right-click on the desktop, click settings and see those settings more clearly than either of your two examples - why would anyone with Windows be poking around in the registry for resolution/color depth information?
To be blunt, the "more intuitive interface" is the one which I am used to using.
Good examples except one: Buffy the Vampire Slayer was dropped because Mutant Enemy wanted more money per episode than the WB was willing to pay - UPN picked it up before any groundswell of fandom had a chance to build up. No fan intervention necessary. UPN felt that they needed more than one franchise show (Enterprise), so they were willing to pay the green necessary. The WB, on the other hand, still had Angel to keep a lot of Buffy fans watching, Smallville getting a following, and had Birds of Prey in their sights (a WB property via DC, as is Smallville) - I think they figured BoP would meet their "hot fighting chick(s)" requirement.
I think you are probably right that the paranormal isn't drawing the people it used to. Then again, TV executives are probably only just now catching up to what people wanted five years ago. Then YET again, I'm probably a prototypical geek who is too much into the scifi and video game niche that I am completely out of touch with the mainstream, too.
You mean that real geeks don't need jobs?? Damn, I knew I was doing something wrong!
"Get your TV and Internet from us. We've never called the FBI over a billing dispute."
It's a good thing to people who are assholes, and those who don't know the difference between rights and privileges.