I know, right? I love how the guy he was replying to gets down-modded twice, not because he was being an asshole or anything, but rather because he simply had an unpopular opinion. But this guy, who posts a reply that is essentially a straw man argument that has nothing to do with the situation of our present day, get's modded +3. I really think slashdot ought to just can all the -1 and +1 euphemisms and stick to the only two that really matter. +1 agree and -1 disagree.
I understand what you're saying, and I think it's unfair someone modded you -1 (the only reason I could imagine is because they disagree with you, which is not what mod points are for), but this is an argument less about copyright itself and more about who is responsible for enforcing it. So much of the internet is about user-generated content. Anytime you give the users the ability to influence the contents of your site, there's the risk that they might use your site to post copyrighted material. If we start holding companies liable for this, say goodbye to youtube, facebook, and perhaps even popular forums like Slashdot. I mean, nothing is stopping me from posting a copyrighted poem or news article here. Should Slashdot be coughing up money every time that happens?
Honestly, I don't see how youtube is any different than any other forum for communication. I could come here to Slashdot and post copyrighted material. I could go to any file upload site and upload copyrighted material. Seriously, if the RIAA gets its way, 90 percent of what makes the internet great would be in jeopardy. Any site that allows it's users any control over the material on the site what-so-ever would be liable. That's not the kind of internet I want.
Wow, you love sarcasm, don't you john? You ever try canning the sarcasm and instead making your point clearly and concisely, instead of masking it in passive-aggressive-teenage bullshit? Or are you that hard up for the +1 funny you get from like-minded adolescent assholes like yourself who can't tell the difference between wit and sarcasm? Seriously, your last 4 posts or so have been nothing but sarcastic tirades. That kind of crap shouldn't fly hear on Slashdot.
I happen to agree with you. It's a shame you've been modded "troll," but maybe it was your tone.
The truth is, the article writer really has no idea why Microsoft canceled the project. He's just speculating. It also doesn't state the kinds of games that were tested. While I've long believed that RTS, FPS and MMORPG are superior on a keyboard and mouse, I have a hard time believing the same would be said about fighting, platforming, or racing games.
Let's call this article what it is. It's "speculation." I have to be honest, as a long time PC and console gamer, I feel there's quite a bit of bias against consoles here on slashdot as most slashdot users are PC gamers. Ask yourself if you really, truly believe this article finally realizes the idea that PC gamers are inherently better than console gamers, or rather if this article doesn't really give enough evidence to come such a conclusion. Personally, until a more scientific study comes along, I can only categorize articles like this in the "opinion" category and stick to my own experience, which is that there are very skilled players of all types, ranging across all genres, on PCs and consoles. Just my humble opinion.
I don't know if I'd go as far as to say MOST games. I'd give the keyboard and mouse FPS, RTS and MMRPGs. But I'd give the controller fighting, racing, platforming, flying, and pretty much any third person game where the camera is not fixed behind the character.
You're right. A lot of console gamers wouldn't know what to do with themselves. In fact, a lot of console gamers would be incredibly surprised to realize that all this time, they've been using aim-assist (I say aim assist instead of auto-aim, because auto-aim can also refer to mods that are far more influential than aim assist). If you were to ask the random console Bioshock player or Left-4-Dead player if the game had aim assist, I wouldn't be surprised if most of them said "no." But they do.
Personally, I think it's kind of a testament to how well aiming assist has been implemented into console games. It's almost transparent, and still allows for a wide range of skill. PC gamers who don't play console games very often probably still think of aim-assist the way they think of auto-aim, that the cross-hairs instantly snap to a players head or that bullets that wouldn't have hit magically hit their targets. While the latter is still the case in some games (like left 4 dead), the former doesn't exist in any game that I am aware of. Instead, the aim-assist acts more like a weak magnet. Large analog movements have less impact the closer you get to your target. So in, say, Call of Duty, holding the analog stick all the way to the right when not targeting an enemy causes you to turn quickly. But when you're targeting a person, the person acts as kind of a magnet which means you can use larger analog movements to fine tune your shot. It's an amazing system that works considerably well and is the ONLY reason fps games work on consoles.
That being said, as a PC gamer and a console gamer, I have to say I think there are quite a few PC gamers out there who still think there's little-to-no skill involved in console shooters and that playing a console shooter couldn't POSSIBLY be as fun as playing it on the PC. I think this is a shame as I find console games with clever aim-assist to be quite fun, not at all frustrating, with a ride range of skill levels and very entertaining.
Easy. "Neutral" means "agrees with the opinions of liberal white, upper-middle-class college-educated geeks living in a large coastal city in the United States." [citation needed]
In all fairness, you left off the wii board and the guitar hero/rockband instrument peripherals. Those have done well a peripheral sales. It's not completely unheard of for a peripheral to succeed nowadays.
Am I the only one that thinks 3D might be a little overrated, at least in a cinematic sense. Granted, I'm interested to see how well it would work in a video game with such detailed graphics, but I really don't see all that much of a point to it. Then again, maybe I'm just being a grumpy old gamer annoyed by kids and their fancy-smancy third dimension.
They tell us we have to wear seatbelts. What's so absurd about telling an individual who owns dangerous weapons that they have to keep them locked and secured? Would you be comfortable with a person storing their guns on their front porch?
Again, who said anything about DRM or copyright? My exact quote was "While I agree the current business model of larger games companies is outdated, I'm not sure this is the solution." That right there would highly suggest I'm not really a huge fan of the current DRM-filled business model, and indeed I'm not. I would like to see companies currently reliant on DRM to maintain their outdated business models explore more options, maybe looking more towards advertising or episodic content releases to mitigate the need for DRM.
But again, that's all a tangent that has nothing to do with my original post. Whether you like DRM or not, my only point is that this probably wouldn't work as an alternative to the current business model for big-budget games. That doesn't mean I'm defending DRM.
Please stop trying to turn this conversation into a tirade against DRM. Don't we have enough of that here on slashdot? I'm bored of that conversation.
Who's talking about copyright law? Pretty sure my post had nothing to do with copyright. My post is about a business model that works (or doesn't) for high budget games. And the examples I gave are trivial. My argument could be applied to any developer or publisher developing high budget games, from EA and Activision to Valve, Nintendo or Sega.
Besides, paper wasn't originally meant to wipe my ass, but it does a pretty damn good job of it.
Well, that's probably because I never said anything about "need". My post has nothing to do with "need". In fact, in the grand scheme of things, there really isn't a need for ANY game, no matter what the budget. Not quite sure where all this need talk is coming from.
My point is simply that a pay-what-you-want business model wouldn't work for a game with a high budget. Be it EA or Activision or Valve or whatever. Take your pick.
Now, if what you were actually trying to say with that misplaced sarcastic first sentence is that you, personally, don't think there is a need for a high budget games market, then I agree with you. As I mentioned above, there's not really a need for ANY games market. But while there might not be a need for a high budget games market, it exists, whether you like it or not. A company like EA exists to tap into that market. It's beneficial for them to come up with the best business model possible when attempting to do so. I'm of the opinion that a pay-what-you-want business model wouldn't work for such a market. That's all I'm saying.
Just in case you feel like responding with more pointless sarcasm, let me save you some time by assuring you that I get it. You're too cool for high budget games. Congrats.
I don't know. While I agree the current business model of larger games companies is outdated, I'm not sure this is the solution. A million dollars is pretty impressive for games that don't cost too much to develop. It's not quite as impressive for a game like modern warfare 2.
While this excites me for the smaller developers, realistically, I don't see this kind of business model really working for a larger developer like EA. I know a lot of you don't want to hear that, but I'm just trying to be realistic.
Still, you have to admit the cost of developing these games was probably pretty small (full disclosure, I'm not familiar with all of them). While this business model could (and obviously does) work for cheaper-to-develop games like these, I really couldn't see it working for more expensive endeavors.
It seems to me that many who call themselves "gamers" overestimate their importance... Why should NIntendo care about you? They're making money. They're successful. They're happy. They're a business, not a charity for FPS and RPG lovers.
This is absolutely true. But it's also absolutely the number one reason most veteran gamers are bitter towards Nintendo right now. I try not to be, but even I can't help feeling a little left out. Nintendo is like a friend you had your whole life that suddenly starts hanging out with a different crowd. You see them in the hall or at work and you try to be civil, but that little stab of bitterness and jealousy always kinda makes you wish something bad would happen to your old friend and their new group that would teach them a lesson for bailing on you. It's petty and stupid, but it's human.
I really try to look at Nintendo the way I look at Disney or Nickelodeon. I loved these companies when I was a kid. But as I started to get older I began to realize I would eventually have to let them go as my tastes in entertainment began to differ. I think a lot of the problem is that those of us who grew up with Nintendo always kind of figured that Nintendo would grow up with us, and that as our tastes differed, so would theirs.
MaYeah, because the 360 and ps3 have games with depth? Their entire catalog can be summed up basically under 14 headings. Lame FPS game that would be better if it was made for a PC, Annual Sports Game, the Newest game knocking off Devil May Cry, racing games, fighting games, puzzle/strategy games, platforming games, third-person shooters, sidescrolling games, rpg games, rts games, mmo games, adventure games, and perhaps even board/card games. That's pretty much it. OH. Sorry. Also music games, but then that's really a party game that's only fun because other people are there.
Slashdot Mirror
I know, right? I love how the guy he was replying to gets down-modded twice, not because he was being an asshole or anything, but rather because he simply had an unpopular opinion. But this guy, who posts a reply that is essentially a straw man argument that has nothing to do with the situation of our present day, get's modded +3. I really think slashdot ought to just can all the -1 and +1 euphemisms and stick to the only two that really matter. +1 agree and -1 disagree.
I understand what you're saying, and I think it's unfair someone modded you -1 (the only reason I could imagine is because they disagree with you, which is not what mod points are for), but this is an argument less about copyright itself and more about who is responsible for enforcing it. So much of the internet is about user-generated content. Anytime you give the users the ability to influence the contents of your site, there's the risk that they might use your site to post copyrighted material. If we start holding companies liable for this, say goodbye to youtube, facebook, and perhaps even popular forums like Slashdot. I mean, nothing is stopping me from posting a copyrighted poem or news article here. Should Slashdot be coughing up money every time that happens?
Honestly, I don't see how youtube is any different than any other forum for communication. I could come here to Slashdot and post copyrighted material. I could go to any file upload site and upload copyrighted material. Seriously, if the RIAA gets its way, 90 percent of what makes the internet great would be in jeopardy. Any site that allows it's users any control over the material on the site what-so-ever would be liable. That's not the kind of internet I want.
Wow, you love sarcasm, don't you john? You ever try canning the sarcasm and instead making your point clearly and concisely, instead of masking it in passive-aggressive-teenage bullshit? Or are you that hard up for the +1 funny you get from like-minded adolescent assholes like yourself who can't tell the difference between wit and sarcasm? Seriously, your last 4 posts or so have been nothing but sarcastic tirades. That kind of crap shouldn't fly hear on Slashdot.
And the other 20% is stupidity.
I happen to agree with you. It's a shame you've been modded "troll," but maybe it was your tone.
The truth is, the article writer really has no idea why Microsoft canceled the project. He's just speculating. It also doesn't state the kinds of games that were tested. While I've long believed that RTS, FPS and MMORPG are superior on a keyboard and mouse, I have a hard time believing the same would be said about fighting, platforming, or racing games.
Let's call this article what it is. It's "speculation." I have to be honest, as a long time PC and console gamer, I feel there's quite a bit of bias against consoles here on slashdot as most slashdot users are PC gamers. Ask yourself if you really, truly believe this article finally realizes the idea that PC gamers are inherently better than console gamers, or rather if this article doesn't really give enough evidence to come such a conclusion. Personally, until a more scientific study comes along, I can only categorize articles like this in the "opinion" category and stick to my own experience, which is that there are very skilled players of all types, ranging across all genres, on PCs and consoles. Just my humble opinion.
I don't know if I'd go as far as to say MOST games. I'd give the keyboard and mouse FPS, RTS and MMRPGs. But I'd give the controller fighting, racing, platforming, flying, and pretty much any third person game where the camera is not fixed behind the character.
You're right. A lot of console gamers wouldn't know what to do with themselves. In fact, a lot of console gamers would be incredibly surprised to realize that all this time, they've been using aim-assist (I say aim assist instead of auto-aim, because auto-aim can also refer to mods that are far more influential than aim assist). If you were to ask the random console Bioshock player or Left-4-Dead player if the game had aim assist, I wouldn't be surprised if most of them said "no." But they do.
Personally, I think it's kind of a testament to how well aiming assist has been implemented into console games. It's almost transparent, and still allows for a wide range of skill. PC gamers who don't play console games very often probably still think of aim-assist the way they think of auto-aim, that the cross-hairs instantly snap to a players head or that bullets that wouldn't have hit magically hit their targets. While the latter is still the case in some games (like left 4 dead), the former doesn't exist in any game that I am aware of. Instead, the aim-assist acts more like a weak magnet. Large analog movements have less impact the closer you get to your target. So in, say, Call of Duty, holding the analog stick all the way to the right when not targeting an enemy causes you to turn quickly. But when you're targeting a person, the person acts as kind of a magnet which means you can use larger analog movements to fine tune your shot. It's an amazing system that works considerably well and is the ONLY reason fps games work on consoles.
That being said, as a PC gamer and a console gamer, I have to say I think there are quite a few PC gamers out there who still think there's little-to-no skill involved in console shooters and that playing a console shooter couldn't POSSIBLY be as fun as playing it on the PC. I think this is a shame as I find console games with clever aim-assist to be quite fun, not at all frustrating, with a ride range of skill levels and very entertaining.
RTS games, on the other hand...
I didn't mod this offtopic, but you're right with the whole "wooooooossssssh" thing. What's he trying to say?
Easy. "Neutral" means "agrees with the opinions of liberal white, upper-middle-class college-educated geeks living in a large coastal city in the United States." [citation needed]
In all fairness, you left off the wii board and the guitar hero/rockband instrument peripherals. Those have done well a peripheral sales. It's not completely unheard of for a peripheral to succeed nowadays.
Any?
Am I the only one that thinks 3D might be a little overrated, at least in a cinematic sense. Granted, I'm interested to see how well it would work in a video game with such detailed graphics, but I really don't see all that much of a point to it. Then again, maybe I'm just being a grumpy old gamer annoyed by kids and their fancy-smancy third dimension.
They tell us we have to wear seatbelts. What's so absurd about telling an individual who owns dangerous weapons that they have to keep them locked and secured? Would you be comfortable with a person storing their guns on their front porch?
Easy. "Regular Yes" is saying "yes" or nodding your head. "Extreme Yes" is to do both at the same time.
Again, who said anything about DRM or copyright? My exact quote was "While I agree the current business model of larger games companies is outdated, I'm not sure this is the solution." That right there would highly suggest I'm not really a huge fan of the current DRM-filled business model, and indeed I'm not. I would like to see companies currently reliant on DRM to maintain their outdated business models explore more options, maybe looking more towards advertising or episodic content releases to mitigate the need for DRM.
But again, that's all a tangent that has nothing to do with my original post. Whether you like DRM or not, my only point is that this probably wouldn't work as an alternative to the current business model for big-budget games. That doesn't mean I'm defending DRM.
Please stop trying to turn this conversation into a tirade against DRM. Don't we have enough of that here on slashdot? I'm bored of that conversation.
Who's talking about copyright law? Pretty sure my post had nothing to do with copyright. My post is about a business model that works (or doesn't) for high budget games. And the examples I gave are trivial. My argument could be applied to any developer or publisher developing high budget games, from EA and Activision to Valve, Nintendo or Sega.
Besides, paper wasn't originally meant to wipe my ass, but it does a pretty damn good job of it.
Well then, replace "Modern Warfare 2" in my original post with "Half life 2" and maybe the point would make more sense to you.
Well, that's probably because I never said anything about "need". My post has nothing to do with "need". In fact, in the grand scheme of things, there really isn't a need for ANY game, no matter what the budget. Not quite sure where all this need talk is coming from.
My point is simply that a pay-what-you-want business model wouldn't work for a game with a high budget. Be it EA or Activision or Valve or whatever. Take your pick.
Now, if what you were actually trying to say with that misplaced sarcastic first sentence is that you, personally, don't think there is a need for a high budget games market, then I agree with you. As I mentioned above, there's not really a need for ANY games market. But while there might not be a need for a high budget games market, it exists, whether you like it or not. A company like EA exists to tap into that market. It's beneficial for them to come up with the best business model possible when attempting to do so. I'm of the opinion that a pay-what-you-want business model wouldn't work for such a market. That's all I'm saying.
Just in case you feel like responding with more pointless sarcasm, let me save you some time by assuring you that I get it. You're too cool for high budget games. Congrats.
I don't know. While I agree the current business model of larger games companies is outdated, I'm not sure this is the solution. A million dollars is pretty impressive for games that don't cost too much to develop. It's not quite as impressive for a game like modern warfare 2.
While this excites me for the smaller developers, realistically, I don't see this kind of business model really working for a larger developer like EA. I know a lot of you don't want to hear that, but I'm just trying to be realistic.
That's pretty cool. I'm happy for the developers.
Still, you have to admit the cost of developing these games was probably pretty small (full disclosure, I'm not familiar with all of them). While this business model could (and obviously does) work for cheaper-to-develop games like these, I really couldn't see it working for more expensive endeavors.
Good news for smaller developers, though.
"I WAS IN THE POOL!!!"
This is absolutely true. But it's also absolutely the number one reason most veteran gamers are bitter towards Nintendo right now. I try not to be, but even I can't help feeling a little left out. Nintendo is like a friend you had your whole life that suddenly starts hanging out with a different crowd. You see them in the hall or at work and you try to be civil, but that little stab of bitterness and jealousy always kinda makes you wish something bad would happen to your old friend and their new group that would teach them a lesson for bailing on you. It's petty and stupid, but it's human.
I really try to look at Nintendo the way I look at Disney or Nickelodeon. I loved these companies when I was a kid. But as I started to get older I began to realize I would eventually have to let them go as my tastes in entertainment began to differ. I think a lot of the problem is that those of us who grew up with Nintendo always kind of figured that Nintendo would grow up with us, and that as our tastes differed, so would theirs.
But we were wrong.
MaYeah, because the 360 and ps3 have games with depth? Their entire catalog can be summed up basically under 14 headings. Lame FPS game that would be better if it was made for a PC, Annual Sports Game, the Newest game knocking off Devil May Cry, racing games, fighting games, puzzle/strategy games, platforming games, third-person shooters, sidescrolling games, rpg games, rts games, mmo games, adventure games, and perhaps even board/card games. That's pretty much it. OH. Sorry. Also music games, but then that's really a party game that's only fun because other people are there.
200?