There's many more articles like that. The good news is that PC gaming will never truly die. There will always be a market for it. The bad news it that as the PC gaming demand dwindles, less AAA titles will be released for it. Why, I just found out today that Gears of War 2 won't be released on the PC. Also, Crytek stated on Joystiq that they won't be making PC exclusive games anymore. I never thought I'd see the day when Valve was releasing console exclusitivities, but the upcoming Portal: Still Alive pack for the xbox 360 is apparently exclusive (though only a small fraction of it wasn't contained in either the original game or the Flash portal map pack).
The "easily cracked" excuse you gave to DRM is a bit far fetched. You know what's easier than having to research how to crack a game? Opening the console disk tray and putting the game in.
Good post, but I think you've made it a tad too simple. Granted, I'm no expert and you certainly sound as though you know what you're talking about, but it seems to me you've defined "addiction" in one way when in fact, as I understand it, the term is broader than just one definition suits. Specifically, there are two forms of addiction that I'm aware of and while the cause may be different in each case, the effects of the addiction can be very similar and that is, in the end, what warrants the two definitions to be classified under one word.
With drugs, there is a physical change, as you've pointed out, that causes the addiction. There's a lot of evidence for this, and it's not a hard argument to make.
The more difficult claim to make is that habits, like gambling, playing videogames, or throwing rocks into a pond can also be addictive. You seem to be of the opinion that they are not. A "fun" activity is only appealing to the brain's intuitive sense, while more mundane but necessary tasks can often contradict with this sense. This simply results in a constant struggle between the decision to do what is more appealing in the short term and what may be necessary for long term stability. The end conclusion you seem to draw is that it is not an addiction at all, it is simply one person's inability to recognize that the short term needs to be sacrificed at times for the long term.
That conclusion is a bit short of the point, though. The question that is then raised is why do some short term pleasures have a significantly higher rate of causing long term neglect then others. For example, why do gamblers consistantly put their long term futures into significant trouble in favor of the short term pleasure when this same behaviour isn't found nearly as often in, say, people who play softball.
If the distribution of short-term vs long-term decision making was close to even between activities, I could see making the claim that these types of addictions aren't addictions at all, but rather individual failings of those making the decisions. But when a certain type of activity, like gambling, has a much, much higher rate of long-term neglect than other activities, you have to question whether the activity itself has some element that makes it somehow addictive. This would be the second type of addiction and I think it's an important field of study. To simply dismiss it as "not a real addiction" would be to dismiss plentiful evidence to the contrary.
That's an excellent point. I still regard FFVII as being one of the best gaming experiences I ever had, but I replayed it several years later and noticed so many flaws that never crossed my mind when I was in high school. The translation is faulty. The story structure is a mess.
If someone asked me to name some of my favorite games of all time, FFVII would be on that list. If someone asked me to name the best games of all time, I'd have to leave it off. It's weird how that works.
Well I do think we live better. Heating/air conditioning, indoor plumbing, refrigerators, antibiotics... The list goes on and on. But you're right, its apples and oranges. And even as I was writing it, I wondered if I should. I'll give you that it shouldn't have been included in my argument, but it's remarkable that you chose to address that statement and not my point in particular.
My point, to clarify, is that piracy has very little to do with any kind of revolution, martyrdom or freedom fighting. Piracy is about free stuff. Plain and simple, and I'm tired of people trying to mask their selfishness. If corporate greed is really the issue, then form a group, or write some letters, or protest on the company's front lawn. Or better yet, speak with your dollars and refrain from purchasing the product.
Corporations aren't perfect. That's a claim I would never make. And if anyone truly felt that they are going too far with copyright protection, then they can easily make a statement by not buying the product. Simple. Don't buy the product, and if other people feel as you do, the company will eventually get the hint. Hell, we have a very recent example of such a thing happening when EA announced they were going to require an online "check-in" every ten days with Mass Effect. There was a huge backlash from their target demographic, and the ten day check-in was abolished. (On a separate note, they now only allow three instillations per purchase, which is, in my opinion, still ridiculous. I won't be buying it because of this. See how that works?).
Piracy is NOT making a statement. Piracy is NOT about making the world a better place. There is no grand, noble intention. Pirates are not heroes or crusaders. They simply, as I've said before, want free stuff. Aside from the occasional forum rant or comic-book-store conversation, these people do nothing to mitigate the influence of corporate greed in America. If anything, they add to the greed pool with their own greed, and justify the stricter and more intrusive methods of copyright protection that have become so prevalent today. It's hypocritical, not noble.
Pirates are reacting to the rather evil infringing of their property rights and civil liberties
nah, they just want free stuff.
Why are my Wii save games encrypted, what gives the company the right to encrypt and lock away my save data that *I* created by mixing it with my labor?
Encrypted save files, DRM, and those types of things are the companies reactions to piracy, not the cause of it. Most of the people today who are now so outspoken against these types of things are the same people that, ten years ago, had entire hard drives filled with pirated music, emulated video games and movies. The pirate steals from the company, the company takes measures to prevent that piracy, and then the pirate uses those measures to justify his piracy. It almost feels like Iraq. Bomb and invade Iraq, piss off the people and make them rebel, and then use their rebellion to justify our need to be there.
Now, I'm not apologizing for the companies. There are a lot of DRM measures that I find to be rather ridiculous, and I get angry about them. But my answer to the companies isn't to justify it for them by continuing to illegally obtain their products without purchase. I don't even see how a strategy like that would work. If anything, it'll have the opposite affect, and even though I've never been a pirate and never plan on being one, I'll have to suffer the consequences of it just like I am now.
As I said in the quote you supplied, it's easy to blame the corporations and call them evil, even as you, on a daily basis, benefit from the technological and medical advances of corporate culture. A man of average income today lives better than the pharaohs of ancient Egypt. It's hypocritical of anyone to benefit from that culture, and then break the laws that are set-up to protect it. If you were being oppressed, like Ghandi, then sure, I'd say go for it. But I doubt even you would have the audacity to call yourself oppressed. And likening yourself to a medieval serf as you "surf" the internet on your hi-speed connection, grow fat from an ever-present bucket of KFC chicken, then head off on the weekend to catch the matinee showing of Iron Man, is a bit ridiculous and insulting. Trust me, you're not a serf, and you're not oppressed.
I'd almost feel relieved to ask a pirate, "How do you justify your actions?" And hear him say in return, "I'm not a martyr. I'm not a crusader. I'm not owed a single thing. I just want free stuff." I'd probably shake his hand.
I have no idea what 'zeitgeist' or 'petard' mean, but I'm gonna attempt to address your post anyway.
I don't know if the intention of his post was really to call "those people" hypocrites. If I had to define his point, I'd say that he is simply trying to show "those people" that the arguments they often use are, at best, questionable justifications that, in another context, seem rather ridiculous.
For example, you seem to be saying (and forgive me if I misinterpret) that in one context, we have a company making money off of another companies work, and that's wrong. But it's not so wrong for an individual to use or acquire a companies copyrighted assets without compensation because that individual won't profit from it. Never mind that said company could be losing profits because of it. Never mind that it doesn't belong to that individual, regardless of how insignificant they feel their actions are. I mean, where's the line, and what gives this individual the right to draw it? But there's no use in arguing, as the OP pointed out, there are a dozen or so ways for the individual to justify it to himself, and in the process trick himself into thinking he's some kind of freedom crusader, saving the world from the evil corporations that *gasp* want to charge us for things, even when most of us secretly know he/she just wants free stuff.
In the end, as an observer, I guess I've always just found the pirate's reasoning to be a little self-serving. It's always been so easy to call corporations evil, controlling bastards intent on ripping the public off. It's a lot more difficult to ask yourself what your personal responsibility is, what your true motivations are, and what your self-serving justifications say about you. Maybe there is something hypocritical about a thief that steals from thieves.
But I can't think about that now, I have definitions to look up.
If you "invest" in organized crime (I'm not even sure invest is the right word), you're doing so with full knowledge that their enterprises are illegal. Same as if you invested in the sale and distribution of drugs, arms trading, or whatever other crime you can think of. Knowingly aiding the activities of criminals makes you liable.
When you invest in a corporation, there is an assumption that the corporation will act ethically and with your best interests in mind. When a corporation does illegal things, it is often without the knowledge of investors and is often contrary to their interests.
These are two very different situations. Are you sure you're of the opinion that those individuals who worked for Enron and lost their retirement savings when Enron went bankrupt should also be held legally responsible for the actions of the guys at the top? If so, you're one cold dude.
Trust me, the difficulty actually makes it more enjoyable. I played through the tactics sequel on the game boy advance. It was an okay game, but the fact that it was far easier than it's predecessor made me feel as though I was missing out on something.
Well, I don't really think it's fair to call them "crappy" controllers. Sure, playing an RTS game with a game controller is near impossible. I'll even concede that a FPS game is easier to control with a mouse and keyboard (though I can play one on a console without much trouble), but there are a LOT of genres where the controller works better. Platformers, racing games, third person action games like God of War, and even some third person shooters like Gears of War. Hell, I've played GTA SA on the PC and the PS2, and I prefer the PS2 controller over the M&K for that game anyday.
I don't know, man. When it comes to FPS games, I've always been the first person to come to their defense when a PC elitist would claim that they couldn't be played right on a console. But when it comes to RTS games, I have to concede that I've simply never felt one that played right on the console, and I've played at least a handful of them. They'll have to do something pretty unique to get it to work. Till them, I am the pillar of skepticism.
Oops. You're right. Also, I should have used "were", not "was". I messed up that first post, didn't I? On the other hand, the ability to mess up twice in one sentence is kinda impressive, no?
I wonder if the Ganados representing multiple races and the inclusion of a "dark-skinned" female character was always intended, or if it was just a reaction to the racism concerns.
So your argument is for games like Rockband, then? Playing real instruments on stage with a talented band in front of a large group of screaming fans, silhouetted against the backdrop of flashy pyrotechnics, probably falls under the category of "very difficult to obtain," no?
I don't know. I guess overall you're right about Microsoft's tendency to steal-and-improve rather than innovate, but that's not entirely true with gaming consoles. When Sony and Nintendo were dragging their feet concerning online capability, Microsoft decided to make it a priority. There's little doubt in my mind that without Microsoft's advances in console connectivity, their game consoles wouldn't have survived past the original Xbox, and connectivity on the Wii and the PS3 would either be peripheral like in years past, or lacking certain features we've come to take for granted.
MS was the first to include a hard drive, they were the first to offer digital content (movies, demos, etc) and they were the first to really set up a cross-game online community. Some would argue that they still are (I'm not very familiar with the PS3's cross game capabilities, but I heard it's lacking in both communication and achievements). Microsoft made large strides in getting consoles into the online world (maybe because they had an inherent advantage). One could argue that they were innovative in this regard.
As for Nintendo being innovative, that's very true, but they can also be very stubborn. Nindendo refused to switch from the proprietary cartridge format to the compact disk back in the days of the N64. This caused many, MANY developers to jump ship onto the cheaper-to-produce CD format of the Playstation. By the end of the N64 life cycle, all you ever read about was how desolate the gaming selection was on the N64, and how most of the major titles being released for the N64 came from Nintendo or second-party developers like Rare. That stigma carried over onto the Gamecube and is STILL somewhat present on the Wii.
One could also argue that Nintendo was also stubborn when it came to "growing-up" their games. Games geared toward teen-agers and adults, with more serious tones, have never been Nintendo's strong points. Other developers, like Rare or Silicon Knights, may have helped out a little bit, but the Playstation's focus on the teen and adult demographic helped push it to it's prominent position in the console market. If Nintendo had tried to target this demographic a little more, maybe they could have hindered Sony's ascension.
I guess what it really comes down to is that no company is infallible. Nintendo struck it big with the Wii, but they've been number one before and lost it. As long as they work with developers and don't try to bully them around like they did in the 80's and 90's, they'll probably continue to do very well. I'm really impressed with my Xbox 360, despite its hardware problems, and I think if Microsoft continues with the path it's on, it'll be around as well. The PS3 has struggled but has made significant strides in the last year. If Home turns out to be as cool as I'm hoping it is, that could help to turn the tide in its favor. Basically, there's still a whole lot of positioning to be done, so I doubt anyone can say with any shred of certainty that one company is going to bow out.
Right. Numbers are great. But I'm not saying anything about Microsoft's position relative to the other companies (Well, maybe I did with that "first to 10 mill" statement). What I am saying is that there is simply no reason to believe that Microsoft is going to leave the console market when, at the very least they're doing okay, and at the most they're doing really well. Microsoft doesn't have to be first to stay in the market. Pepsi has been second to Coke since forever.
I'm simply saying that there is really no reason to believe that Microsoft is about to leave the console gaming market. Quite to the contrary, it looks like they'll be around for awhile. The "their still losing money on console sales" argument doesn't mean anything when they're in the black.
The truth is, there's no reason to believe that any of the three companies will have to bail out anytime soon. It seems everyone is still stuck believing that the gaming market is a two-party competition. The fact that all three of the companies seem to be doing quite well leads me to believe that the two party days of console competition are over (well, as long as the market stays as strong as it is).
Are you serious? I don't think you've been paying attention. Right now, according to Joystiq, the Xbox 360 has sold 19 million worldwide. It has 12 million worldwide subscriptions to Xbox Live. It was the first console in the current generation of consoles to sell 10 million in the U.S., compared to 8.8 Wii's and 4.1 PS3's. In another article (one I'm too lazy to find) the 360 was posting the highest attach rate.
Microsoft's game division is finally in the black with its quarter-to-quarter earnings, and you're saying that they'll just pack up their bags and leave? I'm no MS fanboy or anything, but that doesn't make any sense. And your reasoning is that their still losing money for each console sold when it is clear their obviously making up for that loss with software, subscriptions, and subscription services? I mean, that just doesn't make sense. I can only think of two reasons for why you would come up with such an illogical declaration. Either you are a fanboy of another company, or you're Kenneth Lay.
I don't know that "these older effects stand the test of time much better." While I do agree there are a lot of movies today where the use of cgi is overused, I also feel that CGI in general has gotten a lot better and has, for the most part, improved the quality of the cinematic experience.
Sure, the alien from Aliens was damn near perfect without any need for CGI, but that's because the film makers could leave plenty to the imagination when the alien was onscreen. It wasn't ever really necessary to see the alien move too much because the mystery surrounding the alien was its appeal. Watching the movie, I was more scared by what I didn't see than what I did.
For a counter example, compare that to the first and second terminator movies. Full body capture of the terminator was done with "claymation" techniques, and to someone watching it today, it definitely stands out as unnatural. Other times, they used other methods like robotics, but in those scenes the movement of the terminator seems unnaturally slow or rigid, or only a portion of the terminator appears in frame. Compare that to the CGI version of the terminator in T2. It wasn't perfect, of course, but his movements seemed far more fluid, and cgi allowed the terminator to appear in a wide range of scenes, even "morphing" through the window of a helicoptor.
I'm not really disagreeing with you, as there are times when it seems a filmmaker just gets lazy and relies too much on CGI, but I wanted to give my two cents because it seems like there are a lot of pseudo-film-purists around these days who seem to think ANY CGI is bad and that classical techniques are always inherently better. This is something I really disagree with.
Okay. You're right. We are influenced by our surroundings. But that point is meaningless. Here's why.
First, this game is not meant to be played by kids. It is, and has always been in this country, the parent's responsibility to protect children from harmful material. If (pay close attention to the word 'if', since it directly relates to my next argument) GTA is harmful for children, parents should take steps to assure their children aren't playing it.
Second, while GTA 4 probably does have some kind of influence on adults, it has not been shown that this influence has any negative consequences and the extent of this influence has be determined.
Basically your point is that we are influenced by our surroundings, which is most likely true, but unless you are able to qualify your argument by showing that the influence brought on by playing GTA is both negative and considerable, then what is the problem with us being influenced by it?
Um, I think he was asking for a citation showing that she resigned over a DUI. This is the first I've heard of it as well. Maybe you should be a little more careful when you call someone a stupid ass.
Slashdot Mirror
It's not really FUD. Here's an article from early 2008 that I found in five minutes with a google search. http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2254019,00.asp.
There's many more articles like that. The good news is that PC gaming will never truly die. There will always be a market for it. The bad news it that as the PC gaming demand dwindles, less AAA titles will be released for it. Why, I just found out today that Gears of War 2 won't be released on the PC. Also, Crytek stated on Joystiq that they won't be making PC exclusive games anymore. I never thought I'd see the day when Valve was releasing console exclusitivities, but the upcoming Portal: Still Alive pack for the xbox 360 is apparently exclusive (though only a small fraction of it wasn't contained in either the original game or the Flash portal map pack).
The "easily cracked" excuse you gave to DRM is a bit far fetched. You know what's easier than having to research how to crack a game? Opening the console disk tray and putting the game in.
Good post, but I think you've made it a tad too simple. Granted, I'm no expert and you certainly sound as though you know what you're talking about, but it seems to me you've defined "addiction" in one way when in fact, as I understand it, the term is broader than just one definition suits. Specifically, there are two forms of addiction that I'm aware of and while the cause may be different in each case, the effects of the addiction can be very similar and that is, in the end, what warrants the two definitions to be classified under one word.
With drugs, there is a physical change, as you've pointed out, that causes the addiction. There's a lot of evidence for this, and it's not a hard argument to make.
The more difficult claim to make is that habits, like gambling, playing videogames, or throwing rocks into a pond can also be addictive. You seem to be of the opinion that they are not. A "fun" activity is only appealing to the brain's intuitive sense, while more mundane but necessary tasks can often contradict with this sense. This simply results in a constant struggle between the decision to do what is more appealing in the short term and what may be necessary for long term stability. The end conclusion you seem to draw is that it is not an addiction at all, it is simply one person's inability to recognize that the short term needs to be sacrificed at times for the long term.
That conclusion is a bit short of the point, though. The question that is then raised is why do some short term pleasures have a significantly higher rate of causing long term neglect then others. For example, why do gamblers consistantly put their long term futures into significant trouble in favor of the short term pleasure when this same behaviour isn't found nearly as often in, say, people who play softball.
If the distribution of short-term vs long-term decision making was close to even between activities, I could see making the claim that these types of addictions aren't addictions at all, but rather individual failings of those making the decisions. But when a certain type of activity, like gambling, has a much, much higher rate of long-term neglect than other activities, you have to question whether the activity itself has some element that makes it somehow addictive. This would be the second type of addiction and I think it's an important field of study. To simply dismiss it as "not a real addiction" would be to dismiss plentiful evidence to the contrary.
Try the Forza Motorsport series for the xbox and the xbox 360. It's a fairly good sim racing game.
That's an excellent point. I still regard FFVII as being one of the best gaming experiences I ever had, but I replayed it several years later and noticed so many flaws that never crossed my mind when I was in high school. The translation is faulty. The story structure is a mess.
If someone asked me to name some of my favorite games of all time, FFVII would be on that list. If someone asked me to name the best games of all time, I'd have to leave it off. It's weird how that works.
Well I do think we live better. Heating/air conditioning, indoor plumbing, refrigerators, antibiotics... The list goes on and on. But you're right, its apples and oranges. And even as I was writing it, I wondered if I should. I'll give you that it shouldn't have been included in my argument, but it's remarkable that you chose to address that statement and not my point in particular.
My point, to clarify, is that piracy has very little to do with any kind of revolution, martyrdom or freedom fighting. Piracy is about free stuff. Plain and simple, and I'm tired of people trying to mask their selfishness. If corporate greed is really the issue, then form a group, or write some letters, or protest on the company's front lawn. Or better yet, speak with your dollars and refrain from purchasing the product.
Corporations aren't perfect. That's a claim I would never make. And if anyone truly felt that they are going too far with copyright protection, then they can easily make a statement by not buying the product. Simple. Don't buy the product, and if other people feel as you do, the company will eventually get the hint. Hell, we have a very recent example of such a thing happening when EA announced they were going to require an online "check-in" every ten days with Mass Effect. There was a huge backlash from their target demographic, and the ten day check-in was abolished. (On a separate note, they now only allow three instillations per purchase, which is, in my opinion, still ridiculous. I won't be buying it because of this. See how that works?).
Piracy is NOT making a statement. Piracy is NOT about making the world a better place. There is no grand, noble intention. Pirates are not heroes or crusaders. They simply, as I've said before, want free stuff. Aside from the occasional forum rant or comic-book-store conversation, these people do nothing to mitigate the influence of corporate greed in America. If anything, they add to the greed pool with their own greed, and justify the stricter and more intrusive methods of copyright protection that have become so prevalent today. It's hypocritical, not noble.
Encrypted save files, DRM, and those types of things are the companies reactions to piracy, not the cause of it. Most of the people today who are now so outspoken against these types of things are the same people that, ten years ago, had entire hard drives filled with pirated music, emulated video games and movies. The pirate steals from the company, the company takes measures to prevent that piracy, and then the pirate uses those measures to justify his piracy. It almost feels like Iraq. Bomb and invade Iraq, piss off the people and make them rebel, and then use their rebellion to justify our need to be there.
Now, I'm not apologizing for the companies. There are a lot of DRM measures that I find to be rather ridiculous, and I get angry about them. But my answer to the companies isn't to justify it for them by continuing to illegally obtain their products without purchase. I don't even see how a strategy like that would work. If anything, it'll have the opposite affect, and even though I've never been a pirate and never plan on being one, I'll have to suffer the consequences of it just like I am now.
As I said in the quote you supplied, it's easy to blame the corporations and call them evil, even as you, on a daily basis, benefit from the technological and medical advances of corporate culture. A man of average income today lives better than the pharaohs of ancient Egypt. It's hypocritical of anyone to benefit from that culture, and then break the laws that are set-up to protect it. If you were being oppressed, like Ghandi, then sure, I'd say go for it. But I doubt even you would have the audacity to call yourself oppressed. And likening yourself to a medieval serf as you "surf" the internet on your hi-speed connection, grow fat from an ever-present bucket of KFC chicken, then head off on the weekend to catch the matinee showing of Iron Man, is a bit ridiculous and insulting. Trust me, you're not a serf, and you're not oppressed.
I'd almost feel relieved to ask a pirate, "How do you justify your actions?" And hear him say in return, "I'm not a martyr. I'm not a crusader. I'm not owed a single thing. I just want free stuff." I'd probably shake his hand.
I have no idea what 'zeitgeist' or 'petard' mean, but I'm gonna attempt to address your post anyway.
I don't know if the intention of his post was really to call "those people" hypocrites. If I had to define his point, I'd say that he is simply trying to show "those people" that the arguments they often use are, at best, questionable justifications that, in another context, seem rather ridiculous.
For example, you seem to be saying (and forgive me if I misinterpret) that in one context, we have a company making money off of another companies work, and that's wrong. But it's not so wrong for an individual to use or acquire a companies copyrighted assets without compensation because that individual won't profit from it. Never mind that said company could be losing profits because of it. Never mind that it doesn't belong to that individual, regardless of how insignificant they feel their actions are. I mean, where's the line, and what gives this individual the right to draw it? But there's no use in arguing, as the OP pointed out, there are a dozen or so ways for the individual to justify it to himself, and in the process trick himself into thinking he's some kind of freedom crusader, saving the world from the evil corporations that *gasp* want to charge us for things, even when most of us secretly know he/she just wants free stuff.
In the end, as an observer, I guess I've always just found the pirate's reasoning to be a little self-serving. It's always been so easy to call corporations evil, controlling bastards intent on ripping the public off. It's a lot more difficult to ask yourself what your personal responsibility is, what your true motivations are, and what your self-serving justifications say about you. Maybe there is something hypocritical about a thief that steals from thieves.
But I can't think about that now, I have definitions to look up.
If you "invest" in organized crime (I'm not even sure invest is the right word), you're doing so with full knowledge that their enterprises are illegal. Same as if you invested in the sale and distribution of drugs, arms trading, or whatever other crime you can think of. Knowingly aiding the activities of criminals makes you liable.
When you invest in a corporation, there is an assumption that the corporation will act ethically and with your best interests in mind. When a corporation does illegal things, it is often without the knowledge of investors and is often contrary to their interests.
These are two very different situations. Are you sure you're of the opinion that those individuals who worked for Enron and lost their retirement savings when Enron went bankrupt should also be held legally responsible for the actions of the guys at the top? If so, you're one cold dude.
Trust me, the difficulty actually makes it more enjoyable. I played through the tactics sequel on the game boy advance. It was an okay game, but the fact that it was far easier than it's predecessor made me feel as though I was missing out on something.
Well, I don't really think it's fair to call them "crappy" controllers. Sure, playing an RTS game with a game controller is near impossible. I'll even concede that a FPS game is easier to control with a mouse and keyboard (though I can play one on a console without much trouble), but there are a LOT of genres where the controller works better. Platformers, racing games, third person action games like God of War, and even some third person shooters like Gears of War. Hell, I've played GTA SA on the PC and the PS2, and I prefer the PS2 controller over the M&K for that game anyday.
Because a keyboard and mouse isn't a proprietary control scheme. You'd be amazed how much money console makers make off those controllers.
I don't know, man. When it comes to FPS games, I've always been the first person to come to their defense when a PC elitist would claim that they couldn't be played right on a console. But when it comes to RTS games, I have to concede that I've simply never felt one that played right on the console, and I've played at least a handful of them. They'll have to do something pretty unique to get it to work. Till them, I am the pillar of skepticism.
Oops. You're right. Also, I should have used "were", not "was". I messed up that first post, didn't I? On the other hand, the ability to mess up twice in one sentence is kinda impressive, no?
I wonder if the Ganados representing multiple races and the inclusion of a "dark-skinned" female character was always intended, or if it was just a reaction to the racism concerns.
So your argument is for games like Rockband, then? Playing real instruments on stage with a talented band in front of a large group of screaming fans, silhouetted against the backdrop of flashy pyrotechnics, probably falls under the category of "very difficult to obtain," no?
I don't know. I guess overall you're right about Microsoft's tendency to steal-and-improve rather than innovate, but that's not entirely true with gaming consoles. When Sony and Nintendo were dragging their feet concerning online capability, Microsoft decided to make it a priority. There's little doubt in my mind that without Microsoft's advances in console connectivity, their game consoles wouldn't have survived past the original Xbox, and connectivity on the Wii and the PS3 would either be peripheral like in years past, or lacking certain features we've come to take for granted.
MS was the first to include a hard drive, they were the first to offer digital content (movies, demos, etc) and they were the first to really set up a cross-game online community. Some would argue that they still are (I'm not very familiar with the PS3's cross game capabilities, but I heard it's lacking in both communication and achievements). Microsoft made large strides in getting consoles into the online world (maybe because they had an inherent advantage). One could argue that they were innovative in this regard.
As for Nintendo being innovative, that's very true, but they can also be very stubborn. Nindendo refused to switch from the proprietary cartridge format to the compact disk back in the days of the N64. This caused many, MANY developers to jump ship onto the cheaper-to-produce CD format of the Playstation. By the end of the N64 life cycle, all you ever read about was how desolate the gaming selection was on the N64, and how most of the major titles being released for the N64 came from Nintendo or second-party developers like Rare. That stigma carried over onto the Gamecube and is STILL somewhat present on the Wii.
One could also argue that Nintendo was also stubborn when it came to "growing-up" their games. Games geared toward teen-agers and adults, with more serious tones, have never been Nintendo's strong points. Other developers, like Rare or Silicon Knights, may have helped out a little bit, but the Playstation's focus on the teen and adult demographic helped push it to it's prominent position in the console market. If Nintendo had tried to target this demographic a little more, maybe they could have hindered Sony's ascension.
I guess what it really comes down to is that no company is infallible. Nintendo struck it big with the Wii, but they've been number one before and lost it. As long as they work with developers and don't try to bully them around like they did in the 80's and 90's, they'll probably continue to do very well. I'm really impressed with my Xbox 360, despite its hardware problems, and I think if Microsoft continues with the path it's on, it'll be around as well. The PS3 has struggled but has made significant strides in the last year. If Home turns out to be as cool as I'm hoping it is, that could help to turn the tide in its favor. Basically, there's still a whole lot of positioning to be done, so I doubt anyone can say with any shred of certainty that one company is going to bow out.
Right. Numbers are great. But I'm not saying anything about Microsoft's position relative to the other companies (Well, maybe I did with that "first to 10 mill" statement). What I am saying is that there is simply no reason to believe that Microsoft is going to leave the console market when, at the very least they're doing okay, and at the most they're doing really well. Microsoft doesn't have to be first to stay in the market. Pepsi has been second to Coke since forever.
I'm simply saying that there is really no reason to believe that Microsoft is about to leave the console gaming market. Quite to the contrary, it looks like they'll be around for awhile. The "their still losing money on console sales" argument doesn't mean anything when they're in the black.
The truth is, there's no reason to believe that any of the three companies will have to bail out anytime soon. It seems everyone is still stuck believing that the gaming market is a two-party competition. The fact that all three of the companies seem to be doing quite well leads me to believe that the two party days of console competition are over (well, as long as the market stays as strong as it is).
Are you serious? I don't think you've been paying attention. Right now, according to Joystiq, the Xbox 360 has sold 19 million worldwide. It has 12 million worldwide subscriptions to Xbox Live. It was the first console in the current generation of consoles to sell 10 million in the U.S., compared to 8.8 Wii's and 4.1 PS3's. In another article (one I'm too lazy to find) the 360 was posting the highest attach rate. Microsoft's game division is finally in the black with its quarter-to-quarter earnings, and you're saying that they'll just pack up their bags and leave? I'm no MS fanboy or anything, but that doesn't make any sense. And your reasoning is that their still losing money for each console sold when it is clear their obviously making up for that loss with software, subscriptions, and subscription services? I mean, that just doesn't make sense. I can only think of two reasons for why you would come up with such an illogical declaration. Either you are a fanboy of another company, or you're Kenneth Lay.
God no. There's no way a two hour movie could do Half-Life right. Be careful what you wish for.
I don't know that "these older effects stand the test of time much better." While I do agree there are a lot of movies today where the use of cgi is overused, I also feel that CGI in general has gotten a lot better and has, for the most part, improved the quality of the cinematic experience.
Sure, the alien from Aliens was damn near perfect without any need for CGI, but that's because the film makers could leave plenty to the imagination when the alien was onscreen. It wasn't ever really necessary to see the alien move too much because the mystery surrounding the alien was its appeal. Watching the movie, I was more scared by what I didn't see than what I did.
For a counter example, compare that to the first and second terminator movies. Full body capture of the terminator was done with "claymation" techniques, and to someone watching it today, it definitely stands out as unnatural. Other times, they used other methods like robotics, but in those scenes the movement of the terminator seems unnaturally slow or rigid, or only a portion of the terminator appears in frame. Compare that to the CGI version of the terminator in T2. It wasn't perfect, of course, but his movements seemed far more fluid, and cgi allowed the terminator to appear in a wide range of scenes, even "morphing" through the window of a helicoptor.
I'm not really disagreeing with you, as there are times when it seems a filmmaker just gets lazy and relies too much on CGI, but I wanted to give my two cents because it seems like there are a lot of pseudo-film-purists around these days who seem to think ANY CGI is bad and that classical techniques are always inherently better. This is something I really disagree with.
Okay. You're right. We are influenced by our surroundings. But that point is meaningless. Here's why.
First, this game is not meant to be played by kids. It is, and has always been in this country, the parent's responsibility to protect children from harmful material. If (pay close attention to the word 'if', since it directly relates to my next argument) GTA is harmful for children, parents should take steps to assure their children aren't playing it.
Second, while GTA 4 probably does have some kind of influence on adults, it has not been shown that this influence has any negative consequences and the extent of this influence has be determined.
Basically your point is that we are influenced by our surroundings, which is most likely true, but unless you are able to qualify your argument by showing that the influence brought on by playing GTA is both negative and considerable, then what is the problem with us being influenced by it?
Um, I think he was asking for a citation showing that she resigned over a DUI. This is the first I've heard of it as well. Maybe you should be a little more careful when you call someone a stupid ass.
Intoxicated Halo 3 is harder than it sounds. I've lost many a game trying to make the two work well together.
It's the left wing AND the right wing. Nazis and Communists both tried to severly limit the people's rights, but for very different reasons.
"So this place, Moe's, that you were at. It's a business of some kind?"
Don't tell him you were at a bar. Wait! What else is open this late at night?
"It's a pornography store. I was buying pornography."
hehe. I woulda never thought of that.