I'm a SCIENCE NUT and a Puerto Rican. I love the island I'm from and adore its people, culture, natural resources, and sights. That said, my trip to Arecibo was a total waste of time. I got to see a big satellite dish...WOW...one that I had already seen in a James Bond movie.
It was a big yawhn for me...not worth the trip to the mountain or the ride up. It was basically dead -- no museum, very little information, no exhibit of the discoveries, just a tiny exhibit with some old radio equipment. These people really need to learn how to show off their work to their visitors.
They should definitely keep the observatory open if it is useful to the scientists using it, but as a visitor there are definitely a thousand things I can do in Puerto Rico that are more fun than looking at a big huge dish.
Dude, your girlfriend is absolutely right. You're HARDCORE to the bone and I'll tell you why. There are people who know, people who think they know, and people who don't know shit. Clearly, you KNOW what you're talking about when it comes to gaming.
It's not about how many games you buy or play. It's about buying the GOOD games and not buying the shovelware that gets peddled as product for the masses. I think you know you're hardcore too on the down low;-) .
Parental controls on any technology are simply not an effective means to prevent children from doing something. The kids know more about the locking and un-locking technology than the parents...this is changing over time as our generation becomes parents, but our generation is barely entering the point where they're getting married and starting to think of having kids.
I second that motion. This is the reason why I want the PS3 to succeed (but not win) in this generation, once its price drops. I think that Sony has learned their very difficult lesson, but just can't drop the price on the PS3 any more because they are already losing too much $$$ on it. Competition is good for everyone and I really do want a high-definition DVD player for my 50" 1080p HDTV -- I would also looove to play the new Metal Gear when it comes out...I just don't want to pay for than $250 for the PS3.
I completely agree on your IBM point...they are definitely the biggest winners in this console generation.
As for attach rate, I would argue that a low attach rate is actually a good thing. Dating back to the Atari 2600 generation and in every subsequent video game market (including the PC) there has been waaaay too much sovelware out there. If developers make good games, they will make good money. If they don't, they can expect to lose money...and I don't feel badly for them at all; they deserve to go out of business.
Yes, definitely -- sensationalist media is to blame...but let's not let the pedophiles off-the-hook either. Ever heard the saying "if this prevents just one (insert tragedy here), it was worth it." I can see American conservatives not buying a Wii over just one of these stories, even though it hurts the rest of us "normal" (I use the term loosely;-) )people.
Battle.net is a great example of one of the first built-in multiplayer game systems on the Internet...as I recall Diablo was the first game that featured it and I played it to death as well. Great times for the first two weeks, until the hackers blew its doors off.
I have to admit that Microsoft has done a great job with XBL, though I despise them for their "gold" vs. "silver" and "pay" vs. "free" distinction. Does battle.net not do most of those things (except voice chat over 56K modems) on the PC?
I don't see Nintendo (or any good developer) doing anything mediocre with one of their franchise series (e.g. Metroid)...if it's worth doing, it's worth doing right. Mario Kart for the Wii is going to feature online play, right? Madden 2008 supports online play on the Wii, as does Mario Strikers (soccer) on the Wii. Have you checked out Strikers? It's awesome as a single player game, with friends, and as an online game. The good online players are such masters of the game that they manage to score goals in ways that the original makers never even intended...it really makes you change your defensive strategy.
Pojut, I really do enjoy your posts in general and I see that you're trying to make your point, but I'll tell you that this one stings...quite a bit. The truth hurts sometimes, but damn!
I agree that for you and me the friend code idea sucks ass, but I think I see where Nintendo is coming from.
Historically, Nintendo has marketed their systems to kids (including me; I'm just a big 30-year old kid). Think about all of the trouble that MySpace, Facebook, and others get from the media and government when a child predator gets his hands on a minor. My sense is that Nintendo would prefer to avoid even 1 story about a pedophile using the Wii to prey on children, even if it means not treating the rest of us as adults.
I bought the Wii on launch day and after a few months of Wii Sports and Zelda, I started to fear the same thing -- that it was a gimmick or passing fad that would fade over time.
Then Resident Evil and Madden came out and suddenly I was aiming my screen to shoot Ganados, throwing lobs and zip passes with my right hand, swatting balls out of the air with my hands, pulling interceptions down with my hands, and putting big hits on runners using my arms...and those were just the first attempts by third parties to integrate motion control into "normal" games.
I no longer fear that the Wii's motion control is a passing fad or gimmick. I think it's here to stay and be improved on in the next-generation consoles.
Almost every game that Nintendo publishes is a must-have and there are a number of great third-party titles (Resident Evil, Madden, Elebits, Rayman, and Call of Duty come to mind). Now that we all know how excellent Super Mario Galaxy is, there will be a new system-seller this holiday season.
Note that Nintendo has not had to drop the price on the Wii since launch. Surely, manufacturing the system has become less expensive, Nintendo is making even more money from the system, they are producing more Wiis for sale at retail, and still can't keep the system on the shelves!!!
The ONLY thing the Wii is missing as a game system is high-definition graphics rendering and I expect that Nintendo will give us that in their next generation system, along with highly improved motion control. I can only imagine how much Nintendo's new system will !!!ROCK!!! when that day comes. Quoting the movie 300, "THIS IS SLASHDOT!!!" (err, Sparta) where the Wii rules;-).
I agree that using Microsoft's Live service is the wrong way to do multiplayer gaming on the PC and I do excuse EPIC and the partner who ported the game, because it was originally implemented to use Xbox Live on the 360. If I were a game developer making games for the 360, I would definitely use XBL because the 360 is a closed platform and XBL is where multiplayer gaming is at on that system. Given that GOW on the PC is a port of the 360 game, EPIC gets a free pass from me on the PC port using Live.
On the other hand, if EPIC used Live for Unreal 3 on the PC, I would direct my "nerd rage" at them because Unreal is a PC (open platform) game and has no business being on Live.
I bought Gears of War to support EPIC, not Microsoft. My cousin got a 360 for his birthday, I played it on his system, and really had to resist the urge to buy a 360 of my own just for GOW. When I found out that it was being released for the PC, I decided to wait for its release and buy it. It's not like I was buying Microsoft's Flight Simulator or Age of Empires, right? Then again, now that I look at the Wikipedia article, Microsoft Game Studios is the publisher, so they're probably getting a healthy chunk of my $$$...bah! You're right -- my urge to own and play this great game caused me to miss that when I was making my purchasing decision.
I try to stay away from EA as well, but my brother loves to play Madden on the Wii. He bought me Madden 2007 for Christmas last year and Madden 2008 for my birthday this year so that we could play against each-other online for free on the Wii as it should be;-) .
Nerd rage...I had never heard of it before, but I LOVE IT!;-) Consider it stolen;-)
I do think my "nerd rage" is pointed in the right direction -- right at Microsoft. They built the Live service using a subscription model to gain a recurring revenue stream from gamers. The services provided through a Live Gold subscription are available for free from other vendors, as pointed out earlier in this discussion thread.
In general, I assume that Microsoft is using its desktop OS monopoly as leverage with game developers to adopt its Live service. I also see Halo 2 (a DirectX 9 game) being Vista-only as an attempt to propagate their desktop OS monopoly into the next generation of desktop OSes. In the specific case of Gears of War, I think that because it is originally an XBox 360 game, they simply ported the Live support instead of implementing game server functionality and an in-game browser -- since laziness is one of the virtues of being a programmer, I do not aim my rage at EPIC or the company they partnered with to port GOW to the PC.
I honestly have no idea how community mods for Gears of War will work on the PC through the Live service...but maybe I'll find out when I try Live Silver tonight on my PC.
I have no intention of redeeming the free month of Gold service that MS included in the GOW game box. They're like a crack dealer, giving away the first dose so you will keep paying for it the rest of your life. As far as I am concerned, every dollar that goes to Microsoft is a dollar used to try to kill Linux and the larger open-source movement.
I want them to get those $5/month through in-game ads, not out of my pocket.
Why should I give Microsoft $60/year after I paid Epic $50 for the game? I don't see why I should pay them to match me up with other gamers when we had services like Kali and Kahn back in the days of analog modems to do this for us.
I don't have a problem with a flat fee being charged for something like this, especially if it is built-in to the price of the game ($60 would have been a fine purchase price as well).
The recurring charge is what I have an issue with and this is also the reason why I have not played any of the MMORPGs like Everquest or World of Warcraft.
I have bought almost every FPS that EPIC has put out since Unreal. Specifically, Unreal, Unreal 2, Unreal Tournament, and UT2004 (I did not like UT2003; lack of vehicles made the gameplay dated). All of those games had free Multiplayer, as it should be on the PC.
I picked up Gears of War for the PC last week only to find that it required me to PAY for a LIVE account to play it online after the first month and to download patches automagically. Is it just me, or does this stink like a dirty practice given past history on the PC and the upcoming Unreal 3 on the PC?
As far as I am concerned, the day of the video game magazine died when Next Generation Magazine died. They simply covered the industry very well from many angles. After its parent company cancelled the publication, I no longer had any reason to read video game magazines, because I could obtain the content online. Sure, I picked up Electronic Gaming Monthly from time to time when they covered a game that I was very interested in, but Next-Gen magazine was the gold standard as far as I was concerned. I'm glad that some of the editors got back together and formed the www.next-gen.biz website.
I live in New York City and this issue affects me. Why are my taxes being spent to help steal votes in my state? Now we have a new Attorney General whose job it is to help Republicans steal another presidential election?!?
You're right, of course...but how many consoles can this market support? As it is, development houses like EA want a standard console architecture to develop for to reduce the up-front cost of creating games.
Apple has a pretty shoddy track record of supporting gamers and I have no idea what a Google offering would even look like.
I never bought a Sega Master System, Genesis, 32X, Sega CD, or Saturn, but when they put out the Dreamcast while lying on their console manufacturer deathbed, I went out and bought the system and all of the best games to try to support them in the hopes they would stay alive. Alas, they are only developing software these days, but I would like to see them competing in the console wars. Sony and Microsoft played a significant role in the end of Sega console production. The market at that time was able to support four major console manufacturers, even though the DC was a good product.
Overall, Sony has helped expand the market for video games. As much as I despise the PlayStation brand, competition is good for the industry overall, because it keeps Nintendo and Microsoft on their toes. It is definitely important that they succeed.
Dude, you're so right. I have bashed the PS3 so badly and now that they see the error of their ways, I'm also feeling sorry for them.
They really are getting their asses handed to them by Nintendo and Microsoft. I hope the suits at Sony have the guts to stick it out until the PS3 reaches a reasonable consumer price-point ($200-$250), because I think that everyone is going to need a blu-ray player and 1080p gaming a year or two from now.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm a SCIENCE NUT and a Puerto Rican. I love the island I'm from and adore its people, culture, natural resources, and sights. That said, my trip to Arecibo was a total waste of time. I got to see a big satellite dish...WOW...one that I had already seen in a James Bond movie.
It was a big yawhn for me...not worth the trip to the mountain or the ride up. It was basically dead -- no museum, very little information, no exhibit of the discoveries, just a tiny exhibit with some old radio equipment. These people really need to learn how to show off their work to their visitors.
They should definitely keep the observatory open if it is useful to the scientists using it, but as a visitor there are definitely a thousand things I can do in Puerto Rico that are more fun than looking at a big huge dish.
Hell freezes over and pigs fly. ;-)
Dude, your girlfriend is absolutely right. You're HARDCORE to the bone and I'll tell you why. There are people who know, people who think they know, and people who don't know shit. Clearly, you KNOW what you're talking about when it comes to gaming.
;-) .
It's not about how many games you buy or play. It's about buying the GOOD games and not buying the shovelware that gets peddled as product for the masses. I think you know you're hardcore too on the down low
Parental controls on any technology are simply not an effective means to prevent children from doing something. The kids know more about the locking and un-locking technology than the parents...this is changing over time as our generation becomes parents, but our generation is barely entering the point where they're getting married and starting to think of having kids.
I second that motion. This is the reason why I want the PS3 to succeed (but not win) in this generation, once its price drops. I think that Sony has learned their very difficult lesson, but just can't drop the price on the PS3 any more because they are already losing too much $$$ on it. Competition is good for everyone and I really do want a high-definition DVD player for my 50" 1080p HDTV -- I would also looove to play the new Metal Gear when it comes out...I just don't want to pay for than $250 for the PS3.
I completely agree on your IBM point...they are definitely the biggest winners in this console generation.
As for attach rate, I would argue that a low attach rate is actually a good thing. Dating back to the Atari 2600 generation and in every subsequent video game market (including the PC) there has been waaaay too much sovelware out there. If developers make good games, they will make good money. If they don't, they can expect to lose money...and I don't feel badly for them at all; they deserve to go out of business.
Yes, definitely -- sensationalist media is to blame...but let's not let the pedophiles off-the-hook either. Ever heard the saying "if this prevents just one (insert tragedy here), it was worth it." I can see American conservatives not buying a Wii over just one of these stories, even though it hurts the rest of us "normal" (I use the term loosely ;-) )people.
Battle.net is a great example of one of the first built-in multiplayer game systems on the Internet...as I recall Diablo was the first game that featured it and I played it to death as well. Great times for the first two weeks, until the hackers blew its doors off.
I have to admit that Microsoft has done a great job with XBL, though I despise them for their "gold" vs. "silver" and "pay" vs. "free" distinction. Does battle.net not do most of those things (except voice chat over 56K modems) on the PC?
I don't see Nintendo (or any good developer) doing anything mediocre with one of their franchise series (e.g. Metroid)...if it's worth doing, it's worth doing right. Mario Kart for the Wii is going to feature online play, right? Madden 2008 supports online play on the Wii, as does Mario Strikers (soccer) on the Wii. Have you checked out Strikers? It's awesome as a single player game, with friends, and as an online game. The good online players are such masters of the game that they manage to score goals in ways that the original makers never even intended...it really makes you change your defensive strategy.
Pojut, I really do enjoy your posts in general and I see that you're trying to make your point, but I'll tell you that this one stings...quite a bit. The truth hurts sometimes, but damn!
I agree that for you and me the friend code idea sucks ass, but I think I see where Nintendo is coming from.
Historically, Nintendo has marketed their systems to kids (including me; I'm just a big 30-year old kid). Think about all of the trouble that MySpace, Facebook, and others get from the media and government when a child predator gets his hands on a minor. My sense is that Nintendo would prefer to avoid even 1 story about a pedophile using the Wii to prey on children, even if it means not treating the rest of us as adults.
I bought the Wii on launch day and after a few months of Wii Sports and Zelda, I started to fear the same thing -- that it was a gimmick or passing fad that would fade over time.
Then Resident Evil and Madden came out and suddenly I was aiming my screen to shoot Ganados, throwing lobs and zip passes with my right hand, swatting balls out of the air with my hands, pulling interceptions down with my hands, and putting big hits on runners using my arms...and those were just the first attempts by third parties to integrate motion control into "normal" games.
I no longer fear that the Wii's motion control is a passing fad or gimmick. I think it's here to stay and be improved on in the next-generation consoles.
Right on, Kenoli! Nintendo's console is:
;-) .
1. Less expensive 2. More innovative 3. More fun
Almost every game that Nintendo publishes is a must-have and there are a number of great third-party titles (Resident Evil, Madden, Elebits, Rayman, and Call of Duty come to mind). Now that we all know how excellent Super Mario Galaxy is, there will be a new system-seller this holiday season.
Note that Nintendo has not had to drop the price on the Wii since launch. Surely, manufacturing the system has become less expensive, Nintendo is making even more money from the system, they are producing more Wiis for sale at retail, and still can't keep the system on the shelves!!!
The Wii has over-taken the 360 as this generation's console market leader while selling systems for half as much time.
The ONLY thing the Wii is missing as a game system is high-definition graphics rendering and I expect that Nintendo will give us that in their next generation system, along with highly improved motion control. I can only imagine how much Nintendo's new system will !!!ROCK!!! when that day comes. Quoting the movie 300, "THIS IS SLASHDOT!!!" (err, Sparta) where the Wii rules
Hot, damn! That tail is bigger than the Sun! ;-)
Thanks for your very thoughtful post.
;-) .
I agree that using Microsoft's Live service is the wrong way to do multiplayer gaming on the PC and I do excuse EPIC and the partner who ported the game, because it was originally implemented to use Xbox Live on the 360. If I were a game developer making games for the 360, I would definitely use XBL because the 360 is a closed platform and XBL is where multiplayer gaming is at on that system. Given that GOW on the PC is a port of the 360 game, EPIC gets a free pass from me on the PC port using Live.
On the other hand, if EPIC used Live for Unreal 3 on the PC, I would direct my "nerd rage" at them because Unreal is a PC (open platform) game and has no business being on Live.
I bought Gears of War to support EPIC, not Microsoft. My cousin got a 360 for his birthday, I played it on his system, and really had to resist the urge to buy a 360 of my own just for GOW. When I found out that it was being released for the PC, I decided to wait for its release and buy it. It's not like I was buying Microsoft's Flight Simulator or Age of Empires, right? Then again, now that I look at the Wikipedia article, Microsoft Game Studios is the publisher, so they're probably getting a healthy chunk of my $$$...bah! You're right -- my urge to own and play this great game caused me to miss that when I was making my purchasing decision.
I try to stay away from EA as well, but my brother loves to play Madden on the Wii. He bought me Madden 2007 for Christmas last year and Madden 2008 for my birthday this year so that we could play against each-other online for free on the Wii as it should be
Nerd rage...I had never heard of it before, but I LOVE IT! ;-) Consider it stolen ;-)
I do think my "nerd rage" is pointed in the right direction -- right at Microsoft. They built the Live service using a subscription model to gain a recurring revenue stream from gamers. The services provided through a Live Gold subscription are available for free from other vendors, as pointed out earlier in this discussion thread.
In general, I assume that Microsoft is using its desktop OS monopoly as leverage with game developers to adopt its Live service. I also see Halo 2 (a DirectX 9 game) being Vista-only as an attempt to propagate their desktop OS monopoly into the next generation of desktop OSes. In the specific case of Gears of War, I think that because it is originally an XBox 360 game, they simply ported the Live support instead of implementing game server functionality and an in-game browser -- since laziness is one of the virtues of being a programmer, I do not aim my rage at EPIC or the company they partnered with to port GOW to the PC.
I honestly have no idea how community mods for Gears of War will work on the PC through the Live service...but maybe I'll find out when I try Live Silver tonight on my PC.
I have no intention of redeeming the free month of Gold service that MS included in the GOW game box. They're like a crack dealer, giving away the first dose so you will keep paying for it the rest of your life. As far as I am concerned, every dollar that goes to Microsoft is a dollar used to try to kill Linux and the larger open-source movement.
Thanks for the info, Itchyeyes; I knew there was a silver membership to Live, but did not realize that it was free.
You're right, it is still frustrating, but I hope it works for me; will probably try it tonight.
FYI, the PC version of Gears of War does not support cross-platform play with the 360 version.
Thank you sooo much! I checked the XFire website and it says that it supports Gears of War. I'm gonna try it tonight!!! :-)
I want them to get those $5/month through in-game ads, not out of my pocket.
Why should I give Microsoft $60/year after I paid Epic $50 for the game? I don't see why I should pay them to match me up with other gamers when we had services like Kali and Kahn back in the days of analog modems to do this for us.
I don't have a problem with a flat fee being charged for something like this, especially if it is built-in to the price of the game ($60 would have been a fine purchase price as well).
The recurring charge is what I have an issue with and this is also the reason why I have not played any of the MMORPGs like Everquest or World of Warcraft.
I have bought almost every FPS that EPIC has put out since Unreal. Specifically, Unreal, Unreal 2, Unreal Tournament, and UT2004 (I did not like UT2003; lack of vehicles made the gameplay dated). All of those games had free Multiplayer, as it should be on the PC.
I picked up Gears of War for the PC last week only to find that it required me to PAY for a LIVE account to play it online after the first month and to download patches automagically. Is it just me, or does this stink like a dirty practice given past history on the PC and the upcoming Unreal 3 on the PC?
As far as I am concerned, the day of the video game magazine died when Next Generation Magazine died. They simply covered the industry very well from many angles. After its parent company cancelled the publication, I no longer had any reason to read video game magazines, because I could obtain the content online. Sure, I picked up Electronic Gaming Monthly from time to time when they covered a game that I was very interested in, but Next-Gen magazine was the gold standard as far as I was concerned. I'm glad that some of the editors got back together and formed the www.next-gen.biz website.
I live in New York City and this issue affects me. Why are my taxes being spent to help steal votes in my state? Now we have a new Attorney General whose job it is to help Republicans steal another presidential election?!?
You're right, of course...but how many consoles can this market support? As it is, development houses like EA want a standard console architecture to develop for to reduce the up-front cost of creating games.
Apple has a pretty shoddy track record of supporting gamers and I have no idea what a Google offering would even look like.
I never bought a Sega Master System, Genesis, 32X, Sega CD, or Saturn, but when they put out the Dreamcast while lying on their console manufacturer deathbed, I went out and bought the system and all of the best games to try to support them in the hopes they would stay alive. Alas, they are only developing software these days, but I would like to see them competing in the console wars. Sony and Microsoft played a significant role in the end of Sega console production. The market at that time was able to support four major console manufacturers, even though the DC was a good product.
LOL! You should be writing material for Colbert ;-) . All you're missing is the sarcasm tags...you are kidding, right? hehehe
Overall, Sony has helped expand the market for video games. As much as I despise the PlayStation brand, competition is good for the industry overall, because it keeps Nintendo and Microsoft on their toes. It is definitely important that they succeed.
Dude, the game does not officially release until Sunday and the reviews are GLOWING! I want it NOW!
Dude, you're so right. I have bashed the PS3 so badly and now that they see the error of their ways, I'm also feeling sorry for them.
They really are getting their asses handed to them by Nintendo and Microsoft. I hope the suits at Sony have the guts to stick it out until the PS3 reaches a reasonable consumer price-point ($200-$250), because I think that everyone is going to need a blu-ray player and 1080p gaming a year or two from now.