Number one: You KNOW that they're not going to allow midi hookups. Or at least I feel you should know, if you're thinking about it much. Given the history of gaming and peripherals, I'd rate that as VERY wistful thinking.
But on to your other point, of hoping it is more "real"... How "real" is it exactly that you want? That you have to actually play a real instrument well? (Which is what it sounds like you're moving towards?) If you are a person capable of doing that (which it sounds like you are) then you don't NEED THIS as a game.
The purpose of most games is for a chance to pretend that you are something you're not, and act under a different set of rules than normal. Counterstrike, you get to pretend to be a swat-team member or a terrorist. Normally society frowns on people running around with guns and shooting each other. But here's a make-believe way we can try it out and have fun!
Well, guitar hero is for people to pretend that they can play guitars and are rock stars. It serves its purpose remarkably well. It is SQUARELY aimed at people who can't play guitar, but enjoy the fantasy of being on a stage, "wailing" on their "axe". I think it is safe money that "Band" will be similar, allowing some game-mechanic that maps well onto music, so that people can pretend to be playing in a band. (The only toss up is the vocal, which I'm expecting will be sharing a lot of technology from kareoke machines.)
The thing though is... The fact that its not more "real" isn't its weakness, but its strength. It puts a plausible, rock-feeling experience into the hands of a bunch of people who wouldn't otherwise get one.
If you actually ARE one of the people who can play drums and guitar, then you don't NEED this game to be more real. If you want the next level up for reality, then all you have to do is go find a couple of similar people and make a REAL band, which as people seem to never tire of pointing out, is far more rewarding anyway.
You're making a common [incorrect] assumption in your post:
Popular != Profitable
As much as we might wish it to be otherwise, game companies are, above all else, COMPANIES. That means that, their goal is NOT to make "good" games from a player perspective. Their goal is to make PROFITABLE games. They want the games that will net them the highest total revenue.
Games, at this point, are very risky things to make. They cost a bundle, both in production costs, and advertising, shelf space, and all the other things that have to happen after the code has been written. So businesses adapt to them the same way they adapt to other forms of risk: They try to mitigate the risk however they can.
Sequels are a GREAT way to mitigate risk. If you have something that (For whatever reason) sold a lot of units, then if you make a sequel, it will have a built-in userbase of people who are likely to buy it, no matter how good or bad it is. (If you look at EA's strategy over the past 5 years, they use this a LOT - they look for successful games (battlefield 1942) and then buy the comapany that made them, (DICE) and start making inreasingly lower quality expansions and sequels, because, and this is the point most people miss - THEY DON'T CARE IF IT IS GOOD OR BAD. They just care "what can we do that will be good enough to make some % of the fans buy this one?"
Another great way to mitigate risks is license tie-ins. Wonder why you see so many games based on movies, TV shows, or other popular licenses? And why they all seem to suck? Here's why: A HUGE number of people will buy it just because it has James Bond on the box. Or whatever. Without knowing ANYTHING ELSE ABOUT IT. "Oh, a new Bond game! I loved the latest movie!" *buy* Licences are great, because the game can be crappy as heck, but it will still sell enough (unless it is god-awful enough to generate negative buzz) that it will likely end up making money. It's absurd (and kind of depressing) how much better licensed titles sell than non-licensed ones.
And the final way that game companies mitigate risk is portfolio management. It's like stocks. You can put all your money in one big high-production game, but if it doesn't do well, you're screwed. Or, you can put it into 5 smaller, less high-budget games, and if some of them do well, and some don't, you're less likely to lose everything.
So put this all together, and what do you get? High price to make games. Games are risky, and often fail. So comapanies make lots of crappy games, with minimal innovation, and try to sell them based on licenced characters or sequel power. The reason they're doing this isn't because they're misguided. It's because, in the cut-throat evolutionary world of companies, this is the BEST STRATEGY THAT HAS EVOLVED FOR PROFIT.
If you don't like it, vote with your wallet, and encourage your friends to do the same. Reward innovation and quality. Punish crap. But be aware that it will take an awful lot of you and your friends and your friends' friends to make a blip on the radar, much less overcome the mindless hordes who don't look any further than the picture of James Bond on the box.
Yeah, but consider the time frame. Everything bad you list from nintendo is over 8 years old. And for that matter, "heavily censored games" basically just means that they limited what kind of content could be put on their platform. EVERYONE DOES THIS. It's how they ensure quality control, among other things. (You can't publish games that don't meet certain minimum requirements of the platform owner.) This is not an automatically bad thing.
For that matter, neither is trying to keep their games kid-friendly.
Nor choosing to continue with cartridges. (Silly in hindsight perhaps, but hardly boycott-worthy)
And disallowing localization of now-popular games... again. Bad thing? Would they have been popular at the time, when nintendo disallowed them? They weren't just disallowing to be evil - they were trying to keep their library uncluttered with things that they didn't think people would want.
So.
From your list, the only "bad" things we can really find for nintendo are "Entered into contracts with Sony and Philips" and "birthing the playstation brand." Forgive me if I'm not outraged. Nothing on the list (even including those) comes anywhere NEAR the level of depravity that Sony seems to exist upon regularly. And everything on the list is over 10 years old...
So yeah. I call BS on your nintendo list, at least. Nintendo is worlds above Sony as a company.
(And no, if you're wondering, I don't own a playstation, or any other sony products, having decided to actually put my wallet where my mouth is.)
Certainly, there are lots of both truth and falseness to the statements above, which is why fanboys keep making them.
What the heck is that supposed to mean, exactly? Fanboys keep making the statements above, because they are both true and false? Because they contain both truth and not-truth? Becase they are simultaneously both correct and incorrect?
If you'd said something like "Certainly each of these viewpoints has a grain of truth buried somewhere in it, which is what fanboys cling to" I'd have been all with you. The inclusion of falseness however, throws the whole thing into heavy-zen-land.
"both sides have lied", so the truth must be "somewhere in the middle?"
That's the logical fallacy that Fox News uses all the time.
A quick example should illustrate the fallacy:
Billy: There's a cake here! Bobby: I want it! Billy: Why don't we split it 50/50? Bobby: No! mine! Their Mom: I've heard both of your extreme viewpoints, so we'll need to compromise. Bobby gets 75%, Billy gets 25%.
Saying that both sides "have lied" and so "the truth is somewhere in between" somehow puts paid industry propagandists on the same credibility level as professional climate research scientists. (And does a great disservice to science, I think.) There is a fair amount of difference in the professional opinion of a corporate shill who is paid to spout the company line, and someone who has spent the majority of their life studying something.
The sea level will probably not rise from this, actually. (much) If it was an ice shelf, then that usually means that it is a large floating mass of ice, connected to a land mass. That means that it is mostly being supported by water already, and so when it melts, the amount of new water it adds will be offset by the fact that there is no longer that much ice sticking in to the ocean. Floating ice melting never changes water level. (Watch ice melting in your soft drink, for examples of this.)
Not to mean that we shouldn't be concerned about this however... If this sort of thing is happening, then sooner or later ice that IS on land will start melting... And while all of the north pole could melt with no change in sea level, (since it is floating) once Antarctica starts to go, (since it has land under it) that's when it's time to start seriously considering selling any beach front property you might own...
Are you kidding? The method by which the information was gathered is INCREDIBLY important to a case. It has to be. Some brief examples of why:
Judge: "Very compelling evidence here. How did you come by it?" Sherrif: "Me and the boys made it up. It seemed like the sort of thing he would do."
Judge: "Very compelling evidence here. How did you come by it?" Sherrif: "One of our men went undercover and pretended to be his friend. He wasn't originally planning on doing it, but after our guy kept encouraging him, he managed to convince him to consider it. Then we nabbed him!"
Judge: "Very compelling evidence here. How did you come by it?" Sherrif: "We broke down his door, surprising him in the act." Judge: "Very fortunate! How did you know it was him?" Sherrif: "Oh, we didn't. We just went down the line and kicked in all the doors on all the houses on the street until we found someone doing something guilty."
Judge: "Very compelling evidence here. How did you come by it?" Sherrif: "We just held his head underwater until he thought he was drowning. We did it enough times, and he confessed to everything. He didn't even read the confession we prepared for him! He was just that eager to sign. Must have had a guilty concience or something." [optional ending] Judge: "Very fortunate! How did you know it was him?" Sherrif: "Oh, we didn't. We just started torturing people. Eventually they always confess to SOMETHING..."
So let's review. In example #1, it matters how they got the evidence, since it matters that it actually be, you know, EVIDENCE. #2 is what is called "entrapment", and is kind of a manufactured guilt. (i. e. they woudn't have been guilty of anything except that an undercover officer went and tried to convince them to do something illegal.) #3 is an example of where [possibly] justice was done to one person, at the expense of the justice of everyone else. (How would you like to have your door kicked in some day by police, who then say "ok, you're clean. Just checking!" Would the knowledge that they MIGHT catch someone that way be enough to offset your outrage at having your privacy invaded and your posessions broken?) And finally, #4 kind of speaks for itself. (I hope.)
So yeah. The reason that there is a mindset that "how the evidence is gained matters as much as the guilt" is because it kinda does. Or how about this: Think of it from a logic perspective - Your proofs are only as strong as the axioms they are based on. Legal judgements only have as much justice as the evidence they are based on. So before handing out judgements, it's INCREDIBLY IMPORTANT to make sure that the evidence is all on the up-and-up. You are probably thinking of cases where "well, everyone knew he did it, who cares how they proved it? If he walks, it's on a technicality", but YOU CAN'T CONVICT SOMEONE BASED ON "everyone knows they did it." And you SHOULDN'T be able to. (That way leads to mob-rule.)
The coolest bit though is the ad they have running on the same page. It's from Chrysler. It reads "You may not be the time person of the year... [but you can drive like one]"
Stupid Chrysler. Just ASSUMING that I wouldn't be the person of the year or something. Sheesh.
I completely disagree. Grinds are NOT mandatory for MMOs.
The problem is, as people have stated, that there needs to be a stream of content for players to explore, that is generated at least as fast as players consume it. And people are right, that expecting the devs to generate that, that fast, is a losing proposition.
That doesn't mean that grinds are mandatory though. Grinds are just a means for the devs to say "here's a repetative action that you can undertake, that we can easily offer minor variants on, indefinitely." They work great for a bit, but eventually get old. (hence their moniker)
The secret is to find other sources of content for players to explore. Interestingly, the most obvious answer here dates back to the days of text-based MUSHes, etc. The best source of new content, if you can get to that magical state where it works, is the player base itself. Countless MUSHes, MUCKs, etc, had systems whereby players could eventually earn the right to create their own little worlds, if they were interested. (Many just let players start doing so off the bat.) If you can make the game open enough that the players can make content for it, (without unbalancing or breaking things) then they will. Games like Eve, Second Life, and a Tale in the Desert all recognize this, and make great use of it. Sure, a lot of people don't find Second Life "fun" here. But setting aside personal distaste for the game, it DOES offer people a great set of tools for setting up their own private worlds.
On less ambitious scales, things like guildwars exist primarily on the strength of the interaction between players. The PvP is a constantly changing landscape, and so people keep playing because, every time they fight a group, it is different. And the combat is deep enough that new strategies are always evolving.
Heck, even things like City of Villains allows players to craft "Supergroup Bases", and invite other groups to come try to make it through them. That's like letting players make their own (small) dungeons!
The secret is just to realize that the devs don't HAVE to do everything. They just have to set up the rules well enough that the players can keep themselves busy exploring for a very long time, and making things interesting for each other. (that's why ultima worked, for a long time, as well.)
"Blizzard has written new storylines before. Last winter, it challenged players to team up and fuel a worldwide war effort. As a payoff, it unlocked new territory. This was a good example of letting the users drive a story, but Warcraft needs more of them. New wars should break out, cities should rise and fall, and all hell should break loose at least once a month--and the players should be the ones to make it happen. After all, in a world that never changes, you can never make your mark."
There ARE mmorpgs that have non-static worlds that the players feel like they can change. (Because they can)
Actually, it's not JUST the cocky approach and blue ray that make sony intolerable. Nor even their propaganda. It's also their concerted war on programmer freedoms. (DeCSS case, lobbying that programming != free speech) It's their concerted war on consumer rights. (Region coding, lobbying for the DMCA) It's their blatent disregard for their customers. (Rootkit CDs) It's their crazily anti-competitive business practices. (Lik-Sang lawsuits, and even the Bleem lawsuits, for those that remember back that far.) It's the hubris evident in nearly every quote from a sony exec, during the months surrounding E3. (The PS3 really is too cheap, actually. True fans will be willing to get a second job to pay for their PS3. The next generation only starts when WE say it does.)
It's basically the fact that they are one of the most evil companies I can think of. (Quite a bit more than microsoft, if you examine what effect they've had on the market. MS is clearly very greedy, but has not yet proven itself capable of the same level of vileness yet.)
So yes, compared to this, I feel that Nintendo is very much the good guys. Have they always been? No. Durring the NES era, they were horribly unfriendly to developers. (Although their practices did lead to a much higher proportion of good games on their system.) But they learned some bitter lessons when sony courted all their developers away from them. Heres to hoping that sony has to learn the same lessons soon, since they're starting to fall into the same trap. (And before you ask, yes, I DO put my money where my mouth is, and haven't bought a sony game, console or movie for about 8 years now.)
The problem here though is that both Sony and Nintendo are going outside those consumer trends - the most equivalent console to the PS3 in terms of cost is the Neo Geo, and there's not much trend information there to extract. In addition, Nintendo's targeting a demographic which is completely outside previous generations, much like they did with the DS.
I have to agree with the grandparent: how can you make predictions about systems as revolutionary as the PS3 (in terms of price) and the Wii (in terms of target audience)? There's just no information about it whatsoever.
Erm.... Just have to ask, but... what exactly is it about the PS3 that is revolutionary? Even if we talk about price, it doesn't seem especially revolutionary. (what, revolutionary because it's so freaking costly?) As has been mentioned, if you adjust for inflation, (or even if you don't) it's not more expensive than the neo-geo was. And everything else on their list of features seems to be "sony execs go through everything that seems to be generating major marketing buzz on the Wii or the 360, and cut-paste"...
You could try to do market research, but that's difficult to do, considering neither Sony nor Nintendo have started marketing the systems yet.
Are you kidding? They've both started. Maybe not directly to consumers, but if you think they're not already marketing, then you're deluding yourself. Nintendo has, through careful, deliberately timed revelation of breadcrum-facts about their system ALREADY captured the imaginations of every gamer I know.
And sony has certainly been trying as well, just far less successfully. Heck, E3 was one GIANT marketing event, and both nintendo and sony were in attendance trying to convince people that their new system would be the next big thing.
The game industry should HATE MMORPGs, since they suck up all available free time, leaving the gamer with no time to play 5 new games each month (or even 1). Only the MMORPGs benefit.
Of course, the above sentence is equally true if you replace "MMORPGs" with [television], [social life], [out-doors activities], [indoor activities that aren't games], [hobbies] or even just [games, but made by a company that isn't yours]
Of course on the other hand, game companies don't make money by having people play their games. They make money by having people BUY their games. EA doesn't care if you buy their game, play it for 5 minutes, and then go back to WOW. Because, you know, they ALREADY HAVE YOUR MONEY AT THAT POINT.
So I doubt they hate MMORPGs quite as much as you might think. As previous posters have mentioned, there are more than enough people who buy games faster than they can play them anyway, just to "complete the set", etc.
True, however it's not the originality of the story that is the problem, it is the complete and utter lack of substance. No one praises Doom for it's great writing, mostly because most people agree that it didn't have any. My point is that people who praise Half-life for great writing are confusing the story with the delivery mechanism. The delivery in half-life utterly rocks. The story is as bland as it is simplistic. There really aren't any sub-plots, character development, or other redeeming characteristics. They basically told you the entire story in the first 20 minutes of the game, and the rest of the game was just getting through it.
Contrast this to something like System Shock II, where there was actually development of major characters, unforseen twists, and generally better writing. SS2 could also be characterized as "aliens are invading our spaceship", but the point is that, unlike halflife, they actually managed to DO something interesting with the story. My beef with the half-life stories is that the one line summary "aliens are invading" (or in the case of the 2nd one, "there's an evil dictator in charge") pretty much sums up the whole game, and doesn't really ommit much. There really isn't much else there.
Elation at the completion of a fantastic shooter, and frustration at the sudden ending to the game's engaging story.
I often wonder if people are playing the same game I am... Seriously, the story for Half-Life 2 can be accurately summed up as: "You're in a dystopian future, and the dictator in charge cooperates with aliens. Get to him, blowing up everything on the way!"
For that matter, the original half-life didn't fare much better, as it had a plot that was basically equivalent to the plot of DOOM: "Science made teleporters, but now aliens are coming through them! Someone must go through and blow them all up!"
What made both of these games good (Besides solid level design and gameplay) was the PRESENTATION of their stories. But at no point in either game did I ever keep playing because I wanted to "Find out how it ended" or "what happens next". I kept playing because I wanted to see what new and original game scenario the designers had crafted. But the stories were, quite frankly, poo.
Now, if they hooked up that kind of presentation to an actual STORY, they'd have an absurdly amazing game. But at least at present, spare me the "HalfLife[1/2] had such a great story!", because it really didn't. It had the bare minimum story required to give you an excuse to run around with a big gun and move from scenario to clever scenario.
TFA is interesting enough. It makes some definite points. The races in the horde CLEARLY have their roots in extreme cultural stereotypes. Even without a "good" or "evil" side, one has to wonder about the value of such stereotype-based icons. (How would people feel if there were a "black elves" race, with dark skin, giant lips, short curly hair, and a love of watermelons and fried chicken, for example?) You could argue that even just having stereotype-based icons around reinforces the stereotypes, and may not be the most healthy thing.
But what's REALLY telling here is how many people jump on the "teh horde r not evil! Artical sux!" bandwagon. Mostly without, it seems, having actually read tfa. Is this because people are just overly-sensitive to political correctness these days? Is this because they have well-thought-out, reasoned viewpoints with differing conclusions? Or is this because slashdot is full of people who love WoW, and can brook no ill spoken of it, no matter how indirect, and who respond to any perceived threat to their game of choice with huge volumes of poorly-reasoned posts defending their game of choice?
Also keep in mind that this isn't exactly the first time that Nintendo's been ripped off -- it has a history of leading gaming trends. However, if the Wii does become the leader of a trend rather than just a unique and quirky console, we're going to get more competition, and Nintendo will be forced to come up with even more interesting and fun ideas to give itself an edge.
That's basically what nintendo has done non-stop for the past decade. Nintendo makes its money growing the market sideways, creating new genres. Microsoft and Sony tend to make their money by owning leaders in various genres. (Microsoft has Halo, the top console FPS, for example.) For many years now, nintendo's strategy has been dependant upon their ability to create NEW genres. Sure, they defend some of them after they get them (party games - mario party, wacky racing - mario kart, etc.) but in general, nintendo seems to prefer to make up new stuff (which they are by default the best at, since no one else is doing) than to try to compete in arenas that already have clear leaders.
Wow. I don't know you personally, and maybe you really are just a hardcore playstation affecianado, but... man. If you ARE sincere, you REALLY need to figure out how to write posts that don't seem to be so BLATENTLY OBVIOUS ATTEMPTS AT ASTROTURFING.
And of course, if you're one of the countless people employed in dark rooms, who's job it is to maintain numerous forum accounts, and attempt to insert blatent product plugs for your corporate masters, then you probably also should learn to make it less blatent.
On the off chance that you're legit, I'll bite: The reason people are bashing it is:
- It looks like more of the same, when the other two major players are making interesting attempts to grow the market in interesting ways.
- It's main "features" appear to be clearly ripped off from the other players.
- Sony as a company has a history of not innovating, but copying
- Sony is in general an evil corporation, ye, even more so than microsoft, which wishes to trample your rights, restrict your freedoms, and shoot your mom. And the system is doubtlessly hewn from the cold, dead bones of stillborn babies.
Those are the reasons *I*'m not impressed, at least.
Bioware has managed to produce quite a few games that I feel have a great deal of roleplaying to them. You can get from point a (the game start) to b (game end) in a LOT of different ways, and there isn't a "right" one. They are different in how your character ends up.
Planescape Torment, Baldur's gate 1,2, KOTR, Jade empire... Fallout, for goodness sake (although not bioware). YOU get to decide who your character is, and how to play them.
Japanese "rpgs" tend to be more of "here are a bunch of characters in a story. Click through ritualized battles, and you'll be rewarded with another chunk of storyline".
I'm not saying that they can't be engaging or fun, but there really isn't much role playing in them.
But, as companies have demonstrated, it clearly IS possible to have non-MMO RPGs that actually encourage role playing. So when you say "I'd like to know what kind of idiot doesn't realize that no computer RPG that isn't multiplayer can actually involve roleplaying?" you're really just showing that you're either not very familiar with the medium, or you have different standards of what "role playing" is.
Oh, and TFA's complaint with the music wasn't so much with the scoring, but with the instrument set.
Exactly. That's the real problem in the US -- people buy debt faster than Big Macs. Debt is okay to some extent, but it should always be paid off as soon as possible. And really, when you think about it, it's much more satisfying to look back and say "Man, I have my house paid off after only 10 years," than "Remember that new TV we bought 10 years ago, and all those DVDs, and those new rims.. Damn.. they ain't spinnin' no mo!" That's why there will always be poor people; because some people will always be lured into buying comsumables and depreciable assets, racking up debt, etc. It doesn't take much to save serious money on debts either. Pay half your monthly mortgage payment every 2 weeks instead of the full payment once a month and you'll shave 6 years off a 30 year mortgage, and save almost $70k in interest on a $200k mortgage. Throw an extra $100 at the principle instead of buying new shoes and it'll be paid even sooner. Same thing for car payments, credit cards, etc.
Um.
Wow.
You TOTALLY missed the point.
The "poor people" you're talking about... I don't know how to break this to you, but they don't HAVE 200k mortgages. They tend to not even own. (Since owning takes capital.) They don't HAVE DVDs. They can afford the INTEREST on their loans, if they're lucky. And where do they get these loans? It's not from flat panel TV purchases. It's from things like medical problems when you don't have insurance. Whoops, you got sick? That's gonna cost you. And of course, it will cost you even more, since if you don't have insurance, you don't go in unless it's REALLY BAD (since you know it will cost you) so preventative medicine doesn't really happen much...
The problem isn't that "poor people don't know how to save". The problem is that the people that set the minimum wage don't seem to think that working at a job full time should at least earn you enough money to purchase both food AND shelter.
Step away from your OWN flat panel TV and DVD rack long enough to go look outside your window for a moment. See that? That's the "real world". And it extends a bit beyond the middle-class suburban skyline that no doubt graces your view.
The view "Poor people are there because they are lazy/don't want to work/lack motivation/can't plan well" is almost always exclusively found in.. wait for it... people who AREN'T POOR. Try it yourself sometime before you make broad, sweeping, generalizations.
The problem with golf is that it is too subtle about being a "rich people game".
Thus, I propose a NEW sport, which I humbly name "money-ball".
The way it works is, you have a big bonfire. Throwing $20 into the bonfire gives you one point. The game continues until one side forfeits. Whoever has the most points at the end wins!
One is there because it was original first. Sony. Another is there because it caters to kids. Nintendo. You must find another niche. You build it, and we will come. People will come aboard when they see something they can't get anywhere else.
Not trying to be flamebait, but what part of Sony is (or really ever has been) "original" or "first"? Nintendo and Sega were duking it out long before playstation was even a gleam in a sony exec's eye. And of course, you could go back further to things like Atari.
Your "open letter" really confuses me. "first"? Nintendo and many others were in the console market long before Sony. Original? Nearly everything about the PSX was derived from earlier consoles.
It looks like they were on time and in synch... right up until.... 2000? Hmm. What happened in 2000? Did some power shift occur then? Maybe someone left office, or took office? Dangit, I know SOMETHING happened that year...
Public schools spend a lot of money on a very small % of their students. Namely students with disabilities. Since part of the idea of public schools is that they're there for EVERYONE, the school has to pay for things like an aide to follow the student around who has no arm or leg movment. Or special ed teachers for the students who are handicapped. And so on.
Public schools spend a lot of money on these children, because they are trying to educate everyone.
Private schools do not. Private schools will usually just refuse to take these students, because they are not cost effect for private schools, and the (or at least a) goal of the private school is to make money.
So let's see where this leads...
Continuing the trend of choking public schools in favor of the private sector, I predict we'll end up with a bunch of private schools doing quite well for themselves, and anyone with a student with special needs will be left out in the cold, attending whatever stunted mockery of our public education system is left at that point. (Or paying considerably more than everyone else for the priviledge of getting to go to private school.)
Yeah. I'm thinking that's not really where we should go as a country. Replacing "Free education for all" with "Education for most, but you may have to pay money, hope you come from a family that can afford it" seems like kind of a step backwards to me...
I guess I just assumed Astroturf or troll because of his argument. It seemed to basically be "it hasn't happened to me yet, therefore it doesn't exist. Stop attacking people for not wanting their property stolen". This has several problems in it.
- "I haven't seen it, so it doesn't exist/can't be that bad" is not a valid argument
- Attacking starforce != attacking people for not wanting their property stolen. There are plenty of other, more customer-friendly ways of reducing piracy.
- He's defending something that, to me, at least, is completely, morally, wrong. Seriously, we're talking about software that, without your permission, installs things on your system that actively limit your hardware's functionality. AND introduce potential security flaws. There's a word for software that is installed, without your knowledge or consent, which has a detrimental effect on your machine. It's Malware.
So I guess that's why I just assumed that the parent poster was a corporate shill or a troll. I have a hard time envisioning anyone (particularly on Slashdot, where users tend to have at least a little more technical understanding than the average joe off the street) saying "Yeah, they install unwanted software on my machine, which limits my hardware, and may cause problems. But I'm ok with that, and it hasn't caused any problems for me, so everyone should be fine with it."
Oh, and as the other poster has commented, the difference between "Reported cases" and "actual cases" is likely to be fairly significant. Making the connection between installing a game, and having your CD Burner driver turn wonky two weeks later is a bit of a stretch if you don't know about StarForce, even for technical savvy folks.
Slashdot Mirror
Ok, two things.
Number one: You KNOW that they're not going to allow midi hookups. Or at least I feel you should know, if you're thinking about it much. Given the history of gaming and peripherals, I'd rate that as VERY wistful thinking.
But on to your other point, of hoping it is more "real"... How "real" is it exactly that you want? That you have to actually play a real instrument well? (Which is what it sounds like you're moving towards?) If you are a person capable of doing that (which it sounds like you are) then you don't NEED THIS as a game.
The purpose of most games is for a chance to pretend that you are something you're not, and act under a different set of rules than normal. Counterstrike, you get to pretend to be a swat-team member or a terrorist. Normally society frowns on people running around with guns and shooting each other. But here's a make-believe way we can try it out and have fun!
Well, guitar hero is for people to pretend that they can play guitars and are rock stars. It serves its purpose remarkably well. It is SQUARELY aimed at people who can't play guitar, but enjoy the fantasy of being on a stage, "wailing" on their "axe". I think it is safe money that "Band" will be similar, allowing some game-mechanic that maps well onto music, so that people can pretend to be playing in a band. (The only toss up is the vocal, which I'm expecting will be sharing a lot of technology from kareoke machines.)
The thing though is... The fact that its not more "real" isn't its weakness, but its strength. It puts a plausible, rock-feeling experience into the hands of a bunch of people who wouldn't otherwise get one.
If you actually ARE one of the people who can play drums and guitar, then you don't NEED this game to be more real. If you want the next level up for reality, then all you have to do is go find a couple of similar people and make a REAL band, which as people seem to never tire of pointing out, is far more rewarding anyway.
You're making a common [incorrect] assumption in your post:
Popular != Profitable
As much as we might wish it to be otherwise, game companies are, above all else, COMPANIES. That means that, their goal is NOT to make "good" games from a player perspective. Their goal is to make PROFITABLE games. They want the games that will net them the highest total revenue.
Games, at this point, are very risky things to make. They cost a bundle, both in production costs, and advertising, shelf space, and all the other things that have to happen after the code has been written. So businesses adapt to them the same way they adapt to other forms of risk: They try to mitigate the risk however they can.
Sequels are a GREAT way to mitigate risk. If you have something that (For whatever reason) sold a lot of units, then if you make a sequel, it will have a built-in userbase of people who are likely to buy it, no matter how good or bad it is. (If you look at EA's strategy over the past 5 years, they use this a LOT - they look for successful games (battlefield 1942) and then buy the comapany that made them, (DICE) and start making inreasingly lower quality expansions and sequels, because, and this is the point most people miss - THEY DON'T CARE IF IT IS GOOD OR BAD. They just care "what can we do that will be good enough to make some % of the fans buy this one?"
Another great way to mitigate risks is license tie-ins. Wonder why you see so many games based on movies, TV shows, or other popular licenses? And why they all seem to suck? Here's why: A HUGE number of people will buy it just because it has James Bond on the box. Or whatever. Without knowing ANYTHING ELSE ABOUT IT. "Oh, a new Bond game! I loved the latest movie!" *buy* Licences are great, because the game can be crappy as heck, but it will still sell enough (unless it is god-awful enough to generate negative buzz) that it will likely end up making money. It's absurd (and kind of depressing) how much better licensed titles sell than non-licensed ones.
And the final way that game companies mitigate risk is portfolio management. It's like stocks. You can put all your money in one big high-production game, but if it doesn't do well, you're screwed. Or, you can put it into 5 smaller, less high-budget games, and if some of them do well, and some don't, you're less likely to lose everything.
So put this all together, and what do you get? High price to make games. Games are risky, and often fail. So comapanies make lots of crappy games, with minimal innovation, and try to sell them based on licenced characters or sequel power. The reason they're doing this isn't because they're misguided. It's because, in the cut-throat evolutionary world of companies, this is the BEST STRATEGY THAT HAS EVOLVED FOR PROFIT.
If you don't like it, vote with your wallet, and encourage your friends to do the same. Reward innovation and quality. Punish crap. But be aware that it will take an awful lot of you and your friends and your friends' friends to make a blip on the radar, much less overcome the mindless hordes who don't look any further than the picture of James Bond on the box.
Yeah, but consider the time frame. Everything bad you list from nintendo is over 8 years old. And for that matter, "heavily censored games" basically just means that they limited what kind of content could be put on their platform. EVERYONE DOES THIS. It's how they ensure quality control, among other things. (You can't publish games that don't meet certain minimum requirements of the platform owner.) This is not an automatically bad thing.
For that matter, neither is trying to keep their games kid-friendly.
Nor choosing to continue with cartridges. (Silly in hindsight perhaps, but hardly boycott-worthy)
And disallowing localization of now-popular games... again. Bad thing? Would they have been popular at the time, when nintendo disallowed them? They weren't just disallowing to be evil - they were trying to keep their library uncluttered with things that they didn't think people would want.
So.
From your list, the only "bad" things we can really find for nintendo are "Entered into contracts with Sony and Philips" and "birthing the playstation brand." Forgive me if I'm not outraged. Nothing on the list (even including those) comes anywhere NEAR the level of depravity that Sony seems to exist upon regularly. And everything on the list is over 10 years old...
So yeah. I call BS on your nintendo list, at least. Nintendo is worlds above Sony as a company.
(And no, if you're wondering, I don't own a playstation, or any other sony products, having decided to actually put my wallet where my mouth is.)
Certainly, there are lots of both truth and falseness to the statements above, which is why fanboys keep making them.
What the heck is that supposed to mean, exactly? Fanboys keep making the statements above, because they are both true and false? Because they contain both truth and not-truth? Becase they are simultaneously both correct and incorrect?
If you'd said something like "Certainly each of these viewpoints has a grain of truth buried somewhere in it, which is what fanboys cling to" I'd have been all with you. The inclusion of falseness however, throws the whole thing into heavy-zen-land.
Just say'n.
Woah, hold on there a minute.
"both sides have lied", so the truth must be "somewhere in the middle?"
That's the logical fallacy that Fox News uses all the time.
A quick example should illustrate the fallacy:
Billy: There's a cake here!
Bobby: I want it!
Billy: Why don't we split it 50/50?
Bobby: No! mine!
Their Mom: I've heard both of your extreme viewpoints, so we'll need to compromise. Bobby gets 75%, Billy gets 25%.
Saying that both sides "have lied" and so "the truth is somewhere in between" somehow puts paid industry propagandists on the same credibility level as professional climate research scientists. (And does a great disservice to science, I think.) There is a fair amount of difference in the professional opinion of a corporate shill who is paid to spout the company line, and someone who has spent the majority of their life studying something.
The sea level will probably not rise from this, actually. (much) If it was an ice shelf, then that usually means that it is a large floating mass of ice, connected to a land mass. That means that it is mostly being supported by water already, and so when it melts, the amount of new water it adds will be offset by the fact that there is no longer that much ice sticking in to the ocean. Floating ice melting never changes water level. (Watch ice melting in your soft drink, for examples of this.)
Not to mean that we shouldn't be concerned about this however... If this sort of thing is happening, then sooner or later ice that IS on land will start melting... And while all of the north pole could melt with no change in sea level, (since it is floating) once Antarctica starts to go, (since it has land under it) that's when it's time to start seriously considering selling any beach front property you might own...
Are you kidding? The method by which the information was gathered is INCREDIBLY important to a case. It has to be. Some brief examples of why:
Judge: "Very compelling evidence here. How did you come by it?"
Sherrif: "Me and the boys made it up. It seemed like the sort of thing he would do."
Judge: "Very compelling evidence here. How did you come by it?"
Sherrif: "One of our men went undercover and pretended to be his friend. He wasn't originally planning on doing it, but after our guy kept encouraging him, he managed to convince him to consider it. Then we nabbed him!"
Judge: "Very compelling evidence here. How did you come by it?"
Sherrif: "We broke down his door, surprising him in the act."
Judge: "Very fortunate! How did you know it was him?"
Sherrif: "Oh, we didn't. We just went down the line and kicked in all the doors on all the houses on the street until we found someone doing something guilty."
Judge: "Very compelling evidence here. How did you come by it?"
Sherrif: "We just held his head underwater until he thought he was drowning. We did it enough times, and he confessed to everything. He didn't even read the confession we prepared for him! He was just that eager to sign. Must have had a guilty concience or something."
[optional ending]
Judge: "Very fortunate! How did you know it was him?"
Sherrif: "Oh, we didn't. We just started torturing people. Eventually they always confess to SOMETHING..."
So let's review. In example #1, it matters how they got the evidence, since it matters that it actually be, you know, EVIDENCE. #2 is what is called "entrapment", and is kind of a manufactured guilt. (i. e. they woudn't have been guilty of anything except that an undercover officer went and tried to convince them to do something illegal.) #3 is an example of where [possibly] justice was done to one person, at the expense of the justice of everyone else. (How would you like to have your door kicked in some day by police, who then say "ok, you're clean. Just checking!" Would the knowledge that they MIGHT catch someone that way be enough to offset your outrage at having your privacy invaded and your posessions broken?) And finally, #4 kind of speaks for itself. (I hope.)
So yeah. The reason that there is a mindset that "how the evidence is gained matters as much as the guilt" is because it kinda does. Or how about this: Think of it from a logic perspective - Your proofs are only as strong as the axioms they are based on. Legal judgements only have as much justice as the evidence they are based on. So before handing out judgements, it's INCREDIBLY IMPORTANT to make sure that the evidence is all on the up-and-up. You are probably thinking of cases where "well, everyone knew he did it, who cares how they proved it? If he walks, it's on a technicality", but YOU CAN'T CONVICT SOMEONE BASED ON "everyone knows they did it." And you SHOULDN'T be able to. (That way leads to mob-rule.)
The coolest bit though is the ad they have running on the same page. It's from Chrysler. It reads "You may not be the time person of the year... [but you can drive like one]"
Stupid Chrysler. Just ASSUMING that I wouldn't be the person of the year or something. Sheesh.
Daily Kos has a nice screen grab of the ad here
I completely disagree. Grinds are NOT mandatory for MMOs.
The problem is, as people have stated, that there needs to be a stream of content for players to explore, that is generated at least as fast as players consume it. And people are right, that expecting the devs to generate that, that fast, is a losing proposition.
That doesn't mean that grinds are mandatory though. Grinds are just a means for the devs to say "here's a repetative action that you can undertake, that we can easily offer minor variants on, indefinitely." They work great for a bit, but eventually get old. (hence their moniker)
The secret is to find other sources of content for players to explore. Interestingly, the most obvious answer here dates back to the days of text-based MUSHes, etc. The best source of new content, if you can get to that magical state where it works, is the player base itself. Countless MUSHes, MUCKs, etc, had systems whereby players could eventually earn the right to create their own little worlds, if they were interested. (Many just let players start doing so off the bat.) If you can make the game open enough that the players can make content for it, (without unbalancing or breaking things) then they will. Games like Eve, Second Life, and a Tale in the Desert all recognize this, and make great use of it. Sure, a lot of people don't find Second Life "fun" here. But setting aside personal distaste for the game, it DOES offer people a great set of tools for setting up their own private worlds.
On less ambitious scales, things like guildwars exist primarily on the strength of the interaction between players. The PvP is a constantly changing landscape, and so people keep playing because, every time they fight a group, it is different. And the combat is deep enough that new strategies are always evolving.
Heck, even things like City of Villains allows players to craft "Supergroup Bases", and invite other groups to come try to make it through them. That's like letting players make their own (small) dungeons!
The secret is just to realize that the devs don't HAVE to do everything. They just have to set up the rules well enough that the players can keep themselves busy exploring for a very long time, and making things interesting for each other. (that's why ultima worked, for a long time, as well.)
"Blizzard has written new storylines before. Last winter, it challenged players to team up and fuel a worldwide war effort. As a payoff, it unlocked new territory. This was a good example of letting the users drive a story, but Warcraft needs more of them. New wars should break out, cities should rise and fall, and all hell should break loose at least once a month--and the players should be the ones to make it happen. After all, in a world that never changes, you can never make your mark."
There ARE mmorpgs that have non-static worlds that the players feel like they can change. (Because they can)
Might I reccomend some, such as a tale in the desert or possibly eve...
Actually, it's not JUST the cocky approach and blue ray that make sony intolerable. Nor even their propaganda. It's also their concerted war on programmer freedoms. (DeCSS case, lobbying that programming != free speech) It's their concerted war on consumer rights. (Region coding, lobbying for the DMCA) It's their blatent disregard for their customers. (Rootkit CDs) It's their crazily anti-competitive business practices. (Lik-Sang lawsuits, and even the Bleem lawsuits, for those that remember back that far.) It's the hubris evident in nearly every quote from a sony exec, during the months surrounding E3. (The PS3 really is too cheap, actually. True fans will be willing to get a second job to pay for their PS3. The next generation only starts when WE say it does.)
It's basically the fact that they are one of the most evil companies I can think of. (Quite a bit more than microsoft, if you examine what effect they've had on the market. MS is clearly very greedy, but has not yet proven itself capable of the same level of vileness yet.)
So yes, compared to this, I feel that Nintendo is very much the good guys. Have they always been? No. Durring the NES era, they were horribly unfriendly to developers. (Although their practices did lead to a much higher proportion of good games on their system.) But they learned some bitter lessons when sony courted all their developers away from them. Heres to hoping that sony has to learn the same lessons soon, since they're starting to fall into the same trap. (And before you ask, yes, I DO put my money where my mouth is, and haven't bought a sony game, console or movie for about 8 years now.)
The problem here though is that both Sony and Nintendo are going outside those consumer trends - the most equivalent console to the PS3 in terms of cost is the Neo Geo, and there's not much trend information there to extract. In addition, Nintendo's targeting a demographic which is completely outside previous generations, much like they did with the DS.
I have to agree with the grandparent: how can you make predictions about systems as revolutionary as the PS3 (in terms of price) and the Wii (in terms of target audience)? There's just no information about it whatsoever.
Erm.... Just have to ask, but... what exactly is it about the PS3 that is revolutionary? Even if we talk about price, it doesn't seem especially revolutionary. (what, revolutionary because it's so freaking costly?) As has been mentioned, if you adjust for inflation, (or even if you don't) it's not more expensive than the neo-geo was. And everything else on their list of features seems to be "sony execs go through everything that seems to be generating major marketing buzz on the Wii or the 360, and cut-paste"...
You could try to do market research, but that's difficult to do, considering neither Sony nor Nintendo have started marketing the systems yet.
Are you kidding? They've both started. Maybe not directly to consumers, but if you think they're not already marketing, then you're deluding yourself. Nintendo has, through careful, deliberately timed revelation of breadcrum-facts about their system ALREADY captured the imaginations of every gamer I know.
And sony has certainly been trying as well, just far less successfully. Heck, E3 was one GIANT marketing event, and both nintendo and sony were in attendance trying to convince people that their new system would be the next big thing.
The game industry should HATE MMORPGs, since they suck up all available free time, leaving the gamer with no time to play 5 new games each month (or even 1). Only the MMORPGs benefit.
Of course, the above sentence is equally true if you replace "MMORPGs" with [television], [social life], [out-doors activities], [indoor activities that aren't games], [hobbies] or even just [games, but made by a company that isn't yours]
Of course on the other hand, game companies don't make money by having people play their games. They make money by having people BUY their games. EA doesn't care if you buy their game, play it for 5 minutes, and then go back to WOW. Because, you know, they ALREADY HAVE YOUR MONEY AT THAT POINT.
So I doubt they hate MMORPGs quite as much as you might think. As previous posters have mentioned, there are more than enough people who buy games faster than they can play them anyway, just to "complete the set", etc.
True, however it's not the originality of the story that is the problem, it is the complete and utter lack of substance. No one praises Doom for it's great writing, mostly because most people agree that it didn't have any. My point is that people who praise Half-life for great writing are confusing the story with the delivery mechanism. The delivery in half-life utterly rocks. The story is as bland as it is simplistic. There really aren't any sub-plots, character development, or other redeeming characteristics. They basically told you the entire story in the first 20 minutes of the game, and the rest of the game was just getting through it.
Contrast this to something like System Shock II, where there was actually development of major characters, unforseen twists, and generally better writing. SS2 could also be characterized as "aliens are invading our spaceship", but the point is that, unlike halflife, they actually managed to DO something interesting with the story. My beef with the half-life stories is that the one line summary "aliens are invading" (or in the case of the 2nd one, "there's an evil dictator in charge") pretty much sums up the whole game, and doesn't really ommit much. There really isn't much else there.
Elation at the completion of a fantastic shooter, and frustration at the sudden ending to the game's engaging story.
I often wonder if people are playing the same game I am... Seriously, the story for Half-Life 2 can be accurately summed up as: "You're in a dystopian future, and the dictator in charge cooperates with aliens. Get to him, blowing up everything on the way!"
For that matter, the original half-life didn't fare much better, as it had a plot that was basically equivalent to the plot of DOOM: "Science made teleporters, but now aliens are coming through them! Someone must go through and blow them all up!"
What made both of these games good (Besides solid level design and gameplay) was the PRESENTATION of their stories. But at no point in either game did I ever keep playing because I wanted to "Find out how it ended" or "what happens next". I kept playing because I wanted to see what new and original game scenario the designers had crafted. But the stories were, quite frankly, poo.
Now, if they hooked up that kind of presentation to an actual STORY, they'd have an absurdly amazing game. But at least at present, spare me the "HalfLife[1/2] had such a great story!", because it really didn't. It had the bare minimum story required to give you an excuse to run around with a big gun and move from scenario to clever scenario.
TFA is interesting enough. It makes some definite points. The races in the horde CLEARLY have their roots in extreme cultural stereotypes. Even without a "good" or "evil" side, one has to wonder about the value of such stereotype-based icons. (How would people feel if there were a "black elves" race, with dark skin, giant lips, short curly hair, and a love of watermelons and fried chicken, for example?) You could argue that even just having stereotype-based icons around reinforces the stereotypes, and may not be the most healthy thing.
But what's REALLY telling here is how many people jump on the "teh horde r not evil! Artical sux!" bandwagon. Mostly without, it seems, having actually read tfa. Is this because people are just overly-sensitive to political correctness these days? Is this because they have well-thought-out, reasoned viewpoints with differing conclusions? Or is this because slashdot is full of people who love WoW, and can brook no ill spoken of it, no matter how indirect, and who respond to any perceived threat to their game of choice with huge volumes of poorly-reasoned posts defending their game of choice?
Personally, my money is on the last one...
Also keep in mind that this isn't exactly the first time that Nintendo's been ripped off -- it has a history of leading gaming trends. However, if the Wii does become the leader of a trend rather than just a unique and quirky console, we're going to get more competition, and Nintendo will be forced to come up with even more interesting and fun ideas to give itself an edge.
That's basically what nintendo has done non-stop for the past decade. Nintendo makes its money growing the market sideways, creating new genres. Microsoft and Sony tend to make their money by owning leaders in various genres. (Microsoft has Halo, the top console FPS, for example.) For many years now, nintendo's strategy has been dependant upon their ability to create NEW genres. Sure, they defend some of them after they get them (party games - mario party, wacky racing - mario kart, etc.) but in general, nintendo seems to prefer to make up new stuff (which they are by default the best at, since no one else is doing) than to try to compete in arenas that already have clear leaders.
Wow. I don't know you personally, and maybe you really are just a hardcore playstation affecianado, but... man. If you ARE sincere, you REALLY need to figure out how to write posts that don't seem to be so BLATENTLY OBVIOUS ATTEMPTS AT ASTROTURFING.
And of course, if you're one of the countless people employed in dark rooms, who's job it is to maintain numerous forum accounts, and attempt to insert blatent product plugs for your corporate masters, then you probably also should learn to make it less blatent.
On the off chance that you're legit, I'll bite: The reason people are bashing it is:
- It looks like more of the same, when the other two major players are making interesting attempts to grow the market in interesting ways.
- It's main "features" appear to be clearly ripped off from the other players.
- Sony as a company has a history of not innovating, but copying
- Sony is in general an evil corporation, ye, even more so than microsoft, which wishes to trample your rights, restrict your freedoms, and shoot your mom. And the system is doubtlessly hewn from the cold, dead bones of stillborn babies.
Those are the reasons *I*'m not impressed, at least.
Bioware has managed to produce quite a few games that I feel have a great deal of roleplaying to them. You can get from point a (the game start) to b (game end) in a LOT of different ways, and there isn't a "right" one. They are different in how your character ends up.
Planescape Torment, Baldur's gate 1,2, KOTR, Jade empire... Fallout, for goodness sake (although not bioware). YOU get to decide who your character is, and how to play them.
Japanese "rpgs" tend to be more of "here are a bunch of characters in a story. Click through ritualized battles, and you'll be rewarded with another chunk of storyline".
I'm not saying that they can't be engaging or fun, but there really isn't much role playing in them.
But, as companies have demonstrated, it clearly IS possible to have non-MMO RPGs that actually encourage role playing. So when you say "I'd like to know what kind of idiot doesn't realize that no computer RPG that isn't multiplayer can actually involve roleplaying?" you're really just showing that you're either not very familiar with the medium, or you have different standards of what "role playing" is.
Oh, and TFA's complaint with the music wasn't so much with the scoring, but with the instrument set.
Exactly. That's the real problem in the US -- people buy debt faster than Big Macs. Debt is okay to some extent, but it should always be paid off as soon as possible. And really, when you think about it, it's much more satisfying to look back and say "Man, I have my house paid off after only 10 years," than "Remember that new TV we bought 10 years ago, and all those DVDs, and those new rims.. Damn.. they ain't spinnin' no mo!" That's why there will always be poor people; because some people will always be lured into buying comsumables and depreciable assets, racking up debt, etc. It doesn't take much to save serious money on debts either. Pay half your monthly mortgage payment every 2 weeks instead of the full payment once a month and you'll shave 6 years off a 30 year mortgage, and save almost $70k in interest on a $200k mortgage. Throw an extra $100 at the principle instead of buying new shoes and it'll be paid even sooner. Same thing for car payments, credit cards, etc.
Um.
Wow.
You TOTALLY missed the point.
The "poor people" you're talking about... I don't know how to break this to you, but they don't HAVE 200k mortgages. They tend to not even own. (Since owning takes capital.) They don't HAVE DVDs. They can afford the INTEREST on their loans, if they're lucky. And where do they get these loans? It's not from flat panel TV purchases. It's from things like medical problems when you don't have insurance. Whoops, you got sick? That's gonna cost you. And of course, it will cost you even more, since if you don't have insurance, you don't go in unless it's REALLY BAD (since you know it will cost you) so preventative medicine doesn't really happen much...
The problem isn't that "poor people don't know how to save". The problem is that the people that set the minimum wage don't seem to think that working at a job full time should at least earn you enough money to purchase both food AND shelter.
Step away from your OWN flat panel TV and DVD rack long enough to go look outside your window for a moment. See that? That's the "real world". And it extends a bit beyond the middle-class suburban skyline that no doubt graces your view.
The view "Poor people are there because they are lazy/don't want to work/lack motivation/can't plan well" is almost always exclusively found in.. wait for it... people who AREN'T POOR. Try it yourself sometime before you make broad, sweeping, generalizations.
The problem with golf is that it is too subtle about being a "rich people game".
Thus, I propose a NEW sport, which I humbly name "money-ball".
The way it works is, you have a big bonfire. Throwing $20 into the bonfire gives you one point. The game continues until one side forfeits. Whoever has the most points at the end wins!
Fun for hours!
One is there because it was original first. Sony. Another is there because it caters to kids. Nintendo. You must find another niche. You build it, and we will come. People will come aboard when they see something they can't get anywhere else.
Not trying to be flamebait, but what part of Sony is (or really ever has been) "original" or "first"? Nintendo and Sega were duking it out long before playstation was even a gleam in a sony exec's eye. And of course, you could go back further to things like Atari.
Your "open letter" really confuses me. "first"? Nintendo and many others were in the console market long before Sony. Original? Nearly everything about the PSX was derived from earlier consoles.
What am I missing?
Huh. Funny.
.... 2000? Hmm. What happened in 2000? Did some power shift occur then? Maybe someone left office, or took office? Dangit, I know SOMETHING happened that year...
It looks like they were on time and in synch... right up until
Doubtlessly unrelated, I'm sure. But... Hmm. Interesting synchronicity.
Hmm. Yes. Public schools.
So, here's some food for thought -
Public schools spend a lot of money on a very small % of their students. Namely students with disabilities. Since part of the idea of public schools is that they're there for EVERYONE, the school has to pay for things like an aide to follow the student around who has no arm or leg movment. Or special ed teachers for the students who are handicapped. And so on.
Public schools spend a lot of money on these children, because they are trying to educate everyone.
Private schools do not. Private schools will usually just refuse to take these students, because they are not cost effect for private schools, and the (or at least a) goal of the private school is to make money.
So let's see where this leads...
Continuing the trend of choking public schools in favor of the private sector, I predict we'll end up with a bunch of private schools doing quite well for themselves, and anyone with a student with special needs will be left out in the cold, attending whatever stunted mockery of our public education system is left at that point. (Or paying considerably more than everyone else for the priviledge of getting to go to private school.)
Yeah. I'm thinking that's not really where we should go as a country. Replacing "Free education for all" with "Education for most, but you may have to pay money, hope you come from a family that can afford it" seems like kind of a step backwards to me...
I guess I just assumed Astroturf or troll because of his argument. It seemed to basically be "it hasn't happened to me yet, therefore it doesn't exist. Stop attacking people for not wanting their property stolen". This has several problems in it.
- "I haven't seen it, so it doesn't exist/can't be that bad" is not a valid argument
- Attacking starforce != attacking people for not wanting their property stolen. There are plenty of other, more customer-friendly ways of reducing piracy.
- He's defending something that, to me, at least, is completely, morally, wrong. Seriously, we're talking about software that, without your permission, installs things on your system that actively limit your hardware's functionality. AND introduce potential security flaws. There's a word for software that is installed, without your knowledge or consent, which has a detrimental effect on your machine. It's Malware.
So I guess that's why I just assumed that the parent poster was a corporate shill or a troll. I have a hard time envisioning anyone (particularly on Slashdot, where users tend to have at least a little more technical understanding than the average joe off the street) saying "Yeah, they install unwanted software on my machine, which limits my hardware, and may cause problems. But I'm ok with that, and it hasn't caused any problems for me, so everyone should be fine with it."
Oh, and as the other poster has commented, the difference between "Reported cases" and "actual cases" is likely to be fairly significant. Making the connection between installing a game, and having your CD Burner driver turn wonky two weeks later is a bit of a stretch if you don't know about StarForce, even for technical savvy folks.