What bothers me is that nobody seems to have noticed that Valve, after breaking ties with Vivendi Universal (who some poor souls may know as Sierra), has decided to let Electronic Arts re-publish all their games! WTF? It's like the people at Valve said, "Okay, we finally broke free of the evil, greedy clutches of our publisher - now who out there can treat us even worse?"
I can only hope that this is step two of a devious crusade to smear the public image of all the major publishers by courting them with Half-Life franchise publishing deals and then following up with vicious lawsuits.
I'd also like to know how they managed to get EA to publish for them without giving up the rights to concurrently and independently publish titles via Steam, as I know that Valve would never ever give up that option. They almost seem to be more proud of Steam than they are of their Half-Life and Source engines.
If EB and GameStop account for only 20-30% of U.S. video game sales, where does the other 70-80% come from? Wal-Mart? Internet retailers? Independent game stores?
GameStop is about the only brick-and-mortar game retailer I know of in my town (3 locations too) that even pretends to be devoted to video games, and even they're so bad now that their own employees have been known to answer the phone with "thanks for calling EAStop!" And of course their selection of PC titles has dwindled to a state of near non-existence.
Nah, I wasn't taken in - it was too outlandish. I just thought it was silly. I guess I couldn't appreciate the humor of framing a humorous story as real.
You say that readers should be assumed to be so slow-witted that they can't pick up on an obviously humorous story, and then claim you want semi-intelligent discourse? Yeah, I do agree -- you're on the wrong site
Are you saying that it isn't obvious that they tried to make the story look serious instead of humorous? As I said, linking the article is not what I found inappropriate; framing it as a non-humorous article was what rubbed me the wrong way.
I don't mind/. posting links to humorous articles, but I find it inappropriate and unprofessional to mislead (intentionally or otherwise) readers into thinking that the articles are serious. At the very least, humor should have been listed as the primary category for this article insteasd of Google.
I don't mean to sound like a troll, but I can't help feeling that the mods are experiencing a near-constant desire to start flame wars lately. Is it too much to ask that we at least try to raise the bar a little - say, to the level of semi-intelligent discourse on noteworthy topics? (*braces for a barrage of "dude, you're obviously on the wrong site" replies*)
Ah crap, the article succeeded in baiting a flame out of me!
I've already sworn off Creative (or as I like to call them, "the EA of computer hardware"). They haven't done anything innovative themselves in the computer sound hardware market since at least as far back as the AWE series. Everything since then has been the result of Creative buying out smaller companies (e.g. Ensoniq) and marketing their products under the "Sound Blaster" brand name.
On top of that, they're going down the 3Dfx path of trying to use a proprietary API (EAX) to maintain a stranglehold on the games market. Fortunately few games include specific support for EAX and opt instead for the lowest-common-denominator, DirectSound3D (or even other alternatives such as OpenAL).
Also retarded is that they won't include Dolby AC3/DTS encoding support in their sound cards, nor decoding support in their speakers because they'd have to license the technology from Dolby (as Dolby is too big for Creative to buy out). Instead they use weird connectors to do triple-SPDIF and whatnot.
Creative also engaged in mutual finger-pointing with VIA for a long time instead of working with them to solve motherboard chipset compatability issues with their PCI sound cards.
The only two good things I have to say about Creative sound cards are that they have decent ASIO support and you can run the excellent third-party kX Project drivers on some of them.
That's just it, though: pirating IS socially acceptable now - it's just not legal. Of the people that don't do it, the main reason is more likely that they haven't taken the time or haven't had the opportunity to learn how, and not that they have any kind of moral hangups about it.
For this we can again blame (at least partially) the industries for exaggerating claims regarding the seriousness and natures of the act (e.g. using labels such as pirating, stealing, and theft). Instead of scaring people away, it has desensitized them to the issue. Now they're having to resort to using the last method they have left to save themselves: the legal system.
This brings up an interesting point: Perhaps by a quirk of fate, this next-generation console hardware innovation may be incentive that the entertainment software industry needs to crawl out of the enormous rut it's now in.
Cross-platform games and ports of engines from current-generation consoles will look/perform poorly compared to console-specific titles as a result of using only the lowest-common-denominator of hardware. Attempts to optimize ports for individual platforms will also be less likely to occur due to higher development costs. This could give more original games a more even playing field.
Another likely side-effect is polarization of fan and developer support for the invidual console platforms, as the more unique selections of games for each will attract different people.
Personally I'm not much of a console gamer (yet), but it will be interesting to see the effect of the next-generation consoles on the currently abysmal software market.
It also sounds like Nintendo's presence in the console market may continue to slide further into a niche with the Revolution. Chances are that this will continue to drive the innovation in gameplay that is keeping many gamers interested in the Gamecube and DS. Still, I think it's quite arguable that Nintendo has lost its console market dominance and may soon have an uphill battle to fight in order to keep itself from going the way of Sega.
I think this article is silly but brings up a few interesting points. I do disagree with the "Right to Instructions" however. I think too many games these days have annoying hand-holding tutorials that the player is forced to endure for up to the first couple of hours of the game. Fable is a good recent example of this.
I really think that with some forethought, many games could be designed to allow the player to learn how to play the game without handholding. An obvious example is to simply make things easier on the player at first - avoiding allowing opportunities for any major player decisions or actions early in the game that can severely stunt or otherwise negatively affect the player's progression later on. I remember playing Arcanum and not being able to leave the first town because I hadn't concentrated on any one skillset enough to get past the goons guarding the exit - I'd have had to start the whole game over and lose a couple hours of gameplay.
I can live with optional tutorials, but it's my opinion that they're still indicative of a lack of good game design. I think the best approach is to include a manual and just make the game a little more forgiving in the beginning without doing any overt handholding. Draw the player into the world instead of destroying the immersion with silly tutorials.
And why is that? Why do you have the right to act like a complete idiot and buy crap that you have not put any research into, then stiff the retailer for the cost and hassle of shipping it back to the publisher when you start suffering buyer's remorse? How is that your right?
The problem with that is these days it takes just as little time and effort to pirate the whole game as it does to spend time reading reviews and/or downloading and playing demos. Why not download the whole game to try it out? The problem then is that you've already got something for free that you were originally thinking of paying for, and now you have to decide where to set the bar for games that are worthy of paying for. I'd imagine it's awfully tempting to set the bar so high that one ends up not paying for anything.
Sorry to go off-topic, but what is that code in your sig? It looks like the cheat code for the Sega Genesis version of Shadowrun, but that one is ABBACAB
Didn't RTFA (of course), but it sounds like another one of those over-ambitious ideas that the Japanese are known for. Don't get me wrong - I think this kind of imagination is what propels us into the future. However, what they're talking about is obviously beyond our current capabilities.
There are several points that come randomly to mind:
First, any online game that goes beyond just having players mindlessly blow each other up -- that is, any game in which players actually communicate or work together -- has historically been plagued by immature players who seem to do a good job of limiting, if not ruining, the fun I can have. Anyone who has played online can instantly think of many good examples of this. This is extremely frustrating to me, as I've always imagined how cool it could be to team up with a bunch of fellow players and "play soldier" or whatever, but some douchebag always has to try to ruin the fun for everyone. The sub-problem is that I haven't yet seen a way to limit this without limiting fun even more.
Second, console games are going to (and in fact some already do) take advantage of Internet multiplayer capabilities as well, so the Internet probably won't save PC gaming.
Third, not everyone likes online games. My roommates don't play them at all (save for a couple month stint of Phantasy Star Online on their XBoxes). Personally, I only play the occasional Half-Life 2 mod or Guild Wars these days (although I haven't played the latter in over a month now).
Fourth is subscription fees, which the parent poster mentioned already. I bought Guild Wars to support the idea of a no-fees MMORPG. By contrast, I've never subscribed to a monthly fee game and I don't see myself doing so any time soon. It's got several problems. One is that I'd feel like I have to play even though I'm not in the mood, because I'd otherwise not get my money's worth for that month. Another is that I never get hardcore enough into multiplayer RPGs to get high enough to catch up to the people who just play the game all day so they can get higher than everyone else and who use that power to make everyone else miserable.
Finally, I think a large enough cross-section of gamers are smart enough to get bored of the same thing over and over again, so neither single- nor multiplayer games are going anywhere any time soon.
Ticket sales are down nearly 8% compared with 2004. With movie revenue quickly shrinking (due to lackluster movies, overpriced tickets and dvd's), this seems like a logical transition for Hollywood studios.
No, it's due to pirating. Haven't you seen the little "Rated I" placards at the ticket booth and the commercials full of pleas from starving moviemakers?
I'm being sarcastic of course - I agree with the parent poster. The scary thing is that it sounds like they think they can try the same tactics in the game's industry, and we all know that that's just going to make it sink like the movie industry is now.
Here are a few of the reactions I had to TFA - sorry if any are dupes of what others have already said:
1. How can the RIAA just change their target in the middle of the game (now that they realize that can't win?) and expect to retain any credibility with the general public?
Besides, recordable optical disks have been in widespread use for a decade now. People aren't going to accept a new format with DRM unless it has benefits that outweigh such a heavy downside.
2. I know a lot of people think of CD-R's and DVD-R's when they hear "writable media", but it looks to me like it may be a veiled attack on the popularity explosion of the iPod and such. From TFA, it sounds like the RIAA is making this noise to push copy-protected CDs, but could it actually be an attempt to put public pressure on Apple to fall in line with the industry's DRM crazyness?
I'm not a big follower of Apple, but I've got to respect that they've decided to turn their nose up at this audio copy protection busniess.
3. The TFA mentions that Apple would have to license the DRM technology in order to use it in, say, the iPod. This is ridiculous - why should Apple want to pay to cripple their products? Shouldn't the RIAA (or whoever) be paying Apple instead of the other way around, to compensate for lost business?
My experiences were similar. Started around '90 (whe I was about 12) as a way to get all the new shareware games for free. I moved a couple years later and finally started my own around '95 or so, which was a great experience (became RL friends with a lot of sysops in the area). The Internet managed to kill off the scene, despite efforts of great BBS software like Synchronet that integrated all sorts of Internet-related features.
I started with WWIV, but became frustrated with some of its quirks and limitations. I switched to Synchronet (aka SBBS) before it got any of the Internet stuff and liked it enough to convince several of my sysop friends to use it. It was great: it had multi-node support, networked forum support (i.e. message forums and email shared among multiple BBSes), and best of all it was free. I had a great, unique collection of door games (some of which I was protective of and didn't want to share with my fellow sysops, as I felt it gave my board something that others didn't have), but there were too many door games by then (even just the good ones) and not enough people played any one game (except for Legend Of the Red Dragon [LORD] of course).
My mom still has a couple boxes full of my 5.25" disks that I crammed full of shareware games and other stuff from my 8 years or so of BBSing (I hope to go through these someday and look for any abandonware stuff that needs to find a home on the Internet). I also finally managed to make a backup copy of my BBS itself recently, which was rusting away (figuratively) on a hard drive in my mom's computer until she brought it up to get fixed.
It should also be noted that not all wireless communication is civilian in nature, nor is the government(s) desire to control the RF spectrum born solely out of a desire to perform mass media censorship. Governments - especially the militaries - use both analog and digital wireless communication all the time for (literally) mission-critical applications. As a result, it makes complete sense that they will at least want control of the airwaves so that they can maintain ranges of frequencies for their own use.
Think about it: every branch of the military, federal and local law enforcement, emergency services - all communicating on their own frequencies in their own ways... It really does add up.
I'm not trying to be an apologist or anything - just bringing up a significant point that people may be overlooking.
If you go to tools->manage addons and disable "windows genuine advantage" then you'll have no problems downloading any updates. They only fixed the javascript exploit.
I don't understand what "go to tools" means. Can someone elaborate?
What's wrong with this picture (note that I'm assuming we're talking about 802.11 or similar):
1. Couldn't Continental run its WiFi APs on a different frequency/channel? There are several non-overlapping ones to choose from...
2. What gives Massport more of a right than Continental to use WiFi frequencies in an airport? Aren't those frequencies designated by the FCC to be for public, unregulated use (aside from a limit on transmitter power)?
The only entity I can think of that could have reasonable grounds to prevent someone from setting up WiFi in an airport is the owner of the airport property...
Slashdot Mirror
When did they do a remake of QfG2? I've never seen nor heard of one.
Looks like /. actually did cover this, but for some reason it didn't spark much discussion: http://games.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/07/18/ 216249&tid=204
What bothers me is that nobody seems to have noticed that Valve, after breaking ties with Vivendi Universal (who some poor souls may know as Sierra), has decided to let Electronic Arts re-publish all their games! WTF? It's like the people at Valve said, "Okay, we finally broke free of the evil, greedy clutches of our publisher - now who out there can treat us even worse?"
I can only hope that this is step two of a devious crusade to smear the public image of all the major publishers by courting them with Half-Life franchise publishing deals and then following up with vicious lawsuits.
I'd also like to know how they managed to get EA to publish for them without giving up the rights to concurrently and independently publish titles via Steam, as I know that Valve would never ever give up that option. They almost seem to be more proud of Steam than they are of their Half-Life and Source engines.
If EB and GameStop account for only 20-30% of U.S. video game sales, where does the other 70-80% come from? Wal-Mart? Internet retailers? Independent game stores?
GameStop is about the only brick-and-mortar game retailer I know of in my town (3 locations too) that even pretends to be devoted to video games, and even they're so bad now that their own employees have been known to answer the phone with "thanks for calling EAStop!" And of course their selection of PC titles has dwindled to a state of near non-existence.
Nah, I wasn't taken in - it was too outlandish. I just thought it was silly. I guess I couldn't appreciate the humor of framing a humorous story as real.
Is Microsoft working on a similar project, or does Google already have a patent on burning books? ;)
You say that readers should be assumed to be so slow-witted that they can't pick up on an obviously humorous story, and then claim you want semi-intelligent discourse? Yeah, I do agree -- you're on the wrong site
Are you saying that it isn't obvious that they tried to make the story look serious instead of humorous? As I said, linking the article is not what I found inappropriate; framing it as a non-humorous article was what rubbed me the wrong way.
I don't mind /. posting links to humorous articles, but I find it inappropriate and unprofessional to mislead (intentionally or otherwise) readers into thinking that the articles are serious. At the very least, humor should have been listed as the primary category for this article insteasd of Google.
I don't mean to sound like a troll, but I can't help feeling that the mods are experiencing a near-constant desire to start flame wars lately. Is it too much to ask that we at least try to raise the bar a little - say, to the level of semi-intelligent discourse on noteworthy topics? (*braces for a barrage of "dude, you're obviously on the wrong site" replies*)
Ah crap, the article succeeded in baiting a flame out of me!
I've already sworn off Creative (or as I like to call them, "the EA of computer hardware"). They haven't done anything innovative themselves in the computer sound hardware market since at least as far back as the AWE series. Everything since then has been the result of Creative buying out smaller companies (e.g. Ensoniq) and marketing their products under the "Sound Blaster" brand name.
On top of that, they're going down the 3Dfx path of trying to use a proprietary API (EAX) to maintain a stranglehold on the games market. Fortunately few games include specific support for EAX and opt instead for the lowest-common-denominator, DirectSound3D (or even other alternatives such as OpenAL).
Also retarded is that they won't include Dolby AC3/DTS encoding support in their sound cards, nor decoding support in their speakers because they'd have to license the technology from Dolby (as Dolby is too big for Creative to buy out). Instead they use weird connectors to do triple-SPDIF and whatnot.
Creative also engaged in mutual finger-pointing with VIA for a long time instead of working with them to solve motherboard chipset compatability issues with their PCI sound cards.
The only two good things I have to say about Creative sound cards are that they have decent ASIO support and you can run the excellent third-party kX Project drivers on some of them.
Screw 'em.
wildly optimistic. or they're going to bring out some porno umd's.
Actually I heard that they are, although I don't have a link.
That's just it, though: pirating IS socially acceptable now - it's just not legal. Of the people that don't do it, the main reason is more likely that they haven't taken the time or haven't had the opportunity to learn how, and not that they have any kind of moral hangups about it.
For this we can again blame (at least partially) the industries for exaggerating claims regarding the seriousness and natures of the act (e.g. using labels such as pirating, stealing, and theft). Instead of scaring people away, it has desensitized them to the issue. Now they're having to resort to using the last method they have left to save themselves: the legal system.
This brings up an interesting point: Perhaps by a quirk of fate, this next-generation console hardware innovation may be incentive that the entertainment software industry needs to crawl out of the enormous rut it's now in.
Cross-platform games and ports of engines from current-generation consoles will look/perform poorly compared to console-specific titles as a result of using only the lowest-common-denominator of hardware. Attempts to optimize ports for individual platforms will also be less likely to occur due to higher development costs. This could give more original games a more even playing field.
Another likely side-effect is polarization of fan and developer support for the invidual console platforms, as the more unique selections of games for each will attract different people.
Personally I'm not much of a console gamer (yet), but it will be interesting to see the effect of the next-generation consoles on the currently abysmal software market.
It also sounds like Nintendo's presence in the console market may continue to slide further into a niche with the Revolution. Chances are that this will continue to drive the innovation in gameplay that is keeping many gamers interested in the Gamecube and DS. Still, I think it's quite arguable that Nintendo has lost its console market dominance and may soon have an uphill battle to fight in order to keep itself from going the way of Sega.
I think this article is silly but brings up a few interesting points. I do disagree with the "Right to Instructions" however. I think too many games these days have annoying hand-holding tutorials that the player is forced to endure for up to the first couple of hours of the game. Fable is a good recent example of this.
I really think that with some forethought, many games could be designed to allow the player to learn how to play the game without handholding. An obvious example is to simply make things easier on the player at first - avoiding allowing opportunities for any major player decisions or actions early in the game that can severely stunt or otherwise negatively affect the player's progression later on. I remember playing Arcanum and not being able to leave the first town because I hadn't concentrated on any one skillset enough to get past the goons guarding the exit - I'd have had to start the whole game over and lose a couple hours of gameplay.
I can live with optional tutorials, but it's my opinion that they're still indicative of a lack of good game design. I think the best approach is to include a manual and just make the game a little more forgiving in the beginning without doing any overt handholding. Draw the player into the world instead of destroying the immersion with silly tutorials.
And why is that? Why do you have the right to act like a complete idiot and buy crap that you have not put any research into, then stiff the retailer for the cost and hassle of shipping it back to the publisher when you start suffering buyer's remorse? How is that your right?
The problem with that is these days it takes just as little time and effort to pirate the whole game as it does to spend time reading reviews and/or downloading and playing demos. Why not download the whole game to try it out? The problem then is that you've already got something for free that you were originally thinking of paying for, and now you have to decide where to set the bar for games that are worthy of paying for. I'd imagine it's awfully tempting to set the bar so high that one ends up not paying for anything.
Sorry to go off-topic, but what is that code in your sig? It looks like the cheat code for the Sega Genesis version of Shadowrun, but that one is ABBACAB
The USAF has no time for drones who drop their cargo at the first sign of a crowd of people.
Didn't RTFA (of course), but it sounds like another one of those over-ambitious ideas that the Japanese are known for. Don't get me wrong - I think this kind of imagination is what propels us into the future. However, what they're talking about is obviously beyond our current capabilities.
There are several points that come randomly to mind:
First, any online game that goes beyond just having players mindlessly blow each other up -- that is, any game in which players actually communicate or work together -- has historically been plagued by immature players who seem to do a good job of limiting, if not ruining, the fun I can have. Anyone who has played online can instantly think of many good examples of this. This is extremely frustrating to me, as I've always imagined how cool it could be to team up with a bunch of fellow players and "play soldier" or whatever, but some douchebag always has to try to ruin the fun for everyone. The sub-problem is that I haven't yet seen a way to limit this without limiting fun even more.
Second, console games are going to (and in fact some already do) take advantage of Internet multiplayer capabilities as well, so the Internet probably won't save PC gaming.
Third, not everyone likes online games. My roommates don't play them at all (save for a couple month stint of Phantasy Star Online on their XBoxes). Personally, I only play the occasional Half-Life 2 mod or Guild Wars these days (although I haven't played the latter in over a month now).
Fourth is subscription fees, which the parent poster mentioned already. I bought Guild Wars to support the idea of a no-fees MMORPG. By contrast, I've never subscribed to a monthly fee game and I don't see myself doing so any time soon. It's got several problems. One is that I'd feel like I have to play even though I'm not in the mood, because I'd otherwise not get my money's worth for that month. Another is that I never get hardcore enough into multiplayer RPGs to get high enough to catch up to the people who just play the game all day so they can get higher than everyone else and who use that power to make everyone else miserable.
Finally, I think a large enough cross-section of gamers are smart enough to get bored of the same thing over and over again, so neither single- nor multiplayer games are going anywhere any time soon.
Ticket sales are down nearly 8% compared with 2004. With movie revenue quickly shrinking (due to lackluster movies, overpriced tickets and dvd's), this seems like a logical transition for Hollywood studios.
No, it's due to pirating. Haven't you seen the little "Rated I" placards at the ticket booth and the commercials full of pleas from starving moviemakers?
I'm being sarcastic of course - I agree with the parent poster. The scary thing is that it sounds like they think they can try the same tactics in the game's industry, and we all know that that's just going to make it sink like the movie industry is now.
Is everyone here paranoid, or do I have any fellow compatriots in the nation of apathy?
You do, but they're all to apathetic to bother replying...
Here are a few of the reactions I had to TFA - sorry if any are dupes of what others have already said:
1. How can the RIAA just change their target in the middle of the game (now that they realize that can't win?) and expect to retain any credibility with the general public?
Besides, recordable optical disks have been in widespread use for a decade now. People aren't going to accept a new format with DRM unless it has benefits that outweigh such a heavy downside.
2. I know a lot of people think of CD-R's and DVD-R's when they hear "writable media", but it looks to me like it may be a veiled attack on the popularity explosion of the iPod and such. From TFA, it sounds like the RIAA is making this noise to push copy-protected CDs, but could it actually be an attempt to put public pressure on Apple to fall in line with the industry's DRM crazyness?
I'm not a big follower of Apple, but I've got to respect that they've decided to turn their nose up at this audio copy protection busniess.
3. The TFA mentions that Apple would have to license the DRM technology in order to use it in, say, the iPod. This is ridiculous - why should Apple want to pay to cripple their products? Shouldn't the RIAA (or whoever) be paying Apple instead of the other way around, to compensate for lost business?
My experiences were similar. Started around '90 (whe I was about 12) as a way to get all the new shareware games for free. I moved a couple years later and finally started my own around '95 or so, which was a great experience (became RL friends with a lot of sysops in the area). The Internet managed to kill off the scene, despite efforts of great BBS software like Synchronet that integrated all sorts of Internet-related features.
I started with WWIV, but became frustrated with some of its quirks and limitations. I switched to Synchronet (aka SBBS) before it got any of the Internet stuff and liked it enough to convince several of my sysop friends to use it. It was great: it had multi-node support, networked forum support (i.e. message forums and email shared among multiple BBSes), and best of all it was free. I had a great, unique collection of door games (some of which I was protective of and didn't want to share with my fellow sysops, as I felt it gave my board something that others didn't have), but there were too many door games by then (even just the good ones) and not enough people played any one game (except for Legend Of the Red Dragon [LORD] of course).
My mom still has a couple boxes full of my 5.25" disks that I crammed full of shareware games and other stuff from my 8 years or so of BBSing (I hope to go through these someday and look for any abandonware stuff that needs to find a home on the Internet). I also finally managed to make a backup copy of my BBS itself recently, which was rusting away (figuratively) on a hard drive in my mom's computer until she brought it up to get fixed.
It should also be noted that not all wireless communication is civilian in nature, nor is the government(s) desire to control the RF spectrum born solely out of a desire to perform mass media censorship. Governments - especially the militaries - use both analog and digital wireless communication all the time for (literally) mission-critical applications. As a result, it makes complete sense that they will at least want control of the airwaves so that they can maintain ranges of frequencies for their own use.
Think about it: every branch of the military, federal and local law enforcement, emergency services - all communicating on their own frequencies in their own ways... It really does add up.
I'm not trying to be an apologist or anything - just bringing up a significant point that people may be overlooking.
If you go to tools->manage addons and disable "windows genuine advantage" then you'll have no problems downloading any updates. They only fixed the javascript exploit.
I don't understand what "go to tools" means. Can someone elaborate?
What's wrong with this picture (note that I'm assuming we're talking about 802.11 or similar):
1. Couldn't Continental run its WiFi APs on a different frequency/channel? There are several non-overlapping ones to choose from...
2. What gives Massport more of a right than Continental to use WiFi frequencies in an airport? Aren't those frequencies designated by the FCC to be for public, unregulated use (aside from a limit on transmitter power)?
The only entity I can think of that could have reasonable grounds to prevent someone from setting up WiFi in an airport is the owner of the airport property...