Clearly, a company needs to create a game where these damn women can stand in front of a stove! You all know the joke: why doesn't a women need an umbrella? Because it doesn't rain between the kitchen and the bedroom!
C'mon people...
Women gamers want the same thing men gamers want: a fun game. Personally, I think the Mario games (including Mario Kart and Mario Party knockoffs), F-Zero, and The Sims are fun. No violence, but not always subscribing to the notion women should just want to play with digital dolls. But I also think Unreal Tournament, Medal of Honor, and Alien vs Predator 2 are some of the most kickass LAN gaming ever.
I do agree that companies should push the female market more. From a benevolent social perspective, it's a touchy-feely issue of equality. But for the selfish money-grubbing business majors running the gaming companies, it's the "untapped market" they all drool over. (No female-gamer pun intended.) (Well, maybe a little one.)
So I agree with the focus of the first article, that companies should expand their target audience to include women. And while the quote given in the Slashdot summary (about gatherer/collectors vs hunter-killers) is rather silly, the list of games the article gives (games like Zelda, The Sims, Civilization, etc) that "grrl" gamers like to play seems pretty solid. There is a market for games that can sell to both men and women.
But I do think the example "men don't tend to bargin shop or hunt around" is a common misconception. *stereotype warning* The difference is in priorities. Most men don't bargin shop for clothing because, well, it's stupid. They're f*ing pants! But tell this "man" who won't comparative shop to buy a car, and it's nothing but comparative shopping until the best damn one is found. Likewise, most women aren't gonna be hunting around for videogames because they don't perceive a need to do so. *end stereotypes* This minor issue asside, I do think the Game Girl article is a good read. Their stuff usually is.
The second article, on the other hand, is shallow. The message? "Videogame companies want you to buy their product." No shit? Really? It talks about companies dropping prices, expanding lineups, coming out with new and exciting stuff...well, that's the same thing companies have been doing, in videogames, for the last twenty years and, in every other industry, pretty much since the beginning of the notion of personal property came around. You have to convince people to buy your things...
-Trillian
PS I have to note that the Game Girl article (the first one) does bug me because it specifically gives numbers for the Xbox and PS2 ownership but "doesn't take into account Game Cube, Game Boy, or any gaming peripherals, help guides, or other "value added" items." Why the hell not? Even though this rant is slightly off-topic, leaving out GC and (to a lesser extent) GBA as "real" consoles only hurts Nintendos immage. Check the numbers, people! They're doing better than Xbox! Maybe not stateside, but no one even pretends that the US is the only videogame market. Japan has always led the way and, in spite of Microsoft's attempts, it looks like they'll continue for the near future. Just had to get that out...
Beauty and the Beast came out in 1991 and used CG in the ballroom scene, well before Aladdin. It's considered Disney's first use of CG: when Belle and Beast are dancing around. The camera zooms in on them dancing (actually drawn) and pulls out on a CG ballroom.
I was in the Apple store a couple weeks ago for the first time and was pretty impressed. Even as a PC user, I had tons of fun poking around the different products and playing with the tech toys.
I was less impressed with the Sony store, because it seemed to be more of an effort to get every Sony product in the smallest space possible, rather than actually display them in a tastefull manner. The Apple store has more space and it's obvious the design layout reflects the Apple GUI style of smooth functionality and nice curved lines. The Sony store felt much mroe like a walk-in version of the default XP Theme: Everything thrown at you at once with colors that must have looked good on paper but are really quite clashing. The sony store was still fun to swing by, but not as exciting as the Apple store.
While slightly non-geek, the Shedd Aquarium just (this past summer) opened up a new shark wing which is pretty damn fabulous. It's done in their "new" style (like the Amazon River Basin exhibit), which is wall-sized tanks going all the way to the floor (as someone who remembers begging to be picked up so I could see the fishes, this is appreciated; the Shedd's biggest audience is kids, who aren't all enough to see many of the tanks in the main exhibit halls), tons of creative display ideas (a wavepool to mimic the surf, an overhead tank and one that you walk on top of, etc), and to top it off a huge tank with lots of sharks swimming around. As someone who loves the Shedd anyway, the new shark exhibit only made it that much greater.
That's why I said "boderline." Because you're right, it only losely fits each of the letters in MMORPG, and doesn't have a persistant world. But the point I was making, that simply by leveling up and getting better armor (whether in Diablo or EverQuest) the ones who play more are going to be 'better' than the ones who don't. This isn't surprising, and there's nothing wrong with it. If you play more and have played longer, you'll be better and have cooler stuff.
But the point I was making, about SW:G, is that in addition to simply getting cooler skills and items by virtue of leveling up and killing higher level monsters, the Force Sensitive slot creates a character _type_ that is, even at its lowest level, "cooler" than any other character type.
Diablo wasn't a pefect example, not really being an MMORPG, but it still is valid for what I'm talking about, if only because the characters are persistant.
I initially thought the same thing, but upon rereading the (very very short) article it looks like you do NOT need a GBA to actually unlock the origonal Prince of Persia on the GameCube version. But, should you have both, and unlock both, then you'll get the bonus of regenerating health.
While I am annoyed with games like Metroid Prime requiring you to have both a GC and a GBA and a link cable and the two games to unlock something that arguably should just be unlockable on the GC, that doesn't seem to be the case here.
It looks like you can unlock and enjoy the bonus game without the GBA, but should you have the GBA you'll get an aditional bonus.
I can think of two main possibilities for how the first force-sensitive player (note that she's not actually a Jedi yet) will affect the SW:G universe.
The first posibility is that it attracts new users, and drives current users to play more. The idea of actually being a Jedi will once again be cool enough to increase the userbase and allow people to see past the problems in SW:G. (Note this is not a rant about SW:G. I haven't played the game. But, like ALL videogames, EVER, it does have some problems. I'm not judging or reviewing SW:G...)
The second posibility is that it will, in the long run, piss people off. How, you ask? Others have pointed out in the past that SW:G has something no other MMORPG has had before: A specific class that is "better" than all others. EverQuest, Dark Age of Camelot, the forthcoming WarCraft MMORPG, all classes and races will be 'equal' from the standpoint that, while some are better at magic, some at melee, some at crafting, there isn't one class that is undeniably "cooler" than the others and can kick their ass. SW:G has a built-in aristocracy.
All MMORPGs, even borderline ones like Diablo, have people who have been playing obsessivly since the game came out and, whether from cheating or simply playing the game a helluva lot, have a disgusting amount of hitpoints, armor that can survive anything, and a weapon that will defeat anything. But a force sensitive player who hasn't even gained a single level is going to be "cooler" than a master dancer. It's an interesting situation that Sony has gotten themselves into.
(The third possibility, which I'm ignoring, is that it won't change a damn thing...)
Personally, I think a little of both will happen. Just the posting made me look again at SW:G forums and reviews, and think that maybe I should finally take the MMORPG plunge and join up. On the other hand, I can see people getting bored with the game quicker if they've poured their time and energy into becoming a medic or dancer or whatnot, only to feel useless when a Jedi walks into the bar.
Regardless, I DO have to compliment Sony for not allowing everyone to become a Jedi right off the bad. Because, obviously, that's what everyone would do. But regardless of the 'math' you see sometimes concerning how many Jedis there 'should' be in SW:G, obviously not every single person should be a Jedi. That would just be silly. So if Sony can keep up a ballance, and keep the game enjoyable (or, if some of the games detractors are right, make the game finally be enjoyable after another patch or two), I'll be impressed.
I think the Internet has only changed the time it takes for bad products to be viewed as 'bad.'
"Back in the day" people might have bought lousy products initially, but after The Word eventually got out, people didn't continue buying them. Staying with the topic of videogames, the Sega Saturn didn't need the Internet to die. Nor did Virtual Boy (dear god, it didn't need help to die...)
There have been topics in the past about how text messaging and cellphones are killing opening weekends for movies because the 'bad word' gets around faster. It's causing bad movies to be known for their badness earlier but, eventually, people will learn products aren't good.
I noticed this a few days ago and have had a good time scanning the unedited report. The Memory Hole was even helpful enough to highlight the formerly blacked-out sections in yellow, so you know exactly what you were missing.
It's sad because it's obviously not a huge conspiracy that was covered up. It was "just" the racism and sexism that everyone knows is still present in America, but no one likes to admit.
Here's some stuff I thought was interesting. I don't think it's amazingly surprising (which is sad) but it's pathetic they found it 'bad' enough to try and cover up. These aren't all directly related to diversity, just stuff I found interesting.
Page 4: "Attorneys across demographic groups believe that the Department is a good place to work. Most attorneys across race/ethnicity, gender, and component groups report that the environment is collegial and productive." This is actually blacked out in the origonal document. That's just stupid. Why would it possibly be blacked out?! It's employees saying GOOD THINGS!
Page 4: "Minorities perceive unfairness in a number of human resources practices, such as hiring and promotion." Ah ha. Now we begin to see...
Page 5: "Minorities are significantly under-represented in management ranks." and "Minorities are substantially more likely to leave the Department than whites."
Then there's a long section on the background of the study and how it was conducted...very little blacked out here...
Then there are just weird things to cover up. Like on page 26: "The organizational culture varies by office and is influenced by the leadership in each office and the Regional Counsel that oversees it." Wouldn't that seem obvious? Your superiors will change the attitude of your office. Duh.
Page 37: "It is especially noteworthy that a large majority of both women and minorities answered unfavorably about the item asking about tolerance of dissent."
Page 89: "Note that promotion rates for minorities are highly correlated with, but consistently less than, promotion rates for whites."
Page 94: "When controlling for component, grade, and salary, we found that the average minority is currently residing approximately one-third step lower than the average white, and the average woman is currently residing approximately one-half step lower than the average man. These effects are statistically significant."
Page 97: "...women and minorities received statistically significantly more recognition in the form of time-off awards in 2001 compared to men and whites, respectively." "[but] women were both less likely than men to receive cash awards and received fewer awards per person among those who did receive them. Likewise, racial minorities were less likely than wites to receive cash awards (although they received the same number of awards among people who receive any). A more refined analysis of the race result shows that blacks and Asians were the least likely to receive cash awards (41% compared to 50% for whites and 56% for Native Americans)."
You get the gist. The document is over 200 pages long, but even if you scroll quickly and just glance at the highlighted stuff, you can come out with a good picture of what was covered up.
First of all, I never said Intangibles Can't Have Value. If you'd read some of the replies I made to my origonal post, I qualified that I do, in fact, purchase some things I could obtain illegaly online (videogames being the biggest) because I know I would buy them if I couldn't get them online, so I do buy them.
But your hypothetical barber is a bad example. He outputted energy. He put forth specific effort with an understanding I would repay him. By not paying, there was no exchange.
But when a creator makes something (be it music, movies, videogames, porn, whatver) there is no obligation for me to purchase their work. They've created with the _HOPE_ they will get what they view to be a fair financial value for their art. I'm not going to purchase any Britany Spears music. Ever. Period. I could download 10,000 copies of "Oops, I'm a Stupid Whore Propped Up By My Large Breasts and The Record Industry Again" (or whatever her latest hit is called) and she would not have lost a single penny.
The problem with your analogy is it's contradictory. Your subject, "Intangible can have value," implies that your post will be about intagibles. But going to the barber has a tangible effect: I've lost hair. Or, at the very least, it's been styled in a new and exciting way.
Likewise with your hotel example. You're saying something that is VERY tangible is intangible. By staying there I'm using services (electricity, water) and forcing the staff to put forth effort to undo what I did to the room. Even if I was a perfect guest and cleaned up after myself, the staff still has to change sheets and towels and clean up the room. Unless I stood in the middle of the room, with the lights off, on a giant tarp, I'd be forcing the hotel to spend money to clean up after me. Not intangible at all.
That's the trouble a lot of people are having with the new and scary possibilities of Peer-to-Peer software, and technology in general. There are NO really good analogies. Not one. The closest would be photocopying. In the past, I could photocopy a book with minimal effort. And, if I wasn't going to buy the book then, sure, my origonal argument applies: the publishers haven't lost a sale. But (as much as publishing companies feared photocopiers would put them out of business) P2P filesharing will not kill creativity or music or movies. It will, hopefully, force the economy of such entertainment to change. This will not benifit the monoplostic cartels currently in power, but will hopefully benifit the consumer.
And the last time I checked, no business has a "right" to exist. There's some idiot who has been trolling around, saying he is the owner of a "moral" CD store. I really don't care if his post is true or not. If it's not, he's just another person attempting to get attention through flaimbaiting. If he is, his business is going downhill because it is no longer profitable and he has done nothing to change. He also swears at his customers. (Always a good practice.)
There's a Heinlein quote that, I appologize, I can't find at the moment. Undoubtedly someone with more skill than I can google for it, but I was unsuccessful. The basic gist is this: No individual or business has the right to expect the government to stop time for their personal gain.
Technology is changing entertainment. Apple is attempting to hop on board, hopefully both giveing consumers what they want AND making money doing it. The RIAA is being dragged into the future, kicking and screaming.
I really wish I could mod the above post up, even though I origonated this thread and even though trudyscousin seems to disagree with me.
It's a viepoint I had honestly never thought of before:
"I. Don't. Care."
My initial reaction is, "But of course I do!" And, to some extent, that's true. I acknowledge my origonal post for what it was, a justification for breaking the law, but I was telling the truth. I honestly don't download software/music/movies that I would buy. There are bands (They Might Be Giants and Moxy Fruvous come to mind as two specific examples) I discovered through someone suggesting a song, and me going to KaZaA to download a couple titles. Since then, I've bought a number of their albums. Likewise, I don't download videogames, because I would go out and purchase them. So I do.
So sometimes I _DO_ care. In situations where I do want to support the artist/developer/studio/whatever. But I'm forced to admit your right. In the rest of the cases, I really don't care. I'd like to be able to modify that with, "I don't care because...." and I guess I can. I don't care because, from my personal viewpoint, they're not losing money through my illegal download.
But the sentence still beings "I don't care."
Honestly something I hadn't though about before, and am kind of ashamed to admit.
I didn't intend to say that P2P software and downloading has NO financial impact on the industry. I'm sorry if it came out that way.
The example you gave: "Let's take, for example, a person who has 1000 downloaded songs on his PC. Some new band puts out a song. He thinks to himself, "I can download it because I wouldn't have bought it anyway so it won't cost the industry anything." And its true, he wouldn't have bought it anyway. But I say that the only reason he wouldn't buy ANY of these songs is because he already has a library of "mediocre" songs to listen to. Imagine that a person had NO downloaded songs on his PC, thus having NOTHING to listen to during the day. Don't you think that at some point he would buy one of those CDs just to have SOMETHING to listen to? So, my point is that, maybe you wouldn't buy one individual CD, but if you (for moral/legal reasons) never downloaded ANY songs, you would eventually buy some CDs. Thus, the industry DOES lose out on your sales."
I think that's very valid. So you're right. Overall, P2P software has probably negatively impacted on the RIAA's sales as a whole. But they're still overreacting to the issue in an unfair manner. Rather than attempting to adapt to a reality and settle to, instead of making BUCKETLOADS of money, just make cuploads of money. They're unwilling to release their stranglehold on the industry and move from huge, amazing, phenominal wads of cash simply great big wads of cash.
Like many of those on SlashDot, I'm one of those anal people who gets annoyed because calling copyright infringment 'piracy' or 'theft' is factually incorrect. It's obviously not a bunch of people sailing around in three-masted ships yelling, "Arrrgh!"
Likewise, 'theft' is a very specific action by which you deprive the origonal owner of the use an object. If I take your book (or digital camera, or actually break into your house and steal your computer) you can no longer use it. I've taken something specific from you and the only way you can recover the object is to get it back from me.
On the other hand, with copyright infringment, my downloading an MP3 or movie or piece of software does not deprive anyone else of its use. By saying 'theft,' the movie industry, record industry, and software companies are trying to convince you that downloading a piece of software, say Windows XP, that costs $200 at Best Buy is the same as breaking into Microsofts vault and physically stealing $200.
But it's not.
That isn't to say it's not morally wrong. You need to decide that for yourself. And it's undeniably illegal. No one is trying to argue that. (Although you could make an argument that the punishment the RIAA is attempting to extract is grossly out of proportion to the crime. And many people _are_ arguing that.)
But by downloading software or MP3s or movies or whatever, you're not depriving anyone else from the ability to watch that movie, play that song, or use that software. That's why digital information is so complicated. Because you can copy it, with very little difficulty, and without depriving anyone else of its use. By downloading "American Beauty" to my computer, I haven't prevented anyone else from watching it.
And, arguably, I haven't cost the movie industry anything.
See, the argument they ("they" being the movie industry, MPAA, record industry, RIAA, and various software companies like Microsoft) are trying to put forth is that for every piece of software or music or movie downloaded, that's a literal sale that they have lost. But I was never going to buy "American Beauty." If I hadn't been able to download it, I would have just settled for not having it. They've lost exactly no money by me downloading it.
Yes, there are people who WOULD have gone to buy the movie if they had no other option, and would have gone to buy the CD if they had no other option, and are now happily downloading stuff from KaZaA. They constitute the "lost sales" the RIAA keeps whining about.
But maybe the RIAA/MPAA/software company/etc/etc should be doing a little more to keep their customers (better products? lower prices? But that would be UNAMERICAN!!) rather than attempting to sue them into oblivion.
This is my personal justification, and you're welcome to agree with it or not. But the numbers simply don't support what "They" are saying: that "piracy" is costing the RIAA/MPAA/software industry billions of dollars a year.
For example, record sales are down. You can look at the many stats the RIAA releases and see this.
The RIAA would have you beleive it's because of the "horrors of piracy." But might it be because the economy as a whole is doing poorly? So people are less likely to buy entertainment? Or maybe CD prices (on average, as there are some exceptions) went up again? Or maybe it's just because the RIAA keeps putting out crappy music that no one wants to listen to?
No. It's obviously "piracy."
So copyright infringment is still illegal. I've broken the law by downloading "American Beauty." But whether or not it's morally wrong is for the downloader to decide for themself.
Forgive me for ranting, and feel free to post a response in which you disagree. I know I'm taking a radical position here, and one a lot of people in "the real world" (i.e. outside of slashdot) don't agree with. But by calling copyright infrigment 'piracy' or 'theft,' you're buying into the idea that downloading an MP3 is worse than it really is. Th
I didn't think you were asking for one, but I wanted to appologize. Rereading your origonal post and my reply, I was disproportionately rude. I honestly hadn't thought about 'suport' as response time from Blizzard, and you're right. At an individual level, their support is supposed to be shit. Luckily, I haven't had to deal with it.
I still disagree about lack of re-playability, but I think you should have been more specific with your origonal post because comparisons to Baulders Gate or Neverwinter Nights are valid.
I had also forgotten that the game _required_ you to watch the videos. You're right, that's f*ing stupid.
So I still disagree with you, and think that what I said is valid, but I just wanted to let you know I thought my response to your origonal post was overly rude.
Slashdot may not post objective, neutral news stories, but at least you're never rude or over-the-top when you reply to people! It's so nice to see a reply that's calm, objective, and doesn't begin, "Read my post, fuckhead," and don't resort to making character judgements like, "You're just some self-righteous jackass."
Oh. Wait...
And wait just a minute. Your origonal post said, "There are thousands of better and newer games than Diablo II, yet one patch for this game makes it onto Slashdot." That sure as hell sounds to me like you were talking about Diablo 2 not being news. How else, exactly, was I supposed to read that sentence?
And, because you're obviously the expert in objectivity, may I ask you to write a neutral post about the release of the 1.1 patch? The post that exists is lifted, verbatum, from the Battle.net site. So it's obviously not as objective as you'd like, but it does for the most part simply list new features. The patch IS the largest to date, has a new lader system, etc, etc, etc.
I'm eagerly awaiting what I'm sure will blow us away as a calm, objective, and most importantly neutral example of how one SHOULD post news storys on Slashdot.
BrynM said, "Since the game follows a direct story line, there isn't a whole lot of re-playability as well."
I agree with some of the other things you said. I know a lot of people had problems with the 1.09 patch, and I think it would have been awesome if Blizzard allowed an open server or whatnot for people to mod however the hell they wanted.
And there are valid complaints about Diabo 2. If you didn't like Diablo, D2 didn't bring anything new to the table. It's graphics are getting outdated. The player economy is shit. People abuse experience runs and whatnot. Half the items out there are dupes. (In theory, some of these issues are addressed in the v1.1 patch.) But to say Diablo 2 doesn't have a whole lot of re-playabliity is one of the dumbest things I've ever heard said about Diablo 2.
The stoy was always weak and, beyond the first time through, never the reason to play the game. Having a blast with friends on multiplayer, leveling for that next skill level, killing monsters to get that next killer item; these are the reasons people play Diablo 2. Saying that it has a bad storyline so it's not fun to play is like saying Mortal Kombat or (insert fighting game here) is stupid because the story sucks. It's like saying no one wants to replay Mario because the story is predictable. It's like saying Tetris isn't fun because it doesn't end. Diablo 2 was never about the story. It was about everything else, and a lot of people think Blizzard did an amazing job with that "everything else." So there are valid reasons not to like Diablo 2. Even just, "I don't enjoy that type of game," is perfectly valid. But complaining about the STORYLINE? That's just avoiding the issue, and making yourself sound like an idiot.
BrynM said, "Diablo and Diablo II are great games that broke a lot of new ground, but Blizzard's support and lack of modding have ruined them for me at least."
How have they had lack of support? The fact that their servers are still even UP shows support for the damn game. Up and FREE. And, obviously, they're still releasing patches (albiet slower than slow). So I would say that, yes, they're still supporting the game.
Lack of modding is a different issue, and the only valid one I think you bring up. They could have opened a server, or allowed others to run private servers, where people could mod the game however the hell they wanted. They could have made cool (and probably relatively simple) tools for new monster creation, or even item creation. Don't let people on the main "closed" network, but let them play however the hell they want anywhere else. So yeah, I think that would have been great. And if without modding, the game isn't enough to still keep you, then so be it. That's your call, and only you can decide if you still have fun playing a game.
(And, without installing the movie files, the game is well under 1 GB. It still has a large system footprint, around 700 MB, if I remember correctly, but don't exagerate. Makes you look like an inflamatory whiner.)
But don't just make up arguments to complain about nothing.
A large portion of games.slashdot.org is some form of "advertising." Posting about the latest multiplayer mod for Grand Theft Auto is advertising. Talking about There, Inc. launching is advertising. The Lord of the Rings pinball machine? Adverstising.
The reason it's not truly "advertising" is because we now get to talk about it here. I'm really looking forward to what people have to say about the mod, if anyone discovers the new world-event, etc, etc. If you don't like the patch, you're more than welcome to voice your opinion here. And I'd be more than happy to read it.
But Diablo 2 is a phenominon. For a developer to acknowledge that their TWO YEAR OLD game is still one of the best multiplayer games around, to continue to support it through a FREE online system (ignoring their treatment of attempts to port battle.net to Linux*, which I would agree Blizzard handled poorly), and STILL patching the damn game? How many games don't get a single patch? For Blizzard delevopers to still be updating and fine-tuning a game this long after its release, and for people to STILL enjoy playing it is fucking incredible.
And I call Bullshit. "There are thousands of better and newer games than Diablo II." Part of the reason this IS a news story is that Diablo 2 is so old, but still updated and played. And while there are undoubtedly thousands of newer games, I'd challenge you to list thousands of better ones that are in the same genre. Battlefield 1942, Super Smash Bros, Grand Theft Auto...sure, you can build a long list of amazing games. I wouldn't nescesarily say Diablo 2 is "better" than any or all of them. And a lot of them will be have multiplayer aspects, either online or by playing with multiple people on the same TV. But there hasn't been a game since Diablo 2 that satisfies the unique hunger D2 players develope. Dungeon Siege didn't do it. It was pretty, but there was something lacking. Neverwinter Nights was aimed at creating a slightly different experience, and while I'm told the multiplayer games can be amazingly fun, still isn't the same thing. In the same way that a desire to play Super Smash Bros can only be quenched by playing Super Smash Bros, Diablo 2 is a sweet, sweet, addictive crack to those who partake in it.
The tagline of Slashdot, as I'm sure you know, is "News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters." Well, I'd say the release of what is supposed to be the largest and most significant patch to a game that, like it or not, is one of the largest gaming landmarks ever, qualifies (for me) for both of those things.
(A quick note before I'm flamed: I don't mean Diablo 2's gameplay is revolutionary. It's not. But Blizzard somehow got it "just right" in a way that, I would say, no other game has done since. Just like I STILL think StarCraft is THE comparison when judging RTS games, although others have come close, I would say DIablo 2 is STILL the comparison when judging dungeon hackers.)
As I was saying: Posting about D2 is News for Nerds, and I think it Matters. There are posts on the main page all the time that I don't particularly think matter, but I don't bitch and complain because I understand they might be relevant to other people.
So quit yer bitching. There were long and heated discussions about Blizzard after they shut down the unauthorized Battle.net accessing software. (The name escapes me at the moment.) Many people vowed never to support Blizzard again, and they're more than welcome not to. But for the rest of us, I don't think it's unfair to be allowed some posts concerning WE stil believe to be a damn fine game.
-Trillian
*I know this is an oversimplification of what happened.
tessaiga said, "See, in most universities, there are these conveniently-located buildings called libraries, that have copies of just about every book for every class you'll take there. Many even have copies on reserve, so that they're never all checked out at once. The same building also has these fancy devices called photocopiers, which are good at high-volume duplication of paper."
Touche. I honestly hadn't thought of that. But we're talking the tiny things that differentiate between those who go to great lengths to be cheap and those who are lazy-cheap.
Myself, I'm lazy-cheap. I could have ripped movies from DVDs I've rented. I've tried it before, but never had the patience to do it. It's admitadly not a lot of work. Leave a program to rip the sound and video, splice 'em back together, and there ya go. But it takes _some_ effort for what could be _none_. When I learned about filesharing within the university network a few days ago, I hopped on and have, in the last 48 hours, downloaded no less than 15 movies, a season of "Family Guy," and a couple random humorous short movies. And this is all stuff other students at my specific school are sharing.
(Now that I've posted this, I'll expect my subpoena in the next couple days...)
Likewise, photocopying books is cheap, but not lazy-cheap. Having an automated program fetch the book for you, and then sit and wait for it to print (akin to sitting and waiting for a movie to download) strikes me as the perfect definition of lazy-cheap.
So yes, I agree that shutting down the entire idea is a knee-jerk reflex. I think the cookbook and reference book examples are good, too. But I think there are valid reasons (from a publisher's standpoint) to not have textbooks included. If there was never a program to automate it, it would simply stay 'cheap' and not many people would do it. But if someone wrote a program to automate the collection (which isn't too far fetched) I, and many other 'lazy-cheap' college students, would be at the library printing.
And, while we can argue back and forth about the problems with the copyright system (and I do think there are many problems) it is in large part college students who at least BEGAN what the copyright holders view as 'the problem.' As broadband has spread, so did Napster, and now so does KaZaA and its friends. So now the copyright issues are being 'addressed' by more people, 50 million strong, in the form of copyright-violating downloads and uploads. But the first ones on board were the college students. This isn't BLAMING college students. I would say the problem lies in the copyright system itself, as well as the economing model the **AA is trying to cling to. But college students brought the issue to a burn.
I don't think simply cutting off the technology is the right way to do it, and I'd much rather see publishers drop book prices than get Amazon in legal trouble. But I can understand WHY they're doing it. Likewise, I understand WHY the **AA is attempting to stop filesharing. I disagree with WHAT they're doing, but I understand WHY.
JayBlalock said, "But, do you honestly think the number of people who would go to such lengths to get a free book would outnumber those who buy a book because they've verified it contains the information they want? It's not like in your scenario, the publishers are losing hundreds in book sales. That same group of students would, logically, band together and buy ONE book to share otherwise."
Well, yes and no.
I agree that, overall, the number of people who would go to such lengths would NOT outnumber those who buy a book because they verified its contents. That is, OVERALL, I think this system could increase sales.
But college students are a different kettle of fish. This is a group of people that, as a regular social activity, shares, downloads, and watches movies on our computers. And enough of us have been raised computer literate to help teach those who aren't. So while publishers in general might not lose hundreds of book sales, I think a system like this could potentially kill (or at least maim) on-campus book stores.
With a system like this, coupled with even two or three people per class who knew how to abuse it, a class as a whole could (like I theorized in my above post) have a 'book party' where the three people who downloaded their sections of the book meet with everyone at the library, they all pay their $15 to print the couple hundred pages, and they all get their books.
I'll give two potential real world examples: I can see my computer programing class (~45 computer literate people) meeting to do this, easy. Hell, someone in the class could probably write the program to do it. (Not myself. Not because I wouldn't want to, but because I wouldn't know how. But there are definatly those who would.) And, on the other end of the spectrum, I can also see people like myself talking to my Analysis and Performance of Literature class and aranging everyone to meet to save $50 on the mandatory textbook. To give me even more incentive to print the book at the library, I'd rather have the book of short stories, plays, and poems that we use for that class bound in a notebook. Easier to make notes, highlight, take pages out for memorization, etc.
Truth be told, I don't know a huge number of people who buy their textbooks from Amazon.com. But looking beyond Amazon.com, I can see something like this causing a drop in textbook sales across the board.
For my own personal and selfish gain, I kind of hope Amazon.com 'wins' this battle. In which case you can meet me in the library next week and we'll print some textbooks. You get the first half, and I'll get the second?
As I said, I think the Authors Guild is overreacting. I think shutting down the system across all books would be a mistake. In fiction, for example, I can only see a system like this increasing sales. But in specific cases, mostly involving education(textbooks, expensive reference sets, etc), I can understnad why publishers would not be happy with the idea of this going through.
Some of the examples given would seem to have little effect on the sales of books. If someone was only going to print out a specific recipe in a cookbook, or a couple of pages in a guidebook, they probably weren't amazingly inclined to get the book anyway.
But near the end of the email Authors Guild rep says, " A student could easily grab the relevant chapter or two out of a book without paying for it. Students certainly have the time and most likely the inclination to do so, and, with the help of some willing colleagues, could print out the entire texts of books in the program."
As a college student, especially in light of the recent NYT article on textbooks being found half-price or less overseas, it's not unreasonable to think a group of students might get together and pay $15 or $20 to print a couple hundred pages of textbook in the library.
And if someone wrote some nefarious program to log into Amazon as multiple fake accounts to access an entire textbook and download it, everyone would use it. I can easily see textbook-printing rings, with get-togethers at the library to print and distribute free books. Hell, I'd be the first one in line. Paying $500 for a semester of books is rediculous.
So, while I think the reaction of the Authors Guild is a little bit overboard, the email does rasie some valid points.
The email also mentions, in passing, that, "[m]ost fiction titles are not likely to be greatly threatened." It would seem then, that maybe the type of book shold control how many pages you can access. For textbooks or cookbooks or guidebooks or the other topics the Authors Guild fears will be threatened, maybe a compromise could be reached so that only one or two consecutive pages could be accessed. Then, for fiction or books where it is less likely a user would only want a very small portion of the book (and be willing to use Amazon to avoid buying it), more could be accessed.
This would seem to both help address the concerns raised in the email, and allow Amazon to offer this service.
While I think the above post is both very funny and very scary, it appears to come, without credit, from here: http://www.buzzflash.com/contributors/03/04 /23_res ume.html
I played "Rogue Squadron" on the Nintendo 64. I downloaded and watched in awe the tech demos of "Rogue Squadron 2: Rogue Leader" for GameCube, eagerly awaiting the system's release. When I finally got it in my grubby little hands, I played endlessly for days and, even now, two years after its release, it's still one of the most enjoyable and best looking games for GameCube. I still play on occasion, attempting to get the last gold medals to unlock the final bonus mission. So, naturally, I was more than a little excited when "Rogue Squadron 3: Rebel" Strike was announced.
Again, I downloaded the videos and read all the previews. But this time, I was slightly skeptical. "Rogue Squadron 2" had been so phenomenal and had been so damn pretty, would "Rogue Squadron 3" be able to beat it? LucasArts and Factor 5 have now had years to perfect their GameCube development, but it is the same system. And, come on. We're revisiting the original trilogy AGAIN? After having had no less than fourteen hojillion games covering the same time period? But having played both the demo and now, finally, the release copy of "Rogue Squadron 3: Rebel Strike" (I'll stop writing the whole damn title and just refer to it as RS3 from now on) I can stop wondering how it's going to be, and give my own review of the game.
Quickly, before I begin, I have to be honest. I have not yet explored every single facet of the game. LucasArts is one of the best companies for those who enjoy bonus extras. In the submenus of the "Options" section of the game, there are selections fo unlockable audio commentary, and it was recently made public that RS3 would contain not only the 1980 arcade version of "Star Wars: Episode IV - A New Hope" that the demo disk had, but also a version of the arcade game for "Star Wars: Episode V - The Empire Strikes Back." And, as usual, there are unlockable levels (such as rescuing Princess Leia from the 1st Death Star or escaping Jabba's sail barges) and there are sure to be unlockable ships.
But I've played enough that I can give an in depth review of the game. So, here we go...
CONTROLS: "IT'S NOT IMPOSSIBLE, I USED TO BULLSEYE WOMPRATS IN MY T-16 BACK HOME!"
-Luke Skywalker, "Star Wars: Episode IV - A New Hope"
We'll start off with gameplay. After all, that's what everyone says is most important. Graphics are, of course, nice, but a game can look pretty and still be abysmal. Rogue Squadron 2 had very controls that were easy to pick up. Your ship went forward, the left shoulder button slowed it down, and the right sped it up. 'A' shot your main gun, and 'B' your secondary, if you had one. Sure, there were ways to do barrel rolls and use your targeting computer, but the basics were simple.
RS3 has stuck to the same set of controls for flying ships (we'll get to on-foot controls in a second). If you were comfortable with Rogue Squadron 2, you can easily pick up a controller and get right into the action. All of the ships handle differently, keeping true to the original trilogy. X-Wings are a solid mix of speed and maneuverability, A-Wings are fast with tight turns and low shields, Y-Wings steer like a cow but can take a beating, and so on. Likewise, the Snow Speeders and Speeder Bikes handle very well and the Speeder Bikes give a really great sense of speed.
My one complaint, which I (and everyone else) had in the RS2 and was sad to see carried on to RS3 was the twitch factor of the controls. The GameCube control stick has a large number of usable angles that the console hardware can recognize. So why does the slightest tilt send my targeting reticle flying to the side of the screen? While it's possible once you get used to the controls, pin-point accuracy is still hard to obtain.
Now for the ground controls (and note I included the Speeder missions above, as they handle like ships). I was nervous when it became clear RS3 would include ground missions. I enjoyed "Shadows of the Empire" for Nintendo 64 a lot, bu
This is off-topic, but you've made me currious. I've done some research on D-Day in the past (minimal, I admit) and, while it certainly cost a disgusting ammount of lives, most historians view it (or something like it) as something that was required to break Germany's back in Europe.
Do you say "I believe that the fact that Normandy was made necessary to be one of the biggest failings of the West over the last centry," to mean that D-Day was the wrong decision at the time? Or that countries in and out of Europe had a responsibility to crush Naziism before Germany gained such strength?
That is, you view D-Day as a specific poor choice within World War II, or that it's a symbol of the failings of Western Civilization to prevent World War II from ever happening?
For what it's worth, I would disagree that D-Day was a bad decission at the time (it was arguably the 'right thing to do') but _would_ agree that it's disgusting Europe, or America, or SOMEONE didn't step in _before_ the 1940s to slap Hitler down like the disgusting power-hungry freak he was.
I've done more than a little reading on the ideas of gender expression and how gender roles in society are shaped and expressed. I am NOT an expert in the field, and don't pretend to be, but may have more knowledge on the subject than the average/.er (And if someone who IS an expert, or even just more well-read than I am, sees me making a factual error, please point it out.)
The concensus among experts seems to be that society is moving towards a much more fluid concept of gender. This has been happening for some time now, with the easy beginnings statges being when women battled for voting rights and later, in the 60s, when equal rights became an issue across race and gender.
For a long time, this has been a one-way battle: women fighting for equal footing with men. There has been an obvious move in this direction. Equal pay initiatives, sexual harrasment policies in work-places, etc. On the more subtle side, women are now able to dress however the hell they want. While there are extremes that would still get odd looks (tons of piercing, lots of leather, etc), men would get the same odd looks if they dressed that way. But a woman wearing shorts and a t-shirt isn't going to get odd looks because she's "dressed like a man."
But there has been very little push in the opposite direction. Only very recently has there been a larger push for men to be able to dress and act in what has traditionally been 'female' gender roles. But, as I said, there has been more and more of a move towards a fluid idea of gender. That is, one that isn't directly tied to what's between your legs.
I think this is, partially, a reflection of that. I'm trying not to read too much into it, because I think it is partially just people fooling around online. But I think it's also a way for people to safely and (most importantly) annonymously experiment with fluid gender roles in a safe environment. This doesn't mean that ANY of the men who play women in online games want to go buy a dress and get a sex change. It just means that the current static gender roles we have in Western culture are outdated and people are beginning to feel constrained by them.
Slashdot Mirror
Clearly, a company needs to create a game where these damn women can stand in front of a stove! You all know the joke: why doesn't a women need an umbrella? Because it doesn't rain between the kitchen and the bedroom!
C'mon people...
Women gamers want the same thing men gamers want: a fun game. Personally, I think the Mario games (including Mario Kart and Mario Party knockoffs), F-Zero, and The Sims are fun. No violence, but not always subscribing to the notion women should just want to play with digital dolls. But I also think Unreal Tournament, Medal of Honor, and Alien vs Predator 2 are some of the most kickass LAN gaming ever.
I do agree that companies should push the female market more. From a benevolent social perspective, it's a touchy-feely issue of equality. But for the selfish money-grubbing business majors running the gaming companies, it's the "untapped market" they all drool over. (No female-gamer pun intended.) (Well, maybe a little one.)
So I agree with the focus of the first article, that companies should expand their target audience to include women. And while the quote given in the Slashdot summary (about gatherer/collectors vs hunter-killers) is rather silly, the list of games the article gives (games like Zelda, The Sims, Civilization, etc) that "grrl" gamers like to play seems pretty solid. There is a market for games that can sell to both men and women.
But I do think the example "men don't tend to bargin shop or hunt around" is a common misconception. *stereotype warning* The difference is in priorities. Most men don't bargin shop for clothing because, well, it's stupid. They're f*ing pants! But tell this "man" who won't comparative shop to buy a car, and it's nothing but comparative shopping until the best damn one is found. Likewise, most women aren't gonna be hunting around for videogames because they don't perceive a need to do so. *end stereotypes* This minor issue asside, I do think the Game Girl article is a good read. Their stuff usually is.
The second article, on the other hand, is shallow. The message? "Videogame companies want you to buy their product." No shit? Really? It talks about companies dropping prices, expanding lineups, coming out with new and exciting stuff...well, that's the same thing companies have been doing, in videogames, for the last twenty years and, in every other industry, pretty much since the beginning of the notion of personal property came around. You have to convince people to buy your things...
-Trillian
PS I have to note that the Game Girl article (the first one) does bug me because it specifically gives numbers for the Xbox and PS2 ownership but "doesn't take into account Game Cube, Game Boy, or any gaming peripherals, help guides, or other "value added" items." Why the hell not? Even though this rant is slightly off-topic, leaving out GC and (to a lesser extent) GBA as "real" consoles only hurts Nintendos immage. Check the numbers, people! They're doing better than Xbox! Maybe not stateside, but no one even pretends that the US is the only videogame market. Japan has always led the way and, in spite of Microsoft's attempts, it looks like they'll continue for the near future. Just had to get that out...
Beauty and the Beast came out in 1991 and used CG in the ballroom scene, well before Aladdin. It's considered Disney's first use of CG: when Belle and Beast are dancing around. The camera zooms in on them dancing (actually drawn) and pulls out on a CG ballroom.
-Trillian
I was in the Apple store a couple weeks ago for the first time and was pretty impressed. Even as a PC user, I had tons of fun poking around the different products and playing with the tech toys.
I was less impressed with the Sony store, because it seemed to be more of an effort to get every Sony product in the smallest space possible, rather than actually display them in a tastefull manner. The Apple store has more space and it's obvious the design layout reflects the Apple GUI style of smooth functionality and nice curved lines. The Sony store felt much mroe like a walk-in version of the default XP Theme: Everything thrown at you at once with colors that must have looked good on paper but are really quite clashing. The sony store was still fun to swing by, but not as exciting as the Apple store.
While slightly non-geek, the Shedd Aquarium just (this past summer) opened up a new shark wing which is pretty damn fabulous. It's done in their "new" style (like the Amazon River Basin exhibit), which is wall-sized tanks going all the way to the floor (as someone who remembers begging to be picked up so I could see the fishes, this is appreciated; the Shedd's biggest audience is kids, who aren't all enough to see many of the tanks in the main exhibit halls), tons of creative display ideas (a wavepool to mimic the surf, an overhead tank and one that you walk on top of, etc), and to top it off a huge tank with lots of sharks swimming around. As someone who loves the Shedd anyway, the new shark exhibit only made it that much greater.
-Trillian
-Trillian
That's why I said "boderline." Because you're right, it only losely fits each of the letters in MMORPG, and doesn't have a persistant world. But the point I was making, that simply by leveling up and getting better armor (whether in Diablo or EverQuest) the ones who play more are going to be 'better' than the ones who don't. This isn't surprising, and there's nothing wrong with it. If you play more and have played longer, you'll be better and have cooler stuff.
But the point I was making, about SW:G, is that in addition to simply getting cooler skills and items by virtue of leveling up and killing higher level monsters, the Force Sensitive slot creates a character _type_ that is, even at its lowest level, "cooler" than any other character type.
Diablo wasn't a pefect example, not really being an MMORPG, but it still is valid for what I'm talking about, if only because the characters are persistant.
-Trillian
I initially thought the same thing, but upon rereading the (very very short) article it looks like you do NOT need a GBA to actually unlock the origonal Prince of Persia on the GameCube version. But, should you have both, and unlock both, then you'll get the bonus of regenerating health.
While I am annoyed with games like Metroid Prime requiring you to have both a GC and a GBA and a link cable and the two games to unlock something that arguably should just be unlockable on the GC, that doesn't seem to be the case here.
It looks like you can unlock and enjoy the bonus game without the GBA, but should you have the GBA you'll get an aditional bonus.
-Trillian
I can think of two main possibilities for how the first force-sensitive player (note that she's not actually a Jedi yet) will affect the SW:G universe.
The first posibility is that it attracts new users, and drives current users to play more. The idea of actually being a Jedi will once again be cool enough to increase the userbase and allow people to see past the problems in SW:G. (Note this is not a rant about SW:G. I haven't played the game. But, like ALL videogames, EVER, it does have some problems. I'm not judging or reviewing SW:G...)
The second posibility is that it will, in the long run, piss people off. How, you ask? Others have pointed out in the past that SW:G has something no other MMORPG has had before: A specific class that is "better" than all others. EverQuest, Dark Age of Camelot, the forthcoming WarCraft MMORPG, all classes and races will be 'equal' from the standpoint that, while some are better at magic, some at melee, some at crafting, there isn't one class that is undeniably "cooler" than the others and can kick their ass. SW:G has a built-in aristocracy.
All MMORPGs, even borderline ones like Diablo, have people who have been playing obsessivly since the game came out and, whether from cheating or simply playing the game a helluva lot, have a disgusting amount of hitpoints, armor that can survive anything, and a weapon that will defeat anything. But a force sensitive player who hasn't even gained a single level is going to be "cooler" than a master dancer. It's an interesting situation that Sony has gotten themselves into.
(The third possibility, which I'm ignoring, is that it won't change a damn thing...)
Personally, I think a little of both will happen. Just the posting made me look again at SW:G forums and reviews, and think that maybe I should finally take the MMORPG plunge and join up. On the other hand, I can see people getting bored with the game quicker if they've poured their time and energy into becoming a medic or dancer or whatnot, only to feel useless when a Jedi walks into the bar.
Regardless, I DO have to compliment Sony for not allowing everyone to become a Jedi right off the bad. Because, obviously, that's what everyone would do. But regardless of the 'math' you see sometimes concerning how many Jedis there 'should' be in SW:G, obviously not every single person should be a Jedi. That would just be silly. So if Sony can keep up a ballance, and keep the game enjoyable (or, if some of the games detractors are right, make the game finally be enjoyable after another patch or two), I'll be impressed.
-Trillian
I think the Internet has only changed the time it takes for bad products to be viewed as 'bad.'
"Back in the day" people might have bought lousy products initially, but after The Word eventually got out, people didn't continue buying them. Staying with the topic of videogames, the Sega Saturn didn't need the Internet to die. Nor did Virtual Boy (dear god, it didn't need help to die...)
There have been topics in the past about how text messaging and cellphones are killing opening weekends for movies because the 'bad word' gets around faster. It's causing bad movies to be known for their badness earlier but, eventually, people will learn products aren't good.
Even in the days before the 'net.
-Trillian
I noticed this a few days ago and have had a good time scanning the unedited report. The Memory Hole was even helpful enough to highlight the formerly blacked-out sections in yellow, so you know exactly what you were missing.
It's sad because it's obviously not a huge conspiracy that was covered up. It was "just" the racism and sexism that everyone knows is still present in America, but no one likes to admit.
Here's some stuff I thought was interesting. I don't think it's amazingly surprising (which is sad) but it's pathetic they found it 'bad' enough to try and cover up. These aren't all directly related to diversity, just stuff I found interesting.
Page 4: "Attorneys across demographic groups believe that the Department is a good place to work. Most attorneys across race/ethnicity, gender, and component groups report that the environment is collegial and productive."
This is actually blacked out in the origonal document. That's just stupid. Why would it possibly be blacked out?! It's employees saying GOOD THINGS!
Page 4: "Minorities perceive unfairness in a number of human resources practices, such as hiring and promotion."
Ah ha. Now we begin to see...
Page 5: "Minorities are significantly under-represented in management ranks." and "Minorities are substantially more likely to leave the Department than whites."
Then there's a long section on the background of the study and how it was conducted...very little blacked out here...
Then there are just weird things to cover up. Like on page 26: "The organizational culture varies by office and is influenced by the leadership in each office and the Regional Counsel that oversees it."
Wouldn't that seem obvious? Your superiors will change the attitude of your office. Duh.
Page 37: "It is especially noteworthy that a large majority of both women and minorities answered unfavorably about the item asking about tolerance of dissent."
Page 89: "Note that promotion rates for minorities are highly correlated with, but consistently less than, promotion rates for whites."
Page 94: "When controlling for component, grade, and salary, we found that the average minority is currently residing approximately one-third step lower than the average white, and the average woman is currently residing approximately one-half step lower than the average man. These effects are statistically significant."
Page 97: "...women and minorities received statistically significantly more recognition in the form of time-off awards in 2001 compared to men and whites, respectively."
"[but] women were both less likely than men to receive cash awards and received fewer awards per person among those who did receive them. Likewise, racial minorities were less likely than wites to receive cash awards (although they received the same number of awards among people who receive any). A more refined analysis of the race result shows that blacks and Asians were the least likely to receive cash awards (41% compared to 50% for whites and 56% for Native Americans)."
You get the gist. The document is over 200 pages long, but even if you scroll quickly and just glance at the highlighted stuff, you can come out with a good picture of what was covered up.
Basically, anything with substance.
-Trillian
First of all, I never said Intangibles Can't Have Value. If you'd read some of the replies I made to my origonal post, I qualified that I do, in fact, purchase some things I could obtain illegaly online (videogames being the biggest) because I know I would buy them if I couldn't get them online, so I do buy them.
But your hypothetical barber is a bad example. He outputted energy. He put forth specific effort with an understanding I would repay him. By not paying, there was no exchange.
But when a creator makes something (be it music, movies, videogames, porn, whatver) there is no obligation for me to purchase their work. They've created with the _HOPE_ they will get what they view to be a fair financial value for their art. I'm not going to purchase any Britany Spears music. Ever. Period. I could download 10,000 copies of "Oops, I'm a Stupid Whore Propped Up By My Large Breasts and The Record Industry Again" (or whatever her latest hit is called) and she would not have lost a single penny.
The problem with your analogy is it's contradictory. Your subject, "Intangible can have value," implies that your post will be about intagibles. But going to the barber has a tangible effect: I've lost hair. Or, at the very least, it's been styled in a new and exciting way.
Likewise with your hotel example. You're saying something that is VERY tangible is intangible. By staying there I'm using services (electricity, water) and forcing the staff to put forth effort to undo what I did to the room. Even if I was a perfect guest and cleaned up after myself, the staff still has to change sheets and towels and clean up the room. Unless I stood in the middle of the room, with the lights off, on a giant tarp, I'd be forcing the hotel to spend money to clean up after me. Not intangible at all.
That's the trouble a lot of people are having with the new and scary possibilities of Peer-to-Peer software, and technology in general. There are NO really good analogies. Not one. The closest would be photocopying. In the past, I could photocopy a book with minimal effort. And, if I wasn't going to buy the book then, sure, my origonal argument applies: the publishers haven't lost a sale. But (as much as publishing companies feared photocopiers would put them out of business) P2P filesharing will not kill creativity or music or movies. It will, hopefully, force the economy of such entertainment to change. This will not benifit the monoplostic cartels currently in power, but will hopefully benifit the consumer.
And the last time I checked, no business has a "right" to exist. There's some idiot who has been trolling around, saying he is the owner of a "moral" CD store. I really don't care if his post is true or not. If it's not, he's just another person attempting to get attention through flaimbaiting. If he is, his business is going downhill because it is no longer profitable and he has done nothing to change. He also swears at his customers. (Always a good practice.)
There's a Heinlein quote that, I appologize, I can't find at the moment. Undoubtedly someone with more skill than I can google for it, but I was unsuccessful. The basic gist is this: No individual or business has the right to expect the government to stop time for their personal gain.
Technology is changing entertainment. Apple is attempting to hop on board, hopefully both giveing consumers what they want AND making money doing it. The RIAA is being dragged into the future, kicking and screaming.
-Trillian
I really wish I could mod the above post up, even though I origonated this thread and even though trudyscousin seems to disagree with me.
It's a viepoint I had honestly never thought of before:
"I.
Don't.
Care."
My initial reaction is, "But of course I do!" And, to some extent, that's true. I acknowledge my origonal post for what it was, a justification for breaking the law, but I was telling the truth. I honestly don't download software/music/movies that I would buy. There are bands (They Might Be Giants and Moxy Fruvous come to mind as two specific examples) I discovered through someone suggesting a song, and me going to KaZaA to download a couple titles. Since then, I've bought a number of their albums. Likewise, I don't download videogames, because I would go out and purchase them. So I do.
So sometimes I _DO_ care. In situations where I do want to support the artist/developer/studio/whatever. But I'm forced to admit your right. In the rest of the cases, I really don't care. I'd like to be able to modify that with, "I don't care because...." and I guess I can. I don't care because, from my personal viewpoint, they're not losing money through my illegal download.
But the sentence still beings "I don't care."
Honestly something I hadn't though about before, and am kind of ashamed to admit.
-Trillian
I didn't intend to say that P2P software and downloading has NO financial impact on the industry. I'm sorry if it came out that way.
The example you gave:
"Let's take, for example, a person who has 1000 downloaded songs on his PC. Some new band puts out a song. He thinks to himself, "I can download it because I wouldn't have bought it anyway so it won't cost the industry anything." And its true, he wouldn't have bought it anyway. But I say that the only reason he wouldn't buy ANY of these songs is because he already has a library of "mediocre" songs to listen to. Imagine that a person had NO downloaded songs on his PC, thus having NOTHING to listen to during the day. Don't you think that at some point he would buy one of those CDs just to have SOMETHING to listen to? So, my point is that, maybe you wouldn't buy one individual CD, but if you (for moral/legal reasons) never downloaded ANY songs, you would eventually buy some CDs. Thus, the industry DOES lose out on your sales."
I think that's very valid. So you're right. Overall, P2P software has probably negatively impacted on the RIAA's sales as a whole. But they're still overreacting to the issue in an unfair manner. Rather than attempting to adapt to a reality and settle to, instead of making BUCKETLOADS of money, just make cuploads of money. They're unwilling to release their stranglehold on the industry and move from huge, amazing, phenominal wads of cash simply great big wads of cash.
At least that's the way I see it.
-Trillian
Like many of those on SlashDot, I'm one of those anal people who gets annoyed because calling copyright infringment 'piracy' or 'theft' is factually incorrect. It's obviously not a bunch of people sailing around in three-masted ships yelling, "Arrrgh!"
Likewise, 'theft' is a very specific action by which you deprive the origonal owner of the use an object. If I take your book (or digital camera, or actually break into your house and steal your computer) you can no longer use it. I've taken something specific from you and the only way you can recover the object is to get it back from me.
On the other hand, with copyright infringment, my downloading an MP3 or movie or piece of software does not deprive anyone else of its use. By saying 'theft,' the movie industry, record industry, and software companies are trying to convince you that downloading a piece of software, say Windows XP, that costs $200 at Best Buy is the same as breaking into Microsofts vault and physically stealing $200.
But it's not.
That isn't to say it's not morally wrong. You need to decide that for yourself. And it's undeniably illegal. No one is trying to argue that. (Although you could make an argument that the punishment the RIAA is attempting to extract is grossly out of proportion to the crime. And many people _are_ arguing that.)
But by downloading software or MP3s or movies or whatever, you're not depriving anyone else from the ability to watch that movie, play that song, or use that software. That's why digital information is so complicated. Because you can copy it, with very little difficulty, and without depriving anyone else of its use. By downloading "American Beauty" to my computer, I haven't prevented anyone else from watching it.
And, arguably, I haven't cost the movie industry anything.
See, the argument they ("they" being the movie industry, MPAA, record industry, RIAA, and various software companies like Microsoft) are trying to put forth is that for every piece of software or music or movie downloaded, that's a literal sale that they have lost. But I was never going to buy "American Beauty." If I hadn't been able to download it, I would have just settled for not having it. They've lost exactly no money by me downloading it.
Yes, there are people who WOULD have gone to buy the movie if they had no other option, and would have gone to buy the CD if they had no other option, and are now happily downloading stuff from KaZaA. They constitute the "lost sales" the RIAA keeps whining about.
But maybe the RIAA/MPAA/software company/etc/etc should be doing a little more to keep their customers (better products? lower prices? But that would be UNAMERICAN!!) rather than attempting to sue them into oblivion.
This is my personal justification, and you're welcome to agree with it or not. But the numbers simply don't support what "They" are saying: that "piracy" is costing the RIAA/MPAA/software industry billions of dollars a year.
For example, record sales are down. You can look at the many stats the RIAA releases and see this.
The RIAA would have you beleive it's because of the "horrors of piracy." But might it be because the economy as a whole is doing poorly? So people are less likely to buy entertainment? Or maybe CD prices (on average, as there are some exceptions) went up again? Or maybe it's just because the RIAA keeps putting out crappy music that no one wants to listen to?
No. It's obviously "piracy."
So copyright infringment is still illegal. I've broken the law by downloading "American Beauty." But whether or not it's morally wrong is for the downloader to decide for themself.
Forgive me for ranting, and feel free to post a response in which you disagree. I know I'm taking a radical position here, and one a lot of people in "the real world" (i.e. outside of slashdot) don't agree with. But by calling copyright infrigment 'piracy' or 'theft,' you're buying into the idea that downloading an MP3 is worse than it really is. Th
ByrnM,
I didn't think you were asking for one, but I wanted to appologize. Rereading your origonal post and my reply, I was disproportionately rude. I honestly hadn't thought about 'suport' as response time from Blizzard, and you're right. At an individual level, their support is supposed to be shit. Luckily, I haven't had to deal with it.
I still disagree about lack of re-playability, but I think you should have been more specific with your origonal post because comparisons to Baulders Gate or Neverwinter Nights are valid.
I had also forgotten that the game _required_ you to watch the videos. You're right, that's f*ing stupid.
So I still disagree with you, and think that what I said is valid, but I just wanted to let you know I thought my response to your origonal post was overly rude.
-Trillian
Unfortunatly, no. I was quite surprised to see what is my standard online persona inhabited by someone else at Sluggy.net, I can tell you...
But being the huge sluggy fan that I am, I couldn't imagine having a problem with it.
I've gotten a number of people ask "Trillian like the IM software?" but you're the first to ask if I was the Trillian from Sluggy. =)
The truth is much less exciting. Lifted straight from the Holy Writ, Trillian from Adams' "Hitchikers Guide to the Galaxy."
Sorry to disapoint!
-Trillian
Slashdot may not post objective, neutral news stories, but at least you're never rude or over-the-top when you reply to people! It's so nice to see a reply that's calm, objective, and doesn't begin, "Read my post, fuckhead," and don't resort to making character judgements like, "You're just some self-righteous jackass."
Oh. Wait...
And wait just a minute. Your origonal post said, "There are thousands of better and newer games than Diablo II, yet one patch for this game makes it onto Slashdot." That sure as hell sounds to me like you were talking about Diablo 2 not being news. How else, exactly, was I supposed to read that sentence?
And, because you're obviously the expert in objectivity, may I ask you to write a neutral post about the release of the 1.1 patch? The post that exists is lifted, verbatum, from the Battle.net site. So it's obviously not as objective as you'd like, but it does for the most part simply list new features. The patch IS the largest to date, has a new lader system, etc, etc, etc.
I'm eagerly awaiting what I'm sure will blow us away as a calm, objective, and most importantly neutral example of how one SHOULD post news storys on Slashdot.
-Trillian
BrynM said, "Since the game follows a direct story line, there isn't a whole lot of re-playability as well."
I agree with some of the other things you said. I know a lot of people had problems with the 1.09 patch, and I think it would have been awesome if Blizzard allowed an open server or whatnot for people to mod however the hell they wanted.
And there are valid complaints about Diabo 2. If you didn't like Diablo, D2 didn't bring anything new to the table. It's graphics are getting outdated. The player economy is shit. People abuse experience runs and whatnot. Half the items out there are dupes. (In theory, some of these issues are addressed in the v1.1 patch.) But to say Diablo 2 doesn't have a whole lot of re-playabliity is one of the dumbest things I've ever heard said about Diablo 2.
The stoy was always weak and, beyond the first time through, never the reason to play the game. Having a blast with friends on multiplayer, leveling for that next skill level, killing monsters to get that next killer item; these are the reasons people play Diablo 2. Saying that it has a bad storyline so it's not fun to play is like saying Mortal Kombat or (insert fighting game here) is stupid because the story sucks. It's like saying no one wants to replay Mario because the story is predictable. It's like saying Tetris isn't fun because it doesn't end. Diablo 2 was never about the story. It was about everything else, and a lot of people think Blizzard did an amazing job with that "everything else." So there are valid reasons not to like Diablo 2. Even just, "I don't enjoy that type of game," is perfectly valid. But complaining about the STORYLINE? That's just avoiding the issue, and making yourself sound like an idiot.
BrynM said, "Diablo and Diablo II are great games that broke a lot of new ground, but Blizzard's support and lack of modding have ruined them for me at least."
How have they had lack of support? The fact that their servers are still even UP shows support for the damn game. Up and FREE. And, obviously, they're still releasing patches (albiet slower than slow). So I would say that, yes, they're still supporting the game.
Lack of modding is a different issue, and the only valid one I think you bring up. They could have opened a server, or allowed others to run private servers, where people could mod the game however the hell they wanted. They could have made cool (and probably relatively simple) tools for new monster creation, or even item creation. Don't let people on the main "closed" network, but let them play however the hell they want anywhere else. So yeah, I think that would have been great. And if without modding, the game isn't enough to still keep you, then so be it. That's your call, and only you can decide if you still have fun playing a game.
(And, without installing the movie files, the game is well under 1 GB. It still has a large system footprint, around 700 MB, if I remember correctly, but don't exagerate. Makes you look like an inflamatory whiner.)
But don't just make up arguments to complain about nothing.
-Trillian
A large portion of games.slashdot.org is some form of "advertising." Posting about the latest multiplayer mod for Grand Theft Auto is advertising. Talking about There, Inc. launching is advertising. The Lord of the Rings pinball machine? Adverstising.
The reason it's not truly "advertising" is because we now get to talk about it here. I'm really looking forward to what people have to say about the mod, if anyone discovers the new world-event, etc, etc. If you don't like the patch, you're more than welcome to voice your opinion here. And I'd be more than happy to read it.
But Diablo 2 is a phenominon. For a developer to acknowledge that their TWO YEAR OLD game is still one of the best multiplayer games around, to continue to support it through a FREE online system (ignoring their treatment of attempts to port battle.net to Linux*, which I would agree Blizzard handled poorly), and STILL patching the damn game? How many games don't get a single patch? For Blizzard delevopers to still be updating and fine-tuning a game this long after its release, and for people to STILL enjoy playing it is fucking incredible.
And I call Bullshit. "There are thousands of better and newer games than Diablo II." Part of the reason this IS a news story is that Diablo 2 is so old, but still updated and played. And while there are undoubtedly thousands of newer games, I'd challenge you to list thousands of better ones that are in the same genre. Battlefield 1942, Super Smash Bros, Grand Theft Auto...sure, you can build a long list of amazing games. I wouldn't nescesarily say Diablo 2 is "better" than any or all of them. And a lot of them will be have multiplayer aspects, either online or by playing with multiple people on the same TV. But there hasn't been a game since Diablo 2 that satisfies the unique hunger D2 players develope. Dungeon Siege didn't do it. It was pretty, but there was something lacking. Neverwinter Nights was aimed at creating a slightly different experience, and while I'm told the multiplayer games can be amazingly fun, still isn't the same thing. In the same way that a desire to play Super Smash Bros can only be quenched by playing Super Smash Bros, Diablo 2 is a sweet, sweet, addictive crack to those who partake in it.
The tagline of Slashdot, as I'm sure you know, is "News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters." Well, I'd say the release of what is supposed to be the largest and most significant patch to a game that, like it or not, is one of the largest gaming landmarks ever, qualifies (for me) for both of those things.
(A quick note before I'm flamed: I don't mean Diablo 2's gameplay is revolutionary. It's not. But Blizzard somehow got it "just right" in a way that, I would say, no other game has done since. Just like I STILL think StarCraft is THE comparison when judging RTS games, although others have come close, I would say DIablo 2 is STILL the comparison when judging dungeon hackers.)
As I was saying: Posting about D2 is News for Nerds, and I think it Matters. There are posts on the main page all the time that I don't particularly think matter, but I don't bitch and complain because I understand they might be relevant to other people.
So quit yer bitching. There were long and heated discussions about Blizzard after they shut down the unauthorized Battle.net accessing software. (The name escapes me at the moment.) Many people vowed never to support Blizzard again, and they're more than welcome not to. But for the rest of us, I don't think it's unfair to be allowed some posts concerning WE stil believe to be a damn fine game.
-Trillian
*I know this is an oversimplification of what happened.
tessaiga said, "See, in most universities, there are these conveniently-located buildings called libraries, that have copies of just about every book for every class you'll take there. Many even have copies on reserve, so that they're never all checked out at once. The same building also has these fancy devices called photocopiers, which are good at high-volume duplication of paper."
Touche. I honestly hadn't thought of that. But we're talking the tiny things that differentiate between those who go to great lengths to be cheap and those who are lazy-cheap.
Myself, I'm lazy-cheap. I could have ripped movies from DVDs I've rented. I've tried it before, but never had the patience to do it. It's admitadly not a lot of work. Leave a program to rip the sound and video, splice 'em back together, and there ya go. But it takes _some_ effort for what could be _none_. When I learned about filesharing within the university network a few days ago, I hopped on and have, in the last 48 hours, downloaded no less than 15 movies, a season of "Family Guy," and a couple random humorous short movies. And this is all stuff other students at my specific school are sharing.
(Now that I've posted this, I'll expect my subpoena in the next couple days...)
Likewise, photocopying books is cheap, but not lazy-cheap. Having an automated program fetch the book for you, and then sit and wait for it to print (akin to sitting and waiting for a movie to download) strikes me as the perfect definition of lazy-cheap.
So yes, I agree that shutting down the entire idea is a knee-jerk reflex. I think the cookbook and reference book examples are good, too. But I think there are valid reasons (from a publisher's standpoint) to not have textbooks included. If there was never a program to automate it, it would simply stay 'cheap' and not many people would do it. But if someone wrote a program to automate the collection (which isn't too far fetched) I, and many other 'lazy-cheap' college students, would be at the library printing.
And, while we can argue back and forth about the problems with the copyright system (and I do think there are many problems) it is in large part college students who at least BEGAN what the copyright holders view as 'the problem.' As broadband has spread, so did Napster, and now so does KaZaA and its friends. So now the copyright issues are being 'addressed' by more people, 50 million strong, in the form of copyright-violating downloads and uploads. But the first ones on board were the college students. This isn't BLAMING college students. I would say the problem lies in the copyright system itself, as well as the economing model the **AA is trying to cling to. But college students brought the issue to a burn.
I don't think simply cutting off the technology is the right way to do it, and I'd much rather see publishers drop book prices than get Amazon in legal trouble. But I can understand WHY they're doing it. Likewise, I understand WHY the **AA is attempting to stop filesharing. I disagree with WHAT they're doing, but I understand WHY.
-Trillian
JayBlalock said, "But, do you honestly think the number of people who would go to such lengths to get a free book would outnumber those who buy a book because they've verified it contains the information they want? It's not like in your scenario, the publishers are losing hundreds in book sales. That same group of students would, logically, band together and buy ONE book to share otherwise."
Well, yes and no.
I agree that, overall, the number of people who would go to such lengths would NOT outnumber those who buy a book because they verified its contents. That is, OVERALL, I think this system could increase sales.
But college students are a different kettle of fish. This is a group of people that, as a regular social activity, shares, downloads, and watches movies on our computers. And enough of us have been raised computer literate to help teach those who aren't. So while publishers in general might not lose hundreds of book sales, I think a system like this could potentially kill (or at least maim) on-campus book stores.
With a system like this, coupled with even two or three people per class who knew how to abuse it, a class as a whole could (like I theorized in my above post) have a 'book party' where the three people who downloaded their sections of the book meet with everyone at the library, they all pay their $15 to print the couple hundred pages, and they all get their books.
I'll give two potential real world examples: I can see my computer programing class (~45 computer literate people) meeting to do this, easy. Hell, someone in the class could probably write the program to do it. (Not myself. Not because I wouldn't want to, but because I wouldn't know how. But there are definatly those who would.) And, on the other end of the spectrum, I can also see people like myself talking to my Analysis and Performance of Literature class and aranging everyone to meet to save $50 on the mandatory textbook. To give me even more incentive to print the book at the library, I'd rather have the book of short stories, plays, and poems that we use for that class bound in a notebook. Easier to make notes, highlight, take pages out for memorization, etc.
Truth be told, I don't know a huge number of people who buy their textbooks from Amazon.com. But looking beyond Amazon.com, I can see something like this causing a drop in textbook sales across the board.
For my own personal and selfish gain, I kind of hope Amazon.com 'wins' this battle. In which case you can meet me in the library next week and we'll print some textbooks. You get the first half, and I'll get the second?
As I said, I think the Authors Guild is overreacting. I think shutting down the system across all books would be a mistake. In fiction, for example, I can only see a system like this increasing sales. But in specific cases, mostly involving education(textbooks, expensive reference sets, etc), I can understnad why publishers would not be happy with the idea of this going through.
-Trillian
Some of the examples given would seem to have little effect on the sales of books. If someone was only going to print out a specific recipe in a cookbook, or a couple of pages in a guidebook, they probably weren't amazingly inclined to get the book anyway.
But near the end of the email Authors Guild rep says, " A student could easily grab the relevant chapter or two out of a book without paying for it. Students certainly have the time and most likely the inclination to do so, and, with the help of some willing colleagues, could print out the entire texts of books in the program."
As a college student, especially in light of the
recent NYT article on textbooks being found half-price or less overseas, it's not unreasonable to think a group of students might get together and pay $15 or $20 to print a couple hundred pages of textbook in the library.
And if someone wrote some nefarious program to log into Amazon as multiple fake accounts to access an entire textbook and download it, everyone would use it. I can easily see textbook-printing rings, with get-togethers at the library to print and distribute free books. Hell, I'd be the first one in line. Paying $500 for a semester of books is rediculous.
So, while I think the reaction of the Authors Guild is a little bit overboard, the email does rasie some valid points.
The email also mentions, in passing, that, "[m]ost fiction titles are not likely to be greatly threatened." It would seem then, that maybe the type of book shold control how many pages you can access. For textbooks or cookbooks or guidebooks or the other topics the Authors Guild fears will be threatened, maybe a compromise could be reached so that only one or two consecutive pages could be accessed. Then, for fiction or books where it is less likely a user would only want a very small portion of the book (and be willing to use Amazon to avoid buying it), more could be accessed.
This would seem to both help address the concerns raised in the email, and allow Amazon to offer this service.
-Trillian
While I think the above post is both very funny and very scary, it appears to come, without credit, from here:4 /23_res ume.html
http://www.buzzflash.com/contributors/03/0
-Trillian
A LONG TIME AGO, IN A GALAXY FAR, FAR AWAY...
I played "Rogue Squadron" on the Nintendo 64. I downloaded and watched in awe the tech demos of "Rogue Squadron 2: Rogue Leader" for GameCube, eagerly awaiting the system's release. When I finally got it in my grubby little hands, I played endlessly for days and, even now, two years after its release, it's still one of the most enjoyable and best looking games for GameCube. I still play on occasion, attempting to get the last gold medals to unlock the final bonus mission. So, naturally, I was more than a little excited when "Rogue Squadron 3: Rebel" Strike was announced.
Again, I downloaded the videos and read all the previews. But this time, I was slightly skeptical. "Rogue Squadron 2" had been so phenomenal and had been so damn pretty, would "Rogue Squadron 3" be able to beat it? LucasArts and Factor 5 have now had years to perfect their GameCube development, but it is the same system. And, come on. We're revisiting the original trilogy AGAIN? After having had no less than fourteen hojillion games covering the same time period? But having played both the demo and now, finally, the release copy of "Rogue Squadron 3: Rebel Strike" (I'll stop writing the whole damn title and just refer to it as RS3 from now on) I can stop wondering how it's going to be, and give my own review of the game.
Quickly, before I begin, I have to be honest. I have not yet explored every single facet of the game. LucasArts is one of the best companies for those who enjoy bonus extras. In the submenus of the "Options" section of the game, there are selections fo unlockable audio commentary, and it was recently made public that RS3 would contain not only the 1980 arcade version of "Star Wars: Episode IV - A New Hope" that the demo disk had, but also a version of the arcade game for "Star Wars: Episode V - The Empire Strikes Back." And, as usual, there are unlockable levels (such as rescuing Princess Leia from the 1st Death Star or escaping Jabba's sail barges) and there are sure to be unlockable ships.
But I've played enough that I can give an in depth review of the game. So, here we go...
CONTROLS:
"IT'S NOT IMPOSSIBLE, I USED TO BULLSEYE WOMPRATS IN MY T-16 BACK HOME!"
-Luke Skywalker, "Star Wars: Episode IV - A New Hope"
We'll start off with gameplay. After all, that's what everyone says is most important. Graphics are, of course, nice, but a game can look pretty and still be abysmal. Rogue Squadron 2 had very controls that were easy to pick up. Your ship went forward, the left shoulder button slowed it down, and the right sped it up. 'A' shot your main gun, and 'B' your secondary, if you had one. Sure, there were ways to do barrel rolls and use your targeting computer, but the basics were simple.
RS3 has stuck to the same set of controls for flying ships (we'll get to on-foot controls in a second). If you were comfortable with Rogue Squadron 2, you can easily pick up a controller and get right into the action. All of the ships handle differently, keeping true to the original trilogy. X-Wings are a solid mix of speed and maneuverability, A-Wings are fast with tight turns and low shields, Y-Wings steer like a cow but can take a beating, and so on. Likewise, the Snow Speeders and Speeder Bikes handle very well and the Speeder Bikes give a really great sense of speed.
My one complaint, which I (and everyone else) had in the RS2 and was sad to see carried on to RS3 was the twitch factor of the controls. The GameCube control stick has a large number of usable angles that the console hardware can recognize. So why does the slightest tilt send my targeting reticle flying to the side of the screen? While it's possible once you get used to the controls, pin-point accuracy is still hard to obtain.
Now for the ground controls (and note I included the Speeder missions above, as they handle like ships). I was nervous when it became clear RS3 would include ground missions. I enjoyed "Shadows of the Empire" for Nintendo 64 a lot, bu
This is off-topic, but you've made me currious. I've done some research on D-Day in the past (minimal, I admit) and, while it certainly cost a disgusting ammount of lives, most historians view it (or something like it) as something that was required to break Germany's back in Europe.
Do you say "I believe that the fact that Normandy was made necessary to be one of the biggest failings of the West over the last centry," to mean that D-Day was the wrong decision at the time? Or that countries in and out of Europe had a responsibility to crush Naziism before Germany gained such strength?
That is, you view D-Day as a specific poor choice within World War II, or that it's a symbol of the failings of Western Civilization to prevent World War II from ever happening?
For what it's worth, I would disagree that D-Day was a bad decission at the time (it was arguably the 'right thing to do') but _would_ agree that it's disgusting Europe, or America, or SOMEONE didn't step in _before_ the 1940s to slap Hitler down like the disgusting power-hungry freak he was.
-Trillian
I've done more than a little reading on the ideas of gender expression and how gender roles in society are shaped and expressed. I am NOT an expert in the field, and don't pretend to be, but may have more knowledge on the subject than the average /.er (And if someone who IS an expert, or even just more well-read than I am, sees me making a factual error, please point it out.)
The concensus among experts seems to be that society is moving towards a much more fluid concept of gender. This has been happening for some time now, with the easy beginnings statges being when women battled for voting rights and later, in the 60s, when equal rights became an issue across race and gender.
For a long time, this has been a one-way battle: women fighting for equal footing with men. There has been an obvious move in this direction. Equal pay initiatives, sexual harrasment policies in work-places, etc. On the more subtle side, women are now able to dress however the hell they want. While there are extremes that would still get odd looks (tons of piercing, lots of leather, etc), men would get the same odd looks if they dressed that way. But a woman wearing shorts and a t-shirt isn't going to get odd looks because she's "dressed like a man."
But there has been very little push in the opposite direction. Only very recently has there been a larger push for men to be able to dress and act in what has traditionally been 'female' gender roles. But, as I said, there has been more and more of a move towards a fluid idea of gender. That is, one that isn't directly tied to what's between your legs.
I think this is, partially, a reflection of that. I'm trying not to read too much into it, because I think it is partially just people fooling around online. But I think it's also a way for people to safely and (most importantly) annonymously experiment with fluid gender roles in a safe environment. This doesn't mean that ANY of the men who play women in online games want to go buy a dress and get a sex change. It just means that the current static gender roles we have in Western culture are outdated and people are beginning to feel constrained by them.
-Trillian