Yup, and with the exception of a few titles (Zelda, RE4, Godfather) that's what I use my Wii for. Local Multiplayer FTW!
Yeah, we love our Wii dearly. Rayman Raving Rabbids is ridiculously fun with the right kind of people. And of course I have SSB: Brawl on reserve. But Gears of War coop mode w/ my brother on a good TV is one of the more unique experiences I've ever had with a game system.
Oh, Hell yeah! I've been a fan of Harmonix games (Karaoke Revolution & Guitar Hero) and if this game is half as good as I expect it to be, I don't see how it won't be Game of the Year.
Yeah they were being worshiped as gaming gods at GDC '06 right after Guitar Hero came out. The Red Octane room at suite night was so packed they were getting away with charging for drinks. I was kinda surprised when they won for Innovation and Game of the Year at the GDC awards... I don't think giving them so much credit for innovation is fair, since they essentially stole the idea from Konami. But their execution was (and is) obviously greatly superior to the old Bemani stuff.
The damn game just needs to come out. November is way too long to wait.:P
I have Oblivion for my PC. I REALLY don't like it. It's like playing an MMO by myself. I have a WoW account if I want to play an MMO by myself. Games to me are meant to be a social experience, preferably with someone in the same room as me.
It's not that I don't like single player games--I love me some Zelda and strategy/rpg games... But I'd rather play with friends.
Which is probably why I already have the deluxe edition of Rock Band on reserve X_x
But as we seem to agree that they do sell consoles at a loss, therefore they must make their money somewhere.
Yes, they make them on games. Developers pay a fee per disc to release on the system.
That only leaves games, so while the exact amount is split, my half-assed math should at least give you an idea of the ratio since Sony/MS/Nintendo probably get a standard percentage.
It's not a percentage. It's usually a flat, per-disc fee. That was why the original Playstation was so much more popular with developers than the N64 despite its hugely inferior hardware: the per disc fee was something like $5 compared to $10 or more for cart fees for the N64. That meant even bad games with low sales numbers could turn a profit.
I don't know it offhand, but I'd probably bet the per-disc fee is somewhere around the $6-$8 range right now for the Xbox 360/PS3, and probably a couple bucks cheaper for the Wii.
And if you wanna be technical about it, selling a console at a loss implies no profit, which means that Microsoft and Sony are so far behind Nintendo it's not really that funny.
No one's implying anything: that's an absolute fact. Microsoft's games division and Sony's game division have been posting losses in the Billions for quite some time. Last year Sony Games racked up a loss of $1.969 Billion, Microsoft Games Division's fiscal year end was a loss of $1.892 Billion (though to be fair, the Zune and a couple other "devices" are in the same division) and Nintendo's end of year profits were $1.915 Billion (they don't have a seperate game division, games are all they do.
was basing calculations off of the money we the consumer handed them, so even at a loss we have handed MS more money then Nintendo.
If you stood on a corner and offered to give everyone who paid you $50 a $100 bill, you'd have lots of consumers giving you money, but that wouldn't help you any financially. If someone else down the block was getting people to give them $100 bills in exchange for hundreds, even if they only got ONE PERSON to do this they'd be better off than you at the end of the day.
This is essentially how Sony/Microsoft's business model works. They let the consumers hurt them by buying the loss-leader (the console) and hope to make back the money over the life of the product with licensing fees for software. This is doubly true for Sony as they're using the PS3 to push their Blu-ray format.
Besides, I am pretty sure they account for the fact they are losing money, they must be making it up somewhere else.
Their shareholders were probably thinking the same thing a year or so ago.
For those that still don't get why I didn't mark MS and Sony in the negative, I made the assumption that as a company they made up the difference elsewhere, therefore the console war itself comes down to the amount of money we turned over to them for their products, not what it cost them to produce it.
Being the number one seller doesn't help you if you go bankrupt doing it.
Hell, MS could spend it's whole budget and give away consoles and they could "win the war". But thats not a very good overall business model.
That was the original XBox business model. They believed they could buy the market. The 360's business model is just a wee bit less suicidal, but pretty much still the same. Microsoft just wants to establish their brand in hopes of winning the market by their third generation system. I think they have a shot at it. I refused to buy an XBox but I recently dropped a good chunk on a brand new 360 Premium. It's a fine system and almost worth the money.
Sony however can kiss my ass if they think I'll pay over $300 for that glorified heat sink they're selling.
I bought a 360 recently and besides Gears of War I'm having a very very hard time justifying spending $60 for pretty much anything on the shelf right now... But then I'm pressed for time and so very selective about games in general... Don't have a lot of time to play a game in hopes it'll work out in the end...;)
They're going based on prior experience where they offered a component out on the GameCube and only 1% of their customers ever used it. They ended up dropping it in a console rev. to save money. The vast vast majority of people do not have TVs capable of progressive scan and so packing in the cable would increase the cost unnecessarily for most buyers. If you want the cable, you will get it.
And honestly the guy saying it looked like crap on his TV probably doesn't even have a 56-inch television, much less a Wii.:P
Actually I was referring to French weapons with recent manufacturing dates stamped on them showing up in Iraq and Afghanistan, not who they sold stuff to 20 years ago. But thanks for playing.
Except that it didn't sink, one of the missiles failed to work properly, and it was still Iraq who launched the attack anyway.
The point isn't who the French sells their weapons to (which is every thug and terrorist with a pocketbook), it's whether or not they have the capability to use them for themselves. Yes, they're real good at machine gunning groups of unarmed protestors, but militaries tend to fight back...
hahahahahaa. WAS you mean. because with the next patches they are going to make it so that many items will only be buyable by people in teams over a level of rating. you wont be able to buy a chestpiece with 1200 rating for example. youll need to make it to 1500. and then you will need 1800 rating to buy a sword.
Except that 1) The new change only applies to weapons. 2) None of the details of this proposed change have been finalized anyway.
Wait, if new zones/quests/storyline doesn't count as content, what DOES?
you talk like you are not playing wow. its not the grind to 70 that matters. its the grind AFTER that.
You talk like someone who totally doesn't understand a casual play style, whatsoever. If you're a hardcore raider type of person, I'm sorry for you. I'm sorry you have to have the absolute best of everything to prove you're better than everyone else. I'd rather just kill them.
Since hitting 70 my "grind" has consisted of working on completing my Primal Mooncloth set, running the instances I've never run before--many of which are good bit more entertaining (if not more challenging) than the old world instances, and as much PvP as I can get away with. Getting keyed for Heroics mostly happened on accident for me (with the exception of Hellfire, but I really liked running Shattered Halls...) and between my tailoring skill and running a couple Heroics once in a while for fun, I can get the gear I need without even setting foot in Kara.
even if you do ok, even getting one piece of arena set, which is the easiest top tier set to acquire (tier 5.5), will take 1 months per piece.
A month per piece (worst case scenarion in a 5v5) which only requires one hour per week of investment on your part. That's a casual player's dream. It's one of the few cases where someone who has five hours a night to invest in grinding doesn't get an automatic leg up.
.... now you are ready to experience endgame instances.
Except the vast majority of players in WoW don't ever care to see any of the endgame instances. Only reason I go to Kara is some guildmates want some pieces out of there and my going (as a holy priest) is their entrance fee with another guild we're cozy with. Otherwise I'd never set foot in there.
what ? tbc came out in february, putting 8 months makes october ? which kinda makes that you are just 4 months away (and thats in the most optimistic view) from the new expansion.
If the expansion comes out before Christmas '08 I'll have a heart attack. Seriously. Blizzard never releases "often and early". It's not what they do.
if it takes 2 months for you to do half of the end game stuff, then you will be 2 months away from the expansion invalidating everything you have and going into grind again.
Wait, what? So you're done the endgame content in two months with two months to spare and it's a bad thing some new content gets added for you to tackle? Are you sure you should be playing an MMO? What are you supposed to do then? Sit on your ass and twiddle your thumbs?
thats not a game. thats player screwing.
If it is, it's only the hardcore raiders getting screwed, not the casual players which make up 85% of the subscriber base, so no one cares.;)
it would be content if they introduced new lands, new adventures without introducing new 10 levels or 20 levels worth of reputation grind to the game along with again 20 levels or worth item grind into the game.
What's the purpose of going to new lands if you aren't going to grow in power? Doing something like that only makes sure whoever is "Top Dog" right now stays there. By adding another ten levels of progression, newer players to the game have a better chance against the old guard. It keeps things from becoming too stratified. The introduction of ten more levels and the new PvP gear system did wonders for PvP, it broke up the concentration of power in the hands of raiders and gave all players a good shot at being effective. Making tradeskill gear viable and introducing the Arena system made things even better.
Assuming Blizzard had gone with your idea and introduced all the Outlands zones but everyone s
especially after they turned the game into a timesink/cashcow by introducing 10 new levels, endless reputation -> item -> item set grinds, by deciding to introduce an expansion each year
Wait... You're upset that they're introducing new content? What are people supposed to do after they hit 70? Just sit there until the end of time? I'd rather have something new to do than do the same thing over and over again for eternity, personally.
People complaining about "grinding" to 70 are usually the same people I see in 70 PvP battlegrounds wearing their level 60 PvP (or even worse, level 60 raid) gear. The "grind" from 60-70 was less than two weeks of real time (not in-game time) for me, as a casual player, and I'd only quested in half the new zones in Outland and run 1/4 of the instances.
A MMO is not meant to be winnable. You don't get to the "end" and sit above everyone, unassailable. The game moves on. You move with it. If you want a game where you can be permanently better than everyone else, go somewhere else.
Try playing a mage using the rules from AD&D First Edition and see if you still say this.
Well to be fair, I started playing in Second Edition (though I have the First Edition box set I could go back and read to verify this), and I don't think that much changed between first and second edition mage-wise. The "elf casts sleep" trick still works in second edition. Second Edition had Mage Armor and Shield (Which is where I think I remember Shield being 5 AC instead of 4AC from), but I can't say for sure if they existed in first edition.
Second edition mages were more abusable than third, however, in my opinion. You could specialize as a necromancer, get a 1st level spell that animated animals, buy 100 chickens (at 1cp each) and animate them day-by-day as chicken zombies or skeletons. You get 200 experience points per spell-cast (which thankfully went away in third edition) so at most after 10 days you're level 2 and have 10 undead chickens. Undead in 2nd edition caused fear, so it was pathetically easy to beat low level humans and demihumans with swarms of undead chickens and then it's downhill from there. Otherwise specialize as an illusionist and make an illusion of a dancing sword while you hide and have it kill your enemies. There's plenty of other abuses, but I can't remember them off the top fo my head right now.
I don't think your AC calculations are very realistic:
The Shield spell only gives +4 to AC, and at first level, it only lasts 1 minute.
Yeah, I borked that. Typo, sorry.
Casting both shield and mage armor will use up both your first level spells.
The slash between mage armor and shield was meant to denote an OR, not an AND. At that level you really only need to cast one or the other, and mage armor is usually the better choice (unless you're expecting magic missiles)
Getting +5 to AC from dex at first level is pretty extreme - I think wizards need int for casting high level spells someday more than the dex.
20 dex is totally within the realm of starting stats for an elf wizard. You have to live long enough to be able to cast those high level spells, and a high dex is very helpful in that regard. I'd much rather have 20 dex and 16 int than 18 dex and 18 int as an elf wizard, but that's just me.
I like the idea of using the elf immunity to sleep, but I don't think its broken.
No, it's not that broken. But it is abusable. You can easily solo entire groups of CR1 mobs that way.
At first level, you'd get to cast sleep twice (or once if you memorize mage armor or magic missile).
Yeah but it's meant to be used judiciously, not constantly. A front-line fighter at first level can only go about one or two fights without needing healing. Everyone's very limited at first level. Although specializing in enchantment would give you an extra spell slot for sleep. Most Wizards seem to want to go either Evocation, Illusion, or Necromancy though.
There's a "spell points" system available as an option for 3.5 (In Unearthed Arcana, I believe) and they have hinted at something like that in 4.0.
I strongly disagree with anyone's assertion that a low level mage in D&D is underpowered. I keep seeing this argument over and over again (on Slashdot especially) and I just can't understand it. If you can't figure out how to abuse your spells, then play a fighter and learn how to do it by watching someone more experienced play the party mage. There's a plethora of spells available at low levels that can be completely game imbalancing. Most become useless at higher levels, but then you've got gems like cone of cold and chain lightning to throw around. It's just a thinking man's game.
Here's a recipe for easy-mode as a wizard for the future: roll your level 1 mage as an Elf and pick Sleep as one of your starting spells. Stay away from your party and whenever someone gets close to you, drop a sleep spell at your feet. Easy kills. You can easily have the highest AC in the party at level 1 (+4 mage armor/+5 Shield spell and +5 dex if you're an elf) and that D4 hit die can be really helped by picking Toughness or a decent con bonus... Though you might want to pick Combat Casting over Toughness... And since you're an Elf, you can take a longsword as your starting weapon. So use magic missile/light crossbow at range and sleep + longsword coup-de-grace if your enemies get too close. Other ridiculously overpowered spells at first level you could look into are Color Spray, Charm Person, True Strike, etc. And then when you hit level 3 you can pick up Invisibility and Scorching Ray and then the fun really starts.
So what do you do if the Cleric has Trueseeing up or passes his listen check (since you're a *large* munchkin & you probably don't have points in DEX)?
Well the potion of silence (What a frickin' abuse of potion rules) would theoretically negate the Cleric's ability to make listen checks as well as spell cast. However as I pointed out in my response to the guy, the cleric was a Drow, so he ignores the silence effect with his spell resistance anyway.
Funnily enough in the fight I quoted he did have true-seeing up since they were fighting a Shadow Dragon in the dark and they're frickin' hard to see.
Hits you with a greater dispel?
Ehhh use invisibility purge, lower level and more effective in this case. You'd have to area-cast greater dispel if you couldn't see the guy and that will remove your own buffs.
Then Destruction or a similar fort / will save vs death spell?
I'm a big fan of harm myself, but both harm and destruction have the problem of being touch attacks. Plus there's the fact that he's trying to pretend he's a wizard, so either of those spells would be a give away. If I had no other choice, though, Hold Person would probably be what I would go for, before trying to touch a rogue.
1.) Clerics have no problem casting spells near rogues, especially if they have Combat Casting or Skill Focus: Concentration. Or are in Defensive Casting mode, or all 3.
Well to be fair he was depending on his potion of silence to win the day.
2.) I'm pretty sure you can't take 3 sneak attacks in one round if your opponent isn't flanked.
Technically you can sneak attack whenever your opponent is denied their dex bonus to AC, which in the case of having greater invisibility cast on you while attacking is usually true. So that's within the rules.
Ahhh that reminds me of my days as a Kobold Thief/Priest in AD&D 2nd. Cast silence on a rock, put on ring of greater invisibility (actually existed in a 1st edition module, the idiots) and then walk up and 5x backstab a caster over and over. Those were the days.
Couple problems with your idea:
Brilliant energy does ignore the +3 glamered full plate he's wearing, yes, but not the moderate fortification on it. So your sneak attacks only have a 25% success rate. He does have combat casting and is a munchkin himself so he also has a several potions of invisibility. Chances are he would managed to drink one before he died. Then there's the problem of his spell resistance as he is a Drow and so at level 17 he actually has a SR of 28. Whoops, a potion of silence has a caster level of 3 so it's not possible for you to affect him with it. So then it's Quickened Sanctuary, Heal, True Seeing, and then you're a 150 point Harm spell away from being a really awesome zombie. Or chances are, since he's insane he'll do something silly like drop a quickened (Rod of Metamagic, Quicken) maximized fireball at his feet followed up by a cone of cold. With his Insanity bonus to spell DC the rogue is not making the save, so his evasion doesn't matter. Even a normal Drow cleric who doesn't have access to elemental wizard spells would be fine. Just follow up Sanctuary with Invisibility Purge. A non-drow Cleric at that level might have some trouble, but that's their own dumb fault if they haven't invested in some spell resistance or fortification for their armor.
Even if you managed to kill him, however, there is still the problem of the other cleric in the party, who happens to have had herself purposely turned into a vampire (Wish I was kidding about that) and who also turned the party's fighter while she was at it. 3rd edition fixed the "undead immune to invisibility" bit from earlier editions, so she wouldn't see your rogue right away, but he couldn't hurt her anyway with that weapon and she would probably make the spot check to notice an invisible character on her first attempt. And since she is a Drow as well (but with a lower SR) chances are your silence won't affect her, either. Wash-Rinse-Repeat.
And then there was the level 17 "wizard" in my last game I was running who was secretly a cleric serving the old elder elemental god from 1st ed. throwing 15HD delayed blast fireballs into the face of a shadow dragon this past weekend... -_- None of the fighters in the party could touch it and his ridiculous madness bonus to spell save DC meant the dragon was eating the damage straight up. Sickening, really. Most of the melee classes have just learned to stay out of his way until he's out of spells, and usually if there's anything left it's either A) Fire immune or B) One hit from a dirtnap.
(Curiously, I've never seen such complaints made about Haskell. Perhaps this shows a difference between the insight of your average professional programmer vs. your average language geek academic?)
Mostly because an "average language geek academic" doesn't give a damn about anyone actually ever using their language (or at least anyone but them), and especially not about anyone using it to get any work done. ("Computer Science is no more about computers than astronomy is about telescopes." and all that...)
But that's just the opinion of an average graphics geek academic.
OGL provides the raw basics of graphics, be it 2D or 3D, while Direct-X can be thought of as OGL bundled with APIs that help reduce doing some of the common stuff.
Have you ever coded in OpenGL and DirectX? Both OpenGL and Direct3D are low level 3D graphics APIs.
OpenGL does not provide what is needed to create spheres and other 'complex' objects, so you are left doing this on your own.
If you're talking about JUST raw OpenGL (as in gl.h) then this is correct, but JUST raw Direct3D doesn't provide those things either. OpenGL (and DirectX) come with addon utility libraries, however, that DO provide those features. (Do a google on GLUQuadric and glutCube if you don't believe me). Game developers aren't going to use built in functions like that, though. That's what engines are for: to translate assets into low-level rendering commands.
BTW There are companies that have attempted to port DX to other platforms, but they never seem to go anywhere
That's not entirely true, there's a version of WINE that's pretty good at running DX games under Linux. But that's counterproductive in the long run.
Or we could save the time we spend trying to wrap our brain around a weird way of doing things, actually get some damned WORK done in a useful language, and then knock off thirty minutes early so we can grab a beer on the way home.
Actually this wasn't me but my Aunt in this case... But my Aunt had automatic bill pay set up w/ her bank (I think Whitney) and the bank goofed and mailed the check to the school her kids attend late. The school charged a late fee of $200. The branch manager got on the phone and called the school to beg them to forgive the lateness as it was due to their screwup, and not hers. The school refused, so the bank cut my Aunt a $200 check.
So yes, banks do take care of your customers. If yours doesn't, why are you still banking there?
I used to hang out with a couple University Police officers on my campus (one was my roommate, actually). They dealt with a case where they were called in to handle a guy on PCP. He wasn't exactly aware of what was going on or what he was doing, but five cops could not subdue him. He was throwing them around like ragdolls. Finally he tore enough of his own muscles (yes, I'm serious) to not have the strength to be resist being subdued. I'm pretty sure that he did much more permanent damage to himself than tasering him until he fell over would have done. As well as putting two officers in the hospital for the evening with bruises, sprains, and a couple cracked ribs on one of them.
Another consideration besides "are they on drugs" is "do they have any infectious diseases?". A few shady characters that were banned from campus were known carriers of HIV or Hepatitis that would try to bite/scratch arresting officers.
Of course "non-lethal" weapons can kill. You can kill someone with your fists, if they're used (im)properly. I'd rather take my chances with a heart-attack brought on by a taser than massive blood loss and shock brought on by a gunshot wound.:P
I challenge the rectitude of your stated libertarian intents on just this sig alone, for it implies that you beleive in foreign intervention,
I believe in my government protecting me from foreign threats. I happen to like forms of "protection" that involve large explosions. I would rather said large explosions happen somewhere not within view of my house. I like to sleep in.
Considering "defense against threats both foreign and domestic" is one of the stated goals of the federal government, I do not see how this is contradictory with my libertarian views. Does it put me at odds with the Libertarian party? Sure. If socialists don't have to join the Socialist party, I don't have to join the Libertarian party. If you want to discuss why this makes me "un-libertarian" I'm up for that, but don't talk with links. Use your words.
and are not willing to squarely face the reality of the enemies' visage which you view every morning in the mirror upon awakening.
Is that supposed to be deep?
some crap about Reagan
Wait, when did I say anything about Reagan supporting the mujahideen in Afghanistan being a good thing? Are we having the same conversation?
It's not my fault that the GOP is a scum-filled cesspit, do not pollute my party of choice because of this, go back and clean up you own damn house.
If by your party of choice you mean the Libertarian Party, I think your party is lead by crazy assholes who are no longer associated with reality and I wouldn't want to have anything to do with it, thankyoumuch. Never once did I say I was a member of the Libertarian Party (much like Communists/Socialists can be Democrats and Conservatives can be Republicans). I was formerly registered as a Republican in my state, but only to have some say in the Presidential primary. In the next election, I'll be voting as an Independent (which seems to be where anyone with any sense ends up in my state...), in the true Groucho Marx tradition of "I wouldn't want to be part of any club that would have me as a member..." So don't worry, you and your angry LP friends can go scream yourselves into irrelevance in the corner without me. Meanwhile, I'll be ruling the world.
"You have as much Freedom as you are willing to demand, and as you are capable of defending." has never been more true.
Bingo. Your rights can only be taken if you allow it.
What really surprises me is that anyone thinks this is a new thing unique to this administration. The difference is the reporting on it. Burning people alive in Waco and shooting women in children in Ruby Ridge was "justified force" on "religious fanatics" or "white separatists", government surveillance/harassment of civil rights leaders in the 50s/60s was policing of "subversives" (the few rare times it was actually reported), but people get their panties in a wad about "violating the civil rights" of "terrorists"? I'm not saying they're wrong to be upset, they should be, but where the fuck have they been? Most of the people whining today are old enough to have at least been conscious during waco/ruby ridge/elian gonzales/etc. and yet those incidents are apparently a blank spot in their memory.
Welcome to the real world, folks. If you're worried about your rights being trampled upon, do something about it. I suggest becoming familiar with the phrase "cold dead hands".
If I had to choose between a Senator who hires prostitutes or one who was elected by dead people, I'd choose the former. But then again, as a libertarian I don't see a problem w/ prostitution, I guess...:P
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, we love our Wii dearly. Rayman Raving Rabbids is ridiculously fun with the right kind of people. And of course I have SSB: Brawl on reserve. But Gears of War coop mode w/ my brother on a good TV is one of the more unique experiences I've ever had with a game system.
Yeah they were being worshiped as gaming gods at GDC '06 right after Guitar Hero came out. The Red Octane room at suite night was so packed they were getting away with charging for drinks. I was kinda surprised when they won for Innovation and Game of the Year at the GDC awards... I don't think giving them so much credit for innovation is fair, since they essentially stole the idea from Konami. But their execution was (and is) obviously greatly superior to the old Bemani stuff.
The damn game just needs to come out. November is way too long to wait. :P
I have Oblivion for my PC. I REALLY don't like it. It's like playing an MMO by myself. I have a WoW account if I want to play an MMO by myself. Games to me are meant to be a social experience, preferably with someone in the same room as me.
It's not that I don't like single player games--I love me some Zelda and strategy/rpg games... But I'd rather play with friends.
Which is probably why I already have the deluxe edition of Rock Band on reserve X_x
Yes, they make them on games. Developers pay a fee per disc to release on the system.
It's not a percentage. It's usually a flat, per-disc fee. That was why the original Playstation was so much more popular with developers than the N64 despite its hugely inferior hardware: the per disc fee was something like $5 compared to $10 or more for cart fees for the N64. That meant even bad games with low sales numbers could turn a profit.
I don't know it offhand, but I'd probably bet the per-disc fee is somewhere around the $6-$8 range right now for the Xbox 360/PS3, and probably a couple bucks cheaper for the Wii.
No one's implying anything: that's an absolute fact. Microsoft's games division and Sony's game division have been posting losses in the Billions for quite some time. Last year Sony Games racked up a loss of $1.969 Billion, Microsoft Games Division's fiscal year end was a loss of $1.892 Billion (though to be fair, the Zune and a couple other "devices" are in the same division) and Nintendo's end of year profits were $1.915 Billion (they don't have a seperate game division, games are all they do.
If you stood on a corner and offered to give everyone who paid you $50 a $100 bill, you'd have lots of consumers giving you money, but that wouldn't help you any financially. If someone else down the block was getting people to give them $100 bills in exchange for hundreds, even if they only got ONE PERSON to do this they'd be better off than you at the end of the day.
This is essentially how Sony/Microsoft's business model works. They let the consumers hurt them by buying the loss-leader (the console) and hope to make back the money over the life of the product with licensing fees for software. This is doubly true for Sony as they're using the PS3 to push their Blu-ray format.
Their shareholders were probably thinking the same thing a year or so ago.
Being the number one seller doesn't help you if you go bankrupt doing it.
That was the original XBox business model. They believed they could buy the market. The 360's business model is just a wee bit less suicidal, but pretty much still the same. Microsoft just wants to establish their brand in hopes of winning the market by their third generation system. I think they have a shot at it. I refused to buy an XBox but I recently dropped a good chunk on a brand new 360 Premium. It's a fine system and almost worth the money.
Sony however can kiss my ass if they think I'll pay over $300 for that glorified heat sink they're selling.
I bought a 360 recently and besides Gears of War I'm having a very very hard time justifying spending $60 for pretty much anything on the shelf right now... But then I'm pressed for time and so very selective about games in general... Don't have a lot of time to play a game in hopes it'll work out in the end... ;)
They're going based on prior experience where they offered a component out on the GameCube and only 1% of their customers ever used it. They ended up dropping it in a console rev. to save money. The vast vast majority of people do not have TVs capable of progressive scan and so packing in the cable would increase the cost unnecessarily for most buyers. If you want the cable, you will get it.
:P
And honestly the guy saying it looked like crap on his TV probably doesn't even have a 56-inch television, much less a Wii.
Actually I was referring to French weapons with recent manufacturing dates stamped on them showing up in Iraq and Afghanistan, not who they sold stuff to 20 years ago. But thanks for playing.
Except that it didn't sink, one of the missiles failed to work properly, and it was still Iraq who launched the attack anyway.
The point isn't who the French sells their weapons to (which is every thug and terrorist with a pocketbook), it's whether or not they have the capability to use them for themselves. Yes, they're real good at machine gunning groups of unarmed protestors, but militaries tend to fight back...
Except that 1) The new change only applies to weapons. 2) None of the details of this proposed change have been finalized anyway.
Wait, if new zones/quests/storyline doesn't count as content, what DOES?
You talk like someone who totally doesn't understand a casual play style, whatsoever. If you're a hardcore raider type of person, I'm sorry for you. I'm sorry you have to have the absolute best of everything to prove you're better than everyone else. I'd rather just kill them.
Since hitting 70 my "grind" has consisted of working on completing my Primal Mooncloth set, running the instances I've never run before--many of which are good bit more entertaining (if not more challenging) than the old world instances, and as much PvP as I can get away with. Getting keyed for Heroics mostly happened on accident for me (with the exception of Hellfire, but I really liked running Shattered Halls...) and between my tailoring skill and running a couple Heroics once in a while for fun, I can get the gear I need without even setting foot in Kara.
A month per piece (worst case scenarion in a 5v5) which only requires one hour per week of investment on your part. That's a casual player's dream. It's one of the few cases where someone who has five hours a night to invest in grinding doesn't get an automatic leg up.
Except the vast majority of players in WoW don't ever care to see any of the endgame instances. Only reason I go to Kara is some guildmates want some pieces out of there and my going (as a holy priest) is their entrance fee with another guild we're cozy with. Otherwise I'd never set foot in there.
If the expansion comes out before Christmas '08 I'll have a heart attack. Seriously. Blizzard never releases "often and early". It's not what they do.
Wait, what? So you're done the endgame content in two months with two months to spare and it's a bad thing some new content gets added for you to tackle? Are you sure you should be playing an MMO? What are you supposed to do then? Sit on your ass and twiddle your thumbs?
If it is, it's only the hardcore raiders getting screwed, not the casual players which make up 85% of the subscriber base, so no one cares. ;)
What's the purpose of going to new lands if you aren't going to grow in power? Doing something like that only makes sure whoever is "Top Dog" right now stays there. By adding another ten levels of progression, newer players to the game have a better chance against the old guard. It keeps things from becoming too stratified. The introduction of ten more levels and the new PvP gear system did wonders for PvP, it broke up the concentration of power in the hands of raiders and gave all players a good shot at being effective. Making tradeskill gear viable and introducing the Arena system made things even better.
Assuming Blizzard had gone with your idea and introduced all the Outlands zones but everyone s
Wait... You're upset that they're introducing new content? What are people supposed to do after they hit 70? Just sit there until the end of time? I'd rather have something new to do than do the same thing over and over again for eternity, personally.
People complaining about "grinding" to 70 are usually the same people I see in 70 PvP battlegrounds wearing their level 60 PvP (or even worse, level 60 raid) gear. The "grind" from 60-70 was less than two weeks of real time (not in-game time) for me, as a casual player, and I'd only quested in half the new zones in Outland and run 1/4 of the instances.
A MMO is not meant to be winnable. You don't get to the "end" and sit above everyone, unassailable. The game moves on. You move with it. If you want a game where you can be permanently better than everyone else, go somewhere else.
Second edition mages were more abusable than third, however, in my opinion. You could specialize as a necromancer, get a 1st level spell that animated animals, buy 100 chickens (at 1cp each) and animate them day-by-day as chicken zombies or skeletons. You get 200 experience points per spell-cast (which thankfully went away in third edition) so at most after 10 days you're level 2 and have 10 undead chickens. Undead in 2nd edition caused fear, so it was pathetically easy to beat low level humans and demihumans with swarms of undead chickens and then it's downhill from there. Otherwise specialize as an illusionist and make an illusion of a dancing sword while you hide and have it kill your enemies. There's plenty of other abuses, but I can't remember them off the top fo my head right now.
There's a "spell points" system available as an option for 3.5 (In Unearthed Arcana, I believe) and they have hinted at something like that in 4.0.
I strongly disagree with anyone's assertion that a low level mage in D&D is underpowered. I keep seeing this argument over and over again (on Slashdot especially) and I just can't understand it. If you can't figure out how to abuse your spells, then play a fighter and learn how to do it by watching someone more experienced play the party mage. There's a plethora of spells available at low levels that can be completely game imbalancing. Most become useless at higher levels, but then you've got gems like cone of cold and chain lightning to throw around. It's just a thinking man's game.
Here's a recipe for easy-mode as a wizard for the future: roll your level 1 mage as an Elf and pick Sleep as one of your starting spells. Stay away from your party and whenever someone gets close to you, drop a sleep spell at your feet. Easy kills. You can easily have the highest AC in the party at level 1 (+4 mage armor/+5 Shield spell and +5 dex if you're an elf) and that D4 hit die can be really helped by picking Toughness or a decent con bonus... Though you might want to pick Combat Casting over Toughness... And since you're an Elf, you can take a longsword as your starting weapon. So use magic missile/light crossbow at range and sleep + longsword coup-de-grace if your enemies get too close. Other ridiculously overpowered spells at first level you could look into are Color Spray, Charm Person, True Strike, etc. And then when you hit level 3 you can pick up Invisibility and Scorching Ray and then the fun really starts.
Ahhh that reminds me of my days as a Kobold Thief/Priest in AD&D 2nd. Cast silence on a rock, put on ring of greater invisibility (actually existed in a 1st edition module, the idiots) and then walk up and 5x backstab a caster over and over. Those were the days.
Couple problems with your idea:
Brilliant energy does ignore the +3 glamered full plate he's wearing, yes, but not the moderate fortification on it. So your sneak attacks only have a 25% success rate. He does have combat casting and is a munchkin himself so he also has a several potions of invisibility. Chances are he would managed to drink one before he died. Then there's the problem of his spell resistance as he is a Drow and so at level 17 he actually has a SR of 28. Whoops, a potion of silence has a caster level of 3 so it's not possible for you to affect him with it. So then it's Quickened Sanctuary, Heal, True Seeing, and then you're a 150 point Harm spell away from being a really awesome zombie. Or chances are, since he's insane he'll do something silly like drop a quickened (Rod of Metamagic, Quicken) maximized fireball at his feet followed up by a cone of cold. With his Insanity bonus to spell DC the rogue is not making the save, so his evasion doesn't matter. Even a normal Drow cleric who doesn't have access to elemental wizard spells would be fine. Just follow up Sanctuary with Invisibility Purge. A non-drow Cleric at that level might have some trouble, but that's their own dumb fault if they haven't invested in some spell resistance or fortification for their armor.
Even if you managed to kill him, however, there is still the problem of the other cleric in the party, who happens to have had herself purposely turned into a vampire (Wish I was kidding about that) and who also turned the party's fighter while she was at it. 3rd edition fixed the "undead immune to invisibility" bit from earlier editions, so she wouldn't see your rogue right away, but he couldn't hurt her anyway with that weapon and she would probably make the spot check to notice an invisible character on her first attempt. And since she is a Drow as well (but with a lower SR) chances are your silence won't affect her, either. Wash-Rinse-Repeat.
And then there was the level 17 "wizard" in my last game I was running who was secretly a cleric serving the old elder elemental god from 1st ed. throwing 15HD delayed blast fireballs into the face of a shadow dragon this past weekend... -_- None of the fighters in the party could touch it and his ridiculous madness bonus to spell save DC meant the dragon was eating the damage straight up. Sickening, really. Most of the melee classes have just learned to stay out of his way until he's out of spells, and usually if there's anything left it's either A) Fire immune or B) One hit from a dirtnap.
Mostly because an "average language geek academic" doesn't give a damn about anyone actually ever using their language (or at least anyone but them), and especially not about anyone using it to get any work done. ("Computer Science is no more about computers than astronomy is about telescopes." and all that...)
But that's just the opinion of an average graphics geek academic.
Or we could save the time we spend trying to wrap our brain around a weird way of doing things, actually get some damned WORK done in a useful language, and then knock off thirty minutes early so we can grab a beer on the way home.
I like my way better.
Actually this wasn't me but my Aunt in this case... But my Aunt had automatic bill pay set up w/ her bank (I think Whitney) and the bank goofed and mailed the check to the school her kids attend late. The school charged a late fee of $200. The branch manager got on the phone and called the school to beg them to forgive the lateness as it was due to their screwup, and not hers. The school refused, so the bank cut my Aunt a $200 check.
So yes, banks do take care of your customers. If yours doesn't, why are you still banking there?
I used to hang out with a couple University Police officers on my campus (one was my roommate, actually). They dealt with a case where they were called in to handle a guy on PCP. He wasn't exactly aware of what was going on or what he was doing, but five cops could not subdue him. He was throwing them around like ragdolls. Finally he tore enough of his own muscles (yes, I'm serious) to not have the strength to be resist being subdued. I'm pretty sure that he did much more permanent damage to himself than tasering him until he fell over would have done. As well as putting two officers in the hospital for the evening with bruises, sprains, and a couple cracked ribs on one of them.
Another consideration besides "are they on drugs" is "do they have any infectious diseases?". A few shady characters that were banned from campus were known carriers of HIV or Hepatitis that would try to bite/scratch arresting officers.
Of course "non-lethal" weapons can kill. You can kill someone with your fists, if they're used (im)properly. I'd rather take my chances with a heart-attack brought on by a taser than massive blood loss and shock brought on by a gunshot wound.
Considering "defense against threats both foreign and domestic" is one of the stated goals of the federal government, I do not see how this is contradictory with my libertarian views. Does it put me at odds with the Libertarian party? Sure. If socialists don't have to join the Socialist party, I don't have to join the Libertarian party. If you want to discuss why this makes me "un-libertarian" I'm up for that, but don't talk with links. Use your words.
Is that supposed to be deep?Wait, when did I say anything about Reagan supporting the mujahideen in Afghanistan being a good thing? Are we having the same conversation? If by your party of choice you mean the Libertarian Party, I think your party is lead by crazy assholes who are no longer associated with reality and I wouldn't want to have anything to do with it, thankyoumuch. Never once did I say I was a member of the Libertarian Party (much like Communists/Socialists can be Democrats and Conservatives can be Republicans). I was formerly registered as a Republican in my state, but only to have some say in the Presidential primary. In the next election, I'll be voting as an Independent (which seems to be where anyone with any sense ends up in my state...), in the true Groucho Marx tradition of "I wouldn't want to be part of any club that would have me as a member..." So don't worry, you and your angry LP friends can go scream yourselves into irrelevance in the corner without me. Meanwhile, I'll be ruling the world.
Bingo. Your rights can only be taken if you allow it.
What really surprises me is that anyone thinks this is a new thing unique to this administration. The difference is the reporting on it. Burning people alive in Waco and shooting women in children in Ruby Ridge was "justified force" on "religious fanatics" or "white separatists", government surveillance/harassment of civil rights leaders in the 50s/60s was policing of "subversives" (the few rare times it was actually reported), but people get their panties in a wad about "violating the civil rights" of "terrorists"? I'm not saying they're wrong to be upset, they should be, but where the fuck have they been? Most of the people whining today are old enough to have at least been conscious during waco/ruby ridge/elian gonzales/etc. and yet those incidents are apparently a blank spot in their memory.
Welcome to the real world, folks. If you're worried about your rights being trampled upon, do something about it. I suggest becoming familiar with the phrase "cold dead hands".
If I had to choose between a Senator who hires prostitutes or one who was elected by dead people, I'd choose the former. But then again, as a libertarian I don't see a problem w/ prostitution, I guess... :P
Yup, exactly.
And I was right, Christian Persecution Syndrome... *sigh*