That's not 100% true. There are many circumstances where police are used to direct ordinary citizens and you are required by law to obey their direction.
Directing traffic is one example. Police posted as guards (near a crime scene, or accident for instance) is annother.
I'm no police officer or student of the law, but I suspect there are more examples I can't think of.
I'll concede to you that Iraq had nothing to do with fighting terrorism. I don't think many people who actually follow world events would even question that.
Though I am of the school of thought that disposing of the Hussain regiem was the right thing to do. I'm not convinced our execution was the best it could have been. It may be a case of the medicine being worse than the disease.
That give you an indication of what the Bush administration's priorities have been?
No, it doesn't. The two numbers have nothing to do with one another, as the two conflicts are drastically different. Bush's motives aside, the numbers of troops committed to each theater of operations had nothing to do with the president's competence (or lack there of) and everything to do with the nature of those two disparate scenarios.
In Afghanistan, we were / are fighting against what were for all practical purposes, guerillas, with the assistance of experienced, but under equipped indigenous troops used to fighting in that particular environment. For the most part, we sent in troops and aircraft to break assist the locals in breaking the will of, or destroying the former controlling government / militia.
The strategy that was used was exactly what was called for: (Especially given the land locked nature and difficult terrain of the country) send in a limited number of elite units, aircraft, and Special Forces troops to train, and provide support to the locals in support of what would be essentially a revolutionary war. Then once the back of the enemy was broken and all you had was splintered resistance, use the elite and SF units you have in country to hunt for the remaining pockets of resistance. This is oversimplified, but true to the best of my understanding.
Iraq was a different scenario. When going into Iraq, we faced a standing Army. A standing army that had been demoralized and under-funded / under-equipped since a catastrophic defeat a decade prior, but we could not count on that to make the invasion a "cake walk".
The only realistic way to invade a country with a real standing army is with an army. Lots of ground troops. Use overwhelming force to take down the defenders as quick as possible, while incurring minimal casualties yourself. Then after the regime fell in Iraq, the problem turned from invasion to peace keeping. This we were unprepared for (In my opinion, we should have let the British handle peacekeeping (assuming they would be willing to undertake such a task in the first place), even if it meant putting U.S. troops under the command of a British overall commander. The Brits have much more experience in peacekeeping than we do (contrast the aftermath of the fall of Umm Qasr when the British took control there, to the chaos of the fall of Baghdad when U.S. forces entered). Bush's administration actually slashed the budget for training our troops for peacekeeping / peace-enforcing when he entered office, saying that it was a roll he didn't want our troops to perform. Then in late 2001, a report (warning, PDF) was published making a case for further cutbacks in peacekeeping related duties and training.), but it was still a task that needed massive numbers of troops. Especially given all the remaining resistance. Like it or not, our current task in Iraq is that of an Occupying force. Occupation takes lots of troops.
You can argue with the reasons for going to war all you like. You can even argue that perhaps we didn't think out our exit strategy as well as we should have (or at all). But to suggest that Afghanistan was deprioritized because of Bush's personal agenda is just silly. Fewer troops were sent, because fewer troops were needed for that particular conflict. There are PLENTY of things to pick Bush apart for without having to reach for things like that. (;
Glad someone else remembers. It was called the NES hands free. Introduced in 1989, and was mostly distributed to the Starlight Foundation. Nintendo also sold them at cost to whoever wanted to order one for $120 each.
I realize that you couldn't have just Guessed that and that this is sarcasm, but still, I think most people don't know, here's the link to IGN's coverage of E3 last year where they revealed that Namco is developing Star Fox 2.
n. A game played on a large outdoor course with a series of 9 or 18 holes spaced far apart, the object being to propel a small, hard ball with the use of various clubs into each hole with as few strokes as possible.
When you alow a user to save anywhere, then it takes the challenge out of a game. Quicksave, try a section, damn, died, quickload, repeat until it's done, quickload.
This isn't bad in and of itself, but abusing it is stupid.
What I'd love to see is a combination of the two. Enix did something wonderful when they ported the Dragon Warrior games to the Gameboy Color:
In the origional Dragon Warrior games, you needed to find a save point to save your game. It's usually a king, who asks you "Dost thou wish to record thy deeds in the Imperial Scrolls of Honor?"
But Enix realized what WNight is saying. Some people like to save at any point. Maybe the phone rang and you need to go leave the house for a while because something came up. Maybe dinner is ready. Maybe you're tired and want to go to bed. You don't want to trek 15 minutes back to a king to save, so you can turn off your game.
When they ported the game, they retained the old save system. If you want a save file, you have to save at a king and "record thy deeds". But they also introduced the "field journal". In it, you could save at any point in the game at all. No matter where you were.
What made it diffrent was that when you load a field journal save, it deletes it right away. Once you load it, it's gone. So you *can not* abuse the system to try getting through the same guy over and over and over again with quicksaves.
By adding that one feature, they made it easy for people that just want to stop gameplay, AND kept people from abusing it all at once.
Brilliant. I wish more games would use this system. FPSes, RPGs, it's adaptable to just about anything. Half-Life single player could have used this. Find a scientist, or a computer terminal to create a permanent save, but you can quicksave at any point.
Now, maybe WNight has a point. I like the idea of how Max Payne did things, by limiting your number of saves on higher difaculty levels. Maybe this system can be used on something like that. Developers could have a "Novice" setting where saves are unlimited, not really for the serious gamer, just for fun. "Normal" where the game is played with these restrictions as the developer intended it to be played and perhaps "Hard" or higher for players that want extra challenge.
Personally, however, I agree with the_mad_poster. When I play I hate using quicksaves. When playing a game like Half-Life, I try to use one save per "chapter". Maybe I take my gaming a little too seriously, but I like to play games as they were "intended". Sure, I'll often tweak controls and detail settings, but I always play games through the first time on "default" or "normal" diffaculty, and make a conscious effort not to over save.
That's just me though. I realize not everyone feels the same way. That's why I think difficulty settings are probably the best way of doing things like this.
1.
a. One who robs at sea or plunders the land from the sea without commission from a sovereign nation.
b. A ship used for this purpose.
2. One who preys on others; a plunderer. 3. One who makes use of or reproduces the work of another without authorization.
4. One that operates an unlicensed, illegal television or radio station.
NONE of the super mario games have had the same game play. Ever. With the exception of SMB2 Japan (Lost Levels here in the U.S.).
SMB 1 was the classic, shitty control formula that was ground breaking at the time but doesn't hold up so well.
SMB 2J (LL) was more of the same with diffrent levels. Oh, and Luigi had slightly diffrent control in that one.
SMB 2 was a side scroller, but you didn't kill bad guys by jumping on them, the emphesis ws on throwing things and bad guys.
SMB 3 was slightly like SMB 1, but there were so many game play and control changes as to make it a new game.
SMB World was also, again, similar to 1 and 3. But there was enough of a diffrence to make it unique.
SMB World 2 was NOTHING like any of the others. Mario was barley in it. It was just "Baby Mario" riding on Yoshi's back. Basicly you played Yoshi. Totally diffrent game.
Mario 64 was unique again still. But I though it was bland and uninteresting. They moved to 3D too soon.
Mario Sunshine has something going for it. The water pack makes for fun, diffrent gameplay, and things like the multiple jumps make for lots of crazy manuevering within levels. Maybe if I'd played Mario 64 further through, Id have encountered cool stuff like this, but it just didn't hold my attention.
Zelda I started that series.
Zelda II was a side scroller, and people hated it because it was too diffrent (I think it may have been the best in the series).
Zelda III reminded me of Zelda I a bit. But the first was so simple, and III so complex, that it's hard to compare the two.
Ocarina of Time was like none of the others. It made Hyrule feel like a vast place. Unlike I and III. II did the same. I guess this is why these two are my favorites.
I never played Majora's Mask, but it used OoT's engine. I can understand the two being very similar.
I've hardly played Wind Waker at all, but it seems very OoT like as well, graphics not withstanding.
Pokemon, I can't comment on at all. I've never played any of them.
From my point of view, the biggest thing is that there's no new franchises. Oh wait. Eternal Darkness. Pikmin. Animal Crossing. Damn.
The point is that Critisizing Mario games for being jumping platformers is like critisizing Warcraft for being RTS. Or Half-Life for being FPS. That's just the meat of the series.
I would think that whoever caused the computer to act would be ultimatly responsable. If that someone wrote the OS with malicious code, then whoever wrote the OS. If that someone was a malicious remote user, than the remote user, and if that someone is the PC's owner, then the owner.
The trick is prooving who caused the effect. It's not as simple as prooving who was behind the wheel of a car.
But if by "adult" you mean games that have compley stories or gameplay, or ore otherwise suitable to entertain more mature audiences (without nessisarily resorting to sex or violence) then I'm not sure how you'd pin a number on that. But I am certain the list is much, much larger.
Am I the ONLY slashdoter that doesn't care about cameras?
If there are other prople that can see you there, then what could you be doing that you'd mind a camera seeing?
In other words, these are semi public places. Places with lots of eyes. What's one more with a better more reliable memory of what it saw?
Who cares? This isn't an invasion of privace because it's not some place even remotly private. Now if airlines had private curtained little presidential class rooms, (like on trains) and they stuck cameras in there, maybe that would be diffrent...
I love Nintendo. I really do. I've owned every Nintendo system except for the Virtual Boy.
But consoles like this don't help the problem much.
I wish Nintendo would pull away again and beat Sony. But then I see things like this, and I realize that they're right. I look around me. The kind of people I know who own PS2s by and large, aren't gamers. They're people who play for 5 minutes at a time before going to work in the morning, or who like to Play Grand Theft Auto with all the cheat codes on because they "want to enjoy the game fully".
I look at my library of Gamecube games, and I realize - The Gamecube is rapidly becoming a system for game snobs.
Sony's Playstation really is like MTV. There's a TON of titles there, but seperating the gold from the garbage is real effort.
Besides. Everyone acts like Nintendo is in trouble. Not really. Analists are pretty sure that Nintendo is making a profit on all their console (hardware) sales. They're making a decent chunk of change off fo games too. They're neck and neck in the # 2 spot with Microsoft, but honestly, the business isn't so large that you have to be #1 or you go out of business.
I'd love to see Nintendo be the #1 platform again, but if they're not, well, I can live with that, since they're profitable and they publish great games.
Question: The Famicom (NES) recently celebrated its twentieth anniversary, your thoughts?
Yamauchi-san: Fortunately, many people have the chance to enjoy it. It became impossible to procure a fixed number of parts to continue manufacturing the console, so production will stop this year.
Huh? Are they saying that the origional 8-bit NES / Famicom is STILL IN PRODUCTION? Or at least that it was until this year? Where? And can the top-loader still be had?
Hey, I'm certainly not saying it's a real quote. I just cited that as the earliest reference to the supposed quote.
I agree. I'd love to know when he said that. I'm a fan of quotes and I'm disturbed by the number of quotes that I can't find sources for. I know when and where JFK made his send a man to the moon speach. But I can't find any citation to when Stalin made his famous supposed quote on deaths, tragedy, and statistics. Was it in a speach? Probably not. Was it in a book? Was it in a letter he wrote, or something he said to an aid? I can't find a reliable source to when or where he said it. Yet everyone cites this quote to Stalin.
You are correct though. You can not (usually) prove a negative.
There. That's why you don't have to use mame. Sometimes companies DO want to port their old code to new machines. And emmulation dilutes the value of that.
Just like piracy dilutes the value of retail software.
Emmulation people like to pretend that emmulation is somehow diffrent than regular software piracy because "it's only old / out of print games!"
Well, sometimes a company can stop selling one product to sell another. Not to mention that it wouldn't be profitable for say, Atari to still sell Ms. Pacman for the 2600. Not enough people would be buying it to justify production costs these days. But they can (and if the demand is there, they often do) rerelease classic games to new consoles.
Slashdot Mirror
Why is that so offensive? The new Pikmin game has things like cans of Kiwi shoe polish. Is that offensive too? Why or why not?
That's not 100% true. There are many circumstances where police are used to direct ordinary citizens and you are required by law to obey their direction.
Directing traffic is one example. Police posted as guards (near a crime scene, or accident for instance) is annother.
I'm no police officer or student of the law, but I suspect there are more examples I can't think of.
I'll concede to you that Iraq had nothing to do with fighting terrorism. I don't think many people who actually follow world events would even question that.
Though I am of the school of thought that disposing of the Hussain regiem was the right thing to do. I'm not convinced our execution was the best it could have been. It may be a case of the medicine being worse than the disease.
That give you an indication of what the Bush administration's priorities have been?
;
No, it doesn't. The two numbers have nothing to do with one another, as the two conflicts are drastically different. Bush's motives aside, the numbers of troops committed to each theater of operations had nothing to do with the president's competence (or lack there of) and everything to do with the nature of those two disparate scenarios.
In Afghanistan, we were / are fighting against what were for all practical purposes, guerillas, with the assistance of experienced, but under equipped indigenous troops used to fighting in that particular environment. For the most part, we sent in troops and aircraft to break assist the locals in breaking the will of, or destroying the former controlling government / militia.
The strategy that was used was exactly what was called for: (Especially given the land locked nature and difficult terrain of the country) send in a limited number of elite units, aircraft, and Special Forces troops to train, and provide support to the locals in support of what would be essentially a revolutionary war. Then once the back of the enemy was broken and all you had was splintered resistance, use the elite and SF units you have in country to hunt for the remaining pockets of resistance. This is oversimplified, but true to the best of my understanding.
Iraq was a different scenario. When going into Iraq, we faced a standing Army. A standing army that had been demoralized and under-funded / under-equipped since a catastrophic defeat a decade prior, but we could not count on that to make the invasion a "cake walk".
The only realistic way to invade a country with a real standing army is with an army. Lots of ground troops. Use overwhelming force to take down the defenders as quick as possible, while incurring minimal casualties yourself. Then after the regime fell in Iraq, the problem turned from invasion to peace keeping. This we were unprepared for (In my opinion, we should have let the British handle peacekeeping (assuming they would be willing to undertake such a task in the first place), even if it meant putting U.S. troops under the command of a British overall commander. The Brits have much more experience in peacekeeping than we do (contrast the aftermath of the fall of Umm Qasr when the British took control there, to the chaos of the fall of Baghdad when U.S. forces entered). Bush's administration actually slashed the budget for training our troops for peacekeeping / peace-enforcing when he entered office, saying that it was a roll he didn't want our troops to perform. Then in late 2001, a report (warning, PDF) was published making a case for further cutbacks in peacekeeping related duties and training.), but it was still a task that needed massive numbers of troops. Especially given all the remaining resistance. Like it or not, our current task in Iraq is that of an Occupying force. Occupation takes lots of troops.
You can argue with the reasons for going to war all you like. You can even argue that perhaps we didn't think out our exit strategy as well as we should have (or at all). But to suggest that Afghanistan was deprioritized because of Bush's personal agenda is just silly. Fewer troops were sent, because fewer troops were needed for that particular conflict. There are PLENTY of things to pick Bush apart for without having to reach for things like that. (
Glad someone else remembers. It was called the NES hands free. Introduced in 1989, and was mostly distributed to the Starlight Foundation. Nintendo also sold them at cost to whoever wanted to order one for $120 each.
Well that's why it won't need a hard drive. ( :
That was never finished, much less released. Also, Star Fox 2 is a tennative title for what Namco is developing.
I realize that you couldn't have just Guessed that and that this is sarcasm, but still, I think most people don't know, here's the link to IGN's coverage of E3 last year where they revealed that Namco is developing Star Fox 2.
"golf
n. A game played on a large outdoor course with a series of 9 or 18 holes spaced far apart, the object being to propel a small, hard ball with the use of various clubs into each hole with as few strokes as possible.
intr.v. golfed, golfing, golfs
To play this game."
Gameplay.
When you alow a user to save anywhere, then it takes the challenge out of a game. Quicksave, try a section, damn, died, quickload, repeat until it's done, quickload.
This isn't bad in and of itself, but abusing it is stupid.
What I'd love to see is a combination of the two. Enix did something wonderful when they ported the Dragon Warrior games to the Gameboy Color:
In the origional Dragon Warrior games, you needed to find a save point to save your game. It's usually a king, who asks you "Dost thou wish to record thy deeds in the Imperial Scrolls of Honor?"
But Enix realized what WNight is saying. Some people like to save at any point. Maybe the phone rang and you need to go leave the house for a while because something came up. Maybe dinner is ready. Maybe you're tired and want to go to bed. You don't want to trek 15 minutes back to a king to save, so you can turn off your game.
When they ported the game, they retained the old save system. If you want a save file, you have to save at a king and "record thy deeds". But they also introduced the "field journal". In it, you could save at any point in the game at all. No matter where you were.
What made it diffrent was that when you load a field journal save, it deletes it right away. Once you load it, it's gone. So you *can not* abuse the system to try getting through the same guy over and over and over again with quicksaves.
By adding that one feature, they made it easy for people that just want to stop gameplay, AND kept people from abusing it all at once.
Brilliant. I wish more games would use this system. FPSes, RPGs, it's adaptable to just about anything. Half-Life single player could have used this. Find a scientist, or a computer terminal to create a permanent save, but you can quicksave at any point.
Now, maybe WNight has a point. I like the idea of how Max Payne did things, by limiting your number of saves on higher difaculty levels. Maybe this system can be used on something like that. Developers could have a "Novice" setting where saves are unlimited, not really for the serious gamer, just for fun. "Normal" where the game is played with these restrictions as the developer intended it to be played and perhaps "Hard" or higher for players that want extra challenge.
Personally, however, I agree with the_mad_poster. When I play I hate using quicksaves. When playing a game like Half-Life, I try to use one save per "chapter". Maybe I take my gaming a little too seriously, but I like to play games as they were "intended". Sure, I'll often tweak controls and detail settings, but I always play games through the first time on "default" or "normal" diffaculty, and make a conscious effort not to over save.
That's just me though. I realize not everyone feels the same way. That's why I think difficulty settings are probably the best way of doing things like this.
It's funny because it's so true!
Please don't try to be pedantic. Sometimes words in english have more than one meaning.
From dictionary.reference.com:
pirate
n.
1.
a. One who robs at sea or plunders the land from the sea without commission from a sovereign nation.
b. A ship used for this purpose.
2. One who preys on others; a plunderer.
3. One who makes use of or reproduces the work of another without authorization.
4. One that operates an unlicensed, illegal television or radio station.
NONE of the super mario games have had the same game play. Ever. With the exception of SMB2 Japan (Lost Levels here in the U.S.).
SMB 1 was the classic, shitty control formula that was ground breaking at the time but doesn't hold up so well.
SMB 2J (LL) was more of the same with diffrent levels. Oh, and Luigi had slightly diffrent control in that one.
SMB 2 was a side scroller, but you didn't kill bad guys by jumping on them, the emphesis ws on throwing things and bad guys.
SMB 3 was slightly like SMB 1, but there were so many game play and control changes as to make it a new game.
SMB World was also, again, similar to 1 and 3. But there was enough of a diffrence to make it unique.
SMB World 2 was NOTHING like any of the others. Mario was barley in it. It was just "Baby Mario" riding on Yoshi's back. Basicly you played Yoshi. Totally diffrent game.
Mario 64 was unique again still. But I though it was bland and uninteresting. They moved to 3D too soon.
Mario Sunshine has something going for it. The water pack makes for fun, diffrent gameplay, and things like the multiple jumps make for lots of crazy manuevering within levels. Maybe if I'd played Mario 64 further through, Id have encountered cool stuff like this, but it just didn't hold my attention.
Zelda I started that series.
Zelda II was a side scroller, and people hated it because it was too diffrent (I think it may have been the best in the series).
Zelda III reminded me of Zelda I a bit. But the first was so simple, and III so complex, that it's hard to compare the two.
Ocarina of Time was like none of the others. It made Hyrule feel like a vast place. Unlike I and III. II did the same. I guess this is why these two are my favorites.
I never played Majora's Mask, but it used OoT's engine. I can understand the two being very similar.
I've hardly played Wind Waker at all, but it seems very OoT like as well, graphics not withstanding.
Pokemon, I can't comment on at all. I've never played any of them.
From my point of view, the biggest thing is that there's no new franchises. Oh wait. Eternal Darkness. Pikmin. Animal Crossing. Damn.
The point is that Critisizing Mario games for being jumping platformers is like critisizing Warcraft for being RTS. Or Half-Life for being FPS. That's just the meat of the series.
Go and show them that if they don't write software for your OS, you won't use it on that OS!!! THAT'LL TEACH THEM!
Linux users boycotting a company until they make games for Linux is like Castro saying that Cuba is boycotting American goods.
Apparently he was white on the box art and cartrige label in the U.S. (and presumably Europe) for Kirby's Dream Land.
However, in Japan (where I assume the game was released first) the box art showed Kirby as pink.
I have no idea what was up with the change, since Kirby didn't have his shape shifting abilities until the NES game, which was released a year later.
My only guess is that it was a marketing decision.
I would think that whoever caused the computer to act would be ultimatly responsable. If that someone wrote the OS with malicious code, then whoever wrote the OS. If that someone was a malicious remote user, than the remote user, and if that someone is the PC's owner, then the owner.
The trick is prooving who caused the effect. It's not as simple as prooving who was behind the wheel of a car.
It all depends on your definition.
If you mean "M" rated games, then your answer is provided for you by Nintendo themselves.
There are currentlyexactly 16 "M" rated games for the Gamecube.
But if by "adult" you mean games that have compley stories or gameplay, or ore otherwise suitable to entertain more mature audiences (without nessisarily resorting to sex or violence) then I'm not sure how you'd pin a number on that. But I am certain the list is much, much larger.
You didn't use any punctuation in your posts. I guess that was stupidity too.
Seriously though, anyone with half a brain knows what (s)he meant. Stop being pedantic. It serves no constructive purpose.
Am I the ONLY slashdoter that doesn't care about cameras?
If there are other prople that can see you there, then what could you be doing that you'd mind a camera seeing?
In other words, these are semi public places. Places with lots of eyes. What's one more with a better more reliable memory of what it saw?
Who cares? This isn't an invasion of privace because it's not some place even remotly private. Now if airlines had private curtained little presidential class rooms, (like on trains) and they stuck cameras in there, maybe that would be diffrent...
They have. And it looks awesome. It's just that, frankly. The Half-Life 2 stuff looks MORE awesome, and is overshadowing it.
I love Nintendo. I really do. I've owned every Nintendo system except for the Virtual Boy.
But consoles like this don't help the problem much.
I wish Nintendo would pull away again and beat Sony. But then I see things like this, and I realize that they're right. I look around me. The kind of people I know who own PS2s by and large, aren't gamers. They're people who play for 5 minutes at a time before going to work in the morning, or who like to Play Grand Theft Auto with all the cheat codes on because they "want to enjoy the game fully".
I look at my library of Gamecube games, and I realize - The Gamecube is rapidly becoming a system for game snobs.
Sony's Playstation really is like MTV. There's a TON of titles there, but seperating the gold from the garbage is real effort.
Besides. Everyone acts like Nintendo is in trouble. Not really. Analists are pretty sure that Nintendo is making a profit on all their console (hardware) sales. They're making a decent chunk of change off fo games too. They're neck and neck in the # 2 spot with Microsoft, but honestly, the business isn't so large that you have to be #1 or you go out of business.
I'd love to see Nintendo be the #1 platform again, but if they're not, well, I can live with that, since they're profitable and they publish great games.
Question: The Famicom (NES) recently celebrated its twentieth anniversary, your thoughts?
Yamauchi-san: Fortunately, many people have the chance to enjoy it. It became impossible to procure a fixed number of parts to continue manufacturing the console, so production will stop this year.
Huh? Are they saying that the origional 8-bit NES / Famicom is STILL IN PRODUCTION? Or at least that it was until this year? Where? And can the top-loader still be had?
Hey, I'm certainly not saying it's a real quote. I just cited that as the earliest reference to the supposed quote.
I agree. I'd love to know when he said that. I'm a fan of quotes and I'm disturbed by the number of quotes that I can't find sources for. I know when and where JFK made his send a man to the moon speach. But I can't find any citation to when Stalin made his famous supposed quote on deaths, tragedy, and statistics. Was it in a speach? Probably not. Was it in a book? Was it in a letter he wrote, or something he said to an aid? I can't find a reliable source to when or where he said it. Yet everyone cites this quote to Stalin.
You are correct though. You can not (usually) prove a negative.
Yeah, I can't find it either. The earliest I found definate refference to it was in 1986.
You can buy a new copy right here.
There. That's why you don't have to use mame. Sometimes companies DO want to port their old code to new machines. And emmulation dilutes the value of that.
Just like piracy dilutes the value of retail software.
Emmulation people like to pretend that emmulation is somehow diffrent than regular software piracy because "it's only old / out of print games!"
Well, sometimes a company can stop selling one product to sell another. Not to mention that it wouldn't be profitable for say, Atari to still sell Ms. Pacman for the 2600. Not enough people would be buying it to justify production costs these days. But they can (and if the demand is there, they often do) rerelease classic games to new consoles.