95 Would have been during the High Life of the Super-Nintendo, and the twilight of the Sega Genesis/Sega CD system. PCs were just starting out with the Pentium Processors, so there was a little shred of magic there.
Racing Sims have always confused me. They give you all these options to change, and configure, on your cars, but everything always felt the same. There was this level where you couldn't go any farther with reality.
GT3 is close to a Sim than to Arcade, but only if you play into it a ways. Once you get to those Endurance Races, you'd never feel like playing that game in an arcade. But then again, I had a Miata that was nearly 1200hp, so I guess anything is possible.
NFS is far from a sim, I'll agree, but it's also what most people would think of when you think of video game racing. I've always had more fun seeing how elaborate I can get a crash than how well I can accelerate out of a turn.
There was a point where racers between the console and the PC had some sort of scism, and I don't think that anyone ever realized it. On the PC, you had Need for Speed, and all of the think fast and go sims. On the Console, you had more realistic racing Sims, like GT and Nascar.
Then, somehow, Need for Speed went to Console, and the top racing titles, like Nascar 4, ended up on the PC exclusively. GT3 and all of it's clones were the first titles on consoles that really started to pull stuff back, but since I'm not huge into Nascar or F1, I have never really played all that many racing sims. I gave up after need for speed 2, but GT3 had me entralled for months.
No, I doubt I could imagine playing NWN on a TV. But I play it at 1024x768. On the other hand, I could never imagine seeing Metroid on anything other than my TV screen. It's all about which way you're looking for.
Resolution does not equal good graphics. Final Fantasy X was one of the most beautiful looking games I've seen, on that TV. Crappy graphics are crappy graphics at any resolution.
I remember when I had a 50MHz 486 with 16 megs of ram (which was alot at the time), it wasn't fast, but it ran every game I installed on it (C&C Red Alert, Quake 2...
You needed a Pentium Processor just to play Quake, so I'd think you're thinking of Duke Nukem or Doom 2. But I know what you mean. My 486 100 was great for Doom2 and Duke Nukem 3D. I had never heard of Voodoo, and ATi offered 3D "accelleration". But it was just a feature on the box, and didn't do anything.
And then I saw Quake on a P-133, with a 4meg Voodoo card. Anyone else who saw it knows exactly what I mean when I say: that is why we buy computer technology.
$500 E-Machine and expect it to run everything they throw at it, never run out of space, never break, and run insanely fast. I used to sell computers, and now I work in tech support for them. People love to ask "is this a good computer" when they see that $400 eMachine or HP Pavillion. I couldn't really say "no" at the job, so my response was "there's a reason that a lot of these computers cost $1500." People want to save money, it's the American Consumer's way. But I'd say that most people out there buying that $400 PC want to play things like Deer Hunter, The Sims or Roller Coaster Tycoon. And they whine about the prices of those too.
Online... though X-Box Live is looking pretty good, it's only for broadband users, and PC gaming is far more mature. Still, this was one thing that older consoles were lacking, but no more. To expand on this, I'd talk about PS2 Network Play, which is also a nice system. As broadband drops in price, you'll see this and X-Box Live! start to take over in the online marketplace. It's simple, you get a homogenous online group, and there is a standard tech avaiable there, so you don't really worry about one guy having a great edge because of that Radeon 9700 while you have the GeForce2.
Some types of games do play better on PCs. First person shooters for one, though the GameCube and X-Box both have controllers pretty well suited to FPS style games, so that is becoming less of an issue. Strategy and hardcore RPGs tend to play better on the PC, but for other genres, like platformers and adventure games... well, do these type of games even exist for the PC? The FPS is the strongest suit for the PC, since it has the Mouse/Keyboard combo. I hated the setup when I first used it, back in Quake, but after getting spanked day-in and day-out from a friend that used it, I converted. And while Golden Eye was great, I would never take a console FPS over the PC release.
RPGs conversely, have been the realm of consoles forever. MMOGs, like EverQuest and DAoC, just use the RP portion as a marketing term. They have about as much RPG elements as a menu at McDonalds. Almost every single great RPG from the last 10 years has been on a console, the Final Fantasy series taking the most note. But also Summoner recently, and so many others. PCs have been on the slide, with the strongest titles, Wizardry and Might and Magic, really sucking the last few years. Since they take less interaction, with button pushing and menus, they are just built for the Console market.
As for Platformers: Tomb Raider. And all the clones, hacks, and derivitaves. The whole platform world was made for the Super Mario and Sonic the Hedgehog games out there. And Consoles will always have it sewn up. There are some controllers out there that you can use (I'm partial to my 5 year old MS Sidewinder Game Pad), but the PC has just never really captured all the caracters that made Console Platformers that well.
The one place where the PC will beat the Console almost always, and just because of the mouse, is the Strategy market. Age of Mythology, Warcraft III, Command & Conquer. The list goes on, but I figured I'd name the big ones. Warcraft on the PSX just hurt.
Sports games are probably the biggest place where you see the crossover between PCs and Consoles, and where I purchase the most games. My PS2 is the place where I play those games. NHL came to my PC this year, but only because it was considerably cheaper.
Fighting games also stay on the consoles. I think that industry gave up on the PC years ago. There's a reason. Go play a wrestling game on the PC, or Mortal Kombat. There's a reason.
I have been playing video games nearly all of my life. I started out on consoles with Pitfall and Battle on the Atari 2600 and on PCs playing Radar Rat Race and Jupiter Lander on my Vic 20.
It's come a long way, but really, when I look at it, it hasn't changed all that much. The big problem out there isn't what hardware is superior. That point is moot, since there are so many other factors. Yes, the X-Box is faster than all others, but still dwarfed by a PC. All three systems aren't at the cutting edge, but they were never meant to be.
The difference is in the games available, and what it's running on. Even an X-Box, with it's standard hardware and Lite Win2k will run games better than an optimized Linux Box or WindowsXP Machine. Because that's what it's made to do, and that's all it's made to do. A truck pulls stuff better than a car with a big engine, because trucks are built with that utility in mind, and the entire thing is engineered towards that end (General ommission for anything with "Sport" in the name).
I probably have bought as many Console Games in the last 6 months as I have PC games. Every single one of those Console games got more playing time than the PC games. Even the great gems on the PC, Unreal 2k3 and Neverwinter Nights, got less playing time than Grand Theft Auto: Vice City. I still play it.
What this is about is content, and more than that, convenience. For my PS2, I stick in a disc and I'm on my way to playing. I don't have to worry about installing, configuring, patching and loading on my GameCube. I pop in the little disc and Super Smash Bros. Melee is on the way. And the whole thing of patching isn't confined to just Windows PCs, it's on all PCs. I spent more time configuring and installing video drivers so I could play GLTron in Red Hat than I ever have trying to make a game to work on anything else.
I've had more games on consoles that just dominated my life than I ever did on a PC. Though some, like Doom2 and Quake, came close. There's also something nice about that little piece of hardware that I just have to hook up into my TV and plug in. I know it will be there for me for a while.
I know of two computer games I'm planning on buying in the next six months (Sim City 4, SW Galaxies), and about 5 console games (Metroid, Rygar, etc.) that I plan to purchase in the next couple of months. If I have a choice between console and PC on the game, 9 out of 10 it will go console, even if the graphics are better elsewhere (GTA3 for example).
Price has never really been a concern in the mix, since when you look at it, the only way to get games cheap is to buy them on sale. It's all about whats there. Computer games have been on the slide for a while, and the quality has been suffering. For every single great game we get, we get 5 Roller Coaster Clones, 3 Real Life Sims, and 10 Lame First Person Shooters. On a console, I had Metal Gear Solid 2, Tony Hawk 4... the list goes on a lot farther. I only get my $50 to spend once, so I've gotten a little more picky. I just happen to know where I usually get better play quality, and that's why the numbers have changed.
Re:Not so much neutered, as to short-bus-ized
on
Critics Pan Nemesis
·
· Score: 1
If I bothered to check spelling, than I probably wouldn't be posting on Slashdot all that often. I just always wondered about that name. I can spell T'Pol though, so I should be redeemed.
Well, I'm a Star Trek/Wars fan, but I've also been to see my share of those movies that will never make money because they don't have a Jar-Jar binks in them. Well, Thank God for that.
No, it's not a decline in our cultural landscape, because I would say that those little movies have far less to do with shaping and influencing the culture of America (and several other countries as well) than those Star Trek and Star Wars movies. I loved Swimming With Sharks, a little known Kevin Spacey movie that will literally make you twitch for days. It's well beyond messed up, and into that level of terrifying, because it's so strange, yet you could believe it would happen.
However, I've hated my share of similar movies as well. I wasted $8 on Punch Drunk Love, $16 actually, since I took my girlfriend. Critics loved it, and I took a chance. At the end of the movie I'd known that I'd wasted 2 hours of my life.
"Fanboys" is just a term that people use far too widely. I do not clap at movies, like Star Wars. In fact, I'm known to hit people that do. I enjoy movies, and I think the chance of being entertained at something I know I like (Star Trek) is worth a better risk than some movie that I know nothing about. Critics have been tearing up movies I've liked for years, mostly out of some higher-self of importance that equates art and entertainment to pointlessness and confusion.
I can safely say that I'm not likely to go see Equilibrium. I wasted my $4 on Star Trek (early shows rule), and next week will see Two Towers. I fully expect that this discussion won't happen then, even though it's the exact same concept.
But, to each their own. All I expect is that people go from experience, and not opinion based in speculation.
Not so much neutered, as to short-bus-ized
on
Critics Pan Nemesis
·
· Score: 1
While I think First Contact was the best of the Next Generation series of movies, it will never hold a candle to II and IV, in my mind.
The Borg were something unique, but they as they were, they would never be something great in the movies. They were the best in the arching story lines, before things like the Queen messed them up. While she was a crappy villian, Voyager restored a little bit of faith in it for me. It made her look like a main node for the collective, and she could hear, see, and do anything through them.
I know it seems kind of lame, but sometimes they needed to talk to explain things, so that we weren't just assuming, oh, that collective stuff again. What I wanted to know is why they didn't just find the frequency, and start playing Barry Manalow or something like that over the collective mind.
And you never know with the Borg, they could need companionship because they found a way to get better with it. Or found a way to make sex a weapon. That could explain the nipples. Of course, she was slimy, green, and all that, but what can you do?
I say make a new Next Gen movie, get Picard, bring in Checothe (sp?) and Seven, and it's all good. Then make the Borg not suck, or even give us the Dominion. Or something. I just don't want the series to end on this note...
You know, after having seen it, I would have to agree. I won't give away the movie, but I will say that I felt decidedly let down. I was promised this "fan flick," and instead I got a film that left me disappointed, as a fan. I would think that others feel the same way. You finally see this new slick ship in depth, and the story is about Picard almost exclusively.
I'm a Worf fan, and I'd say that Janeway's cameo had more lines to it than he had in the movie. And Dr. Crusher had less than that. It was an effect thriller, but Star Trek has always been about story. This one was about action. It tried to emulate Khan, and managed to get the crazy badguy, though distill all of what made Khan great out of him. It managed to get the major conflict, but it was too busy pulling in Matrix-esk computer interfaces and Mad Max chase scenes to capture what trek is.
There were little touches, like the humor of small things, and seeing things tie together (like the new shuttle, minus the lame buggy, that paid homage to the Delta Flyer). It was nice to see interfaces actually doing something, instead of being a plastic overlay on a lighted panel. I liked how there was a Tablet PC on Picards desk, and how they made the ship look more real.
I only pray that the whole Generation didn't go out like this. They left it open for other movies, but left it so main characters could leave and not be there.
And on a side note... I don't believe that Federation ships are tactically inferior to Klingon and Romulan ships, and the Enterprise is the flagship of the fleet. Which is odd, since there were no flag officers on the ship, but that's another story. It was more a matter of tactics. The Federation ships could pound Birds of Prey, and were supposed to be an even match to Warbirds. Later ships were topped by Federation ships like the E. But that's more Trek-trivia and less movie review.
What I can say is that as a trek fan, it is still worth seeing. However, I'd say it might be worth risking the sunlight and actually catch a matinee for this one, because I myself would rather have watched Generations or Insurrection over this one.
Actually, I do remember it. It's a legal precedent for Truth in Advertising. However, it's something that companies, especially car companies, get busted for all the time.
Why did you think that you'd see a commercial for some truck or some car doing something amazing, and then never see it again. The FCC busted them, and they can't show it. The same thing happened to Campbell's, and will keep happening as more things get debunked.
Take a business law, marketing, or advertising course at a local college, and they will bring up this case. They also teach what false advertising really means, so you can laugh at people in stores yelling about false advertising when something is sold out. It makes for amusing days at the mall.
It's not pertaining to an inventory problem, since it'll be using prexisting floor machines. It's taking an oppertunity and using it for cash flow. No one is using the systems at night, when the store is closed, so might as well get something for it.
Allow me to say that this was very nicely said. Always glad to see a conherent and valid post.
I work as a Tech Support Professional for a large company (read my posts, you'll figure it out quick), and found out quickly that most places don't hired the most qualified techs for the job. Most ISPs also don't hire the top knotch techs out there, but rather people who put forward the best image.
Word of mouth is a powerful enemy, but not a very useful ally. Most people that are happy with a service will tell two-or-three people, maybe, but most are just content. It's one of those situations that come up when someone asks "who do you get on the internet with?" If it's a good company, they'll say so, but most likely, if not asked, they will not say anything.
The reverse of that is one of the most powerful anti-marketing tools out there. Poor word of mouth spreads like disease in an native village. A person is far more likely to tell of the bad than the good, and those people retell it as if it happened to them.
Of course, bad word of mouth is only really damaging to small companies. AOL is still out there, and there's more negative press on them than Microsoft.
That is the main thing that companies would be trying to protect against is the representation of a tech outside of the workplace. He may be Billy the ISP tech, and if something goes wrong, people will blame the ISP. More like plausable denability. I don't think they took the greatest execution on it, and I don't think it's a firing offense, but then again, I'm not the one giving out the checks.
And as for boycotts and protests, they're just empty threats. There's a concept that most business have that is summed up like this: "We can afford to lose you." A good business will not sacrafice more resources than a contact is worth, especially if that contact will still give them negative press. A client that pays $30 a month to an ISP, then complains about them on boards, and also calls in 10 times a week (at @$10 a shot, let's say), then they can afford to lose them.
What I am curious on is whether these techs that were offering help were doing it in downtime or in freetime. One means they were doing it on the job when not on a call (say, like my typing this post), or if I was doing it at home.
Before I get into refuting your post I will touch on a couple of things. First of all, you may have used a big word, but you also misspelled it. Exceptionally. Second of all, words like STUPID, TIGHT, and IDIOT just serve to diminish any argument you make. On a side note, I will not correct your grammar or terrible use of language.
Now on to the post.
#1- your customer is right, always... if you say otherwise you are an IDIOT. The customer is not always right. The customer is the most important thing to any business, but if they were always right, then they would drive a business under within minutes. A customer can purchase a blender from Target, and use it for a year, and then it breaks. They bring it back in and try to return it. They say it has never has worked. Now, they've had it for a year, and they used it. They have no right to return it, and they need to contact the vendor. It's no different for technical support professionals. You may own a Gateway computer, and you purchase a game for it. Everything else, besides that game, works. That game crashes every time, so who do you call? Gateway? And you expect them to help, and they say no. You have a warranty agreement, and you want help, but they tell you to contact your game vendor. If the customer was right, then they could call who ever they wanted, so long as they could tie it into that company somehow.
#2- encouraging your employees to help your customers in any legal way they can, increases customer satisfaction and therefore profits and bottom line... anyone who disagrees with this is also STUPID. The American consumer is motivated by price and incentive. Positive attitude only serves to not lose customers. Which is more important to a customer: getting help from someone who probably doesn't know the product or service they're requesting help on, or getting the problem fixed? It costs money to pick up the phone, it costs money to pay a rep to talk on that phone, and customers are not happy waiting for a voice to come to the phone. When a rep is fixing something that is outside of a scope of support, then there is someone with a valid (or, for logic's sake, invalid) issue waiting. And there is no guarantee that a satisfied customer brings about more profits. Any tech will be able to tell you that there are people that wouldn't be satisfied for anything.
#3- any tactic that you use or policy you set that hinders or keeps your employees from doing their jobs is STUPID. That's true, but you're assuming that their job is to help anyone. That's not true; they're paid to help customers of that company. What these companies are saying is they don't want their techs to help people under someone else's scope of support. When you purchase a product, you typically purchase a warranty or service agreement with it. Just because you're Windows has eaten your important paper doesn't mean your ISP can help you find it.
Companies are in business to make money, and to be successful. Profit = Success in the capitalist marketplace. Losing money because of practices has sunk countless business, just like good business practices don't dictate success. A person's personality does not make a successful company. Do you think Dell, HP and Gateway got where they were at because they nice to people, or because they did something right?
The role of a leader is to both lead and serve. But manager does not equate to leader. Managers are there to manage and aid employees in doing their job. The stock market doesn't give a rat's arse about good intentions or friendly managers; they are motivated by the bottom line and by results.
Actually, most Gateway computers come with the same stuff that you'd get if you purchased any computer, including an IBM. Sure, if you don't run windows it'd seem like junk, but to around 95% of the market out there, these things are required on those new computers, because people don't have any idea. It's all about the number of features. Standard software that includes MusicMatch Jukebox, Roxio EZ CD Creator, Norton anti-virus and AOL (which more people think is their operating system than anything else) should all be there for the common consumer.
And remember, if you don't like it, Gateway provides GWScan, and you can low-level the b*stard and be done with it. KaZaA installs more crap than most OEMs preload, and all it does is crash systems.
I'm just curious how this made anyone a lap dog. Everything I've read here has been speculation about a 1-page article. The product isn't out, and there is no concrete information on what it will contain.
Gateway still offers burners standard with all PCs, still sell Mp3 players, and ship systems with 400gigs total HDD space.
Gateway is just selling the product to get people to buy a computer. They package AOL or MSN with new systems for the same reason.
dW
Am I the only one who remembers the "Buddy Holly" video on the Windows 95?
Actually, I doubt it's the advertising they want to stop, but instead the information of what will be on sale. People plan for this day in advance, and they vollume ship a lot of the merchandise that they will be selling. A lot of deals will only be one place, and most things on sale will be well below cost (in hopes that someone will buy something else). Target would issue something like that because they didn't want Wal-Mart and Best Buy to know what they would have on special that day
Okay... so LucasArts busts down on Illiad, a guy being funny and writing a dang good comic strip, and leaves the Millions of Star Wars fansites, archives, message boards, amatuer writers and the like out there? What is that? We all know MicroSoft is a waste of good Ones and Zeros, but I love LucasArts! So why do they single out UF?
Slashdot Mirror
95 Would have been during the High Life of the Super-Nintendo, and the twilight of the Sega Genesis/Sega CD system. PCs were just starting out with the Pentium Processors, so there was a little shred of magic there.
Racing Sims have always confused me. They give you all these options to change, and configure, on your cars, but everything always felt the same. There was this level where you couldn't go any farther with reality.
GT3 is close to a Sim than to Arcade, but only if you play into it a ways. Once you get to those Endurance Races, you'd never feel like playing that game in an arcade. But then again, I had a Miata that was nearly 1200hp, so I guess anything is possible.
NFS is far from a sim, I'll agree, but it's also what most people would think of when you think of video game racing. I've always had more fun seeing how elaborate I can get a crash than how well I can accelerate out of a turn.
There was a point where racers between the console and the PC had some sort of scism, and I don't think that anyone ever realized it. On the PC, you had Need for Speed, and all of the think fast and go sims. On the Console, you had more realistic racing Sims, like GT and Nascar.
Then, somehow, Need for Speed went to Console, and the top racing titles, like Nascar 4, ended up on the PC exclusively. GT3 and all of it's clones were the first titles on consoles that really started to pull stuff back, but since I'm not huge into Nascar or F1, I have never really played all that many racing sims. I gave up after need for speed 2, but GT3 had me entralled for months.
No, I doubt I could imagine playing NWN on a TV. But I play it at 1024x768. On the other hand, I could never imagine seeing Metroid on anything other than my TV screen. It's all about which way you're looking for.
Resolution does not equal good graphics. Final Fantasy X was one of the most beautiful looking games I've seen, on that TV. Crappy graphics are crappy graphics at any resolution.
I remember when I had a 50MHz 486 with 16 megs of ram (which was alot at the time), it wasn't fast, but it ran every game I installed on it (C&C Red Alert, Quake 2...
You needed a Pentium Processor just to play Quake, so I'd think you're thinking of Duke Nukem or Doom 2. But I know what you mean. My 486 100 was great for Doom2 and Duke Nukem 3D. I had never heard of Voodoo, and ATi offered 3D "accelleration". But it was just a feature on the box, and didn't do anything.
And then I saw Quake on a P-133, with a 4meg Voodoo card. Anyone else who saw it knows exactly what I mean when I say: that is why we buy computer technology.
$500 E-Machine and expect it to run everything they throw at it, never run out of space, never break, and run insanely fast.
I used to sell computers, and now I work in tech support for them. People love to ask "is this a good computer" when they see that $400 eMachine or HP Pavillion. I couldn't really say "no" at the job, so my response was "there's a reason that a lot of these computers cost $1500." People want to save money, it's the American Consumer's way. But I'd say that most people out there buying that $400 PC want to play things like Deer Hunter, The Sims or Roller Coaster Tycoon. And they whine about the prices of those too.
Online... though X-Box Live is looking pretty good, it's only for broadband users, and PC gaming is far more mature. Still, this was one thing that older consoles were lacking, but no more.
To expand on this, I'd talk about PS2 Network Play, which is also a nice system. As broadband drops in price, you'll see this and X-Box Live! start to take over in the online marketplace. It's simple, you get a homogenous online group, and there is a standard tech avaiable there, so you don't really worry about one guy having a great edge because of that Radeon 9700 while you have the GeForce2.
Some types of games do play better on PCs. First person shooters for one, though the GameCube and X-Box both have controllers pretty well suited to FPS style games, so that is becoming less of an issue. Strategy and hardcore RPGs tend to play better on the PC, but for other genres, like platformers and adventure games... well, do these type of games even exist for the PC?
The FPS is the strongest suit for the PC, since it has the Mouse/Keyboard combo. I hated the setup when I first used it, back in Quake, but after getting spanked day-in and day-out from a friend that used it, I converted. And while Golden Eye was great, I would never take a console FPS over the PC release.
RPGs conversely, have been the realm of consoles forever. MMOGs, like EverQuest and DAoC, just use the RP portion as a marketing term. They have about as much RPG elements as a menu at McDonalds. Almost every single great RPG from the last 10 years has been on a console, the Final Fantasy series taking the most note. But also Summoner recently, and so many others. PCs have been on the slide, with the strongest titles, Wizardry and Might and Magic, really sucking the last few years. Since they take less interaction, with button pushing and menus, they are just built for the Console market.
As for Platformers: Tomb Raider. And all the clones, hacks, and derivitaves. The whole platform world was made for the Super Mario and Sonic the Hedgehog games out there. And Consoles will always have it sewn up. There are some controllers out there that you can use (I'm partial to my 5 year old MS Sidewinder Game Pad), but the PC has just never really captured all the caracters that made Console Platformers that well.
The one place where the PC will beat the Console almost always, and just because of the mouse, is the Strategy market. Age of Mythology, Warcraft III, Command & Conquer. The list goes on, but I figured I'd name the big ones. Warcraft on the PSX just hurt.
Sports games are probably the biggest place where you see the crossover between PCs and Consoles, and where I purchase the most games. My PS2 is the place where I play those games. NHL came to my PC this year, but only because it was considerably cheaper.
Fighting games also stay on the consoles. I think that industry gave up on the PC years ago. There's a reason. Go play a wrestling game on the PC, or Mortal Kombat. There's a reason.
I have been playing video games nearly all of my life. I started out on consoles with Pitfall and Battle on the Atari 2600 and on PCs playing Radar Rat Race and Jupiter Lander on my Vic 20.
It's come a long way, but really, when I look at it, it hasn't changed all that much. The big problem out there isn't what hardware is superior. That point is moot, since there are so many other factors. Yes, the X-Box is faster than all others, but still dwarfed by a PC. All three systems aren't at the cutting edge, but they were never meant to be.
The difference is in the games available, and what it's running on. Even an X-Box, with it's standard hardware and Lite Win2k will run games better than an optimized Linux Box or WindowsXP Machine. Because that's what it's made to do, and that's all it's made to do. A truck pulls stuff better than a car with a big engine, because trucks are built with that utility in mind, and the entire thing is engineered towards that end (General ommission for anything with "Sport" in the name).
I probably have bought as many Console Games in the last 6 months as I have PC games. Every single one of those Console games got more playing time than the PC games. Even the great gems on the PC, Unreal 2k3 and Neverwinter Nights, got less playing time than Grand Theft Auto: Vice City. I still play it.
What this is about is content, and more than that, convenience. For my PS2, I stick in a disc and I'm on my way to playing. I don't have to worry about installing, configuring, patching and loading on my GameCube. I pop in the little disc and Super Smash Bros. Melee is on the way. And the whole thing of patching isn't confined to just Windows PCs, it's on all PCs. I spent more time configuring and installing video drivers so I could play GLTron in Red Hat than I ever have trying to make a game to work on anything else.
I've had more games on consoles that just dominated my life than I ever did on a PC. Though some, like Doom2 and Quake, came close. There's also something nice about that little piece of hardware that I just have to hook up into my TV and plug in. I know it will be there for me for a while.
I know of two computer games I'm planning on buying in the next six months (Sim City 4, SW Galaxies), and about 5 console games (Metroid, Rygar, etc.) that I plan to purchase in the next couple of months. If I have a choice between console and PC on the game, 9 out of 10 it will go console, even if the graphics are better elsewhere (GTA3 for example).
Price has never really been a concern in the mix, since when you look at it, the only way to get games cheap is to buy them on sale. It's all about whats there. Computer games have been on the slide for a while, and the quality has been suffering. For every single great game we get, we get 5 Roller Coaster Clones, 3 Real Life Sims, and 10 Lame First Person Shooters. On a console, I had Metal Gear Solid 2, Tony Hawk 4... the list goes on a lot farther. I only get my $50 to spend once, so I've gotten a little more picky. I just happen to know where I usually get better play quality, and that's why the numbers have changed.
If I bothered to check spelling, than I probably wouldn't be posting on Slashdot all that often. I just always wondered about that name. I can spell T'Pol though, so I should be redeemed.
Well, I'm a Star Trek/Wars fan, but I've also been to see my share of those movies that will never make money because they don't have a Jar-Jar binks in them. Well, Thank God for that.
No, it's not a decline in our cultural landscape, because I would say that those little movies have far less to do with shaping and influencing the culture of America (and several other countries as well) than those Star Trek and Star Wars movies. I loved Swimming With Sharks, a little known Kevin Spacey movie that will literally make you twitch for days. It's well beyond messed up, and into that level of terrifying, because it's so strange, yet you could believe it would happen.
However, I've hated my share of similar movies as well. I wasted $8 on Punch Drunk Love, $16 actually, since I took my girlfriend. Critics loved it, and I took a chance. At the end of the movie I'd known that I'd wasted 2 hours of my life.
"Fanboys" is just a term that people use far too widely. I do not clap at movies, like Star Wars. In fact, I'm known to hit people that do. I enjoy movies, and I think the chance of being entertained at something I know I like (Star Trek) is worth a better risk than some movie that I know nothing about. Critics have been tearing up movies I've liked for years, mostly out of some higher-self of importance that equates art and entertainment to pointlessness and confusion.
I can safely say that I'm not likely to go see Equilibrium. I wasted my $4 on Star Trek (early shows rule), and next week will see Two Towers. I fully expect that this discussion won't happen then, even though it's the exact same concept.
But, to each their own. All I expect is that people go from experience, and not opinion based in speculation.
While I think First Contact was the best of the Next Generation series of movies, it will never hold a candle to II and IV, in my mind.
The Borg were something unique, but they as they were, they would never be something great in the movies. They were the best in the arching story lines, before things like the Queen messed them up. While she was a crappy villian, Voyager restored a little bit of faith in it for me. It made her look like a main node for the collective, and she could hear, see, and do anything through them.
I know it seems kind of lame, but sometimes they needed to talk to explain things, so that we weren't just assuming, oh, that collective stuff again. What I wanted to know is why they didn't just find the frequency, and start playing Barry Manalow or something like that over the collective mind.
And you never know with the Borg, they could need companionship because they found a way to get better with it. Or found a way to make sex a weapon. That could explain the nipples. Of course, she was slimy, green, and all that, but what can you do?
I say make a new Next Gen movie, get Picard, bring in Checothe (sp?) and Seven, and it's all good. Then make the Borg not suck, or even give us the Dominion. Or something. I just don't want the series to end on this note...
You know, after having seen it, I would have to agree. I won't give away the movie, but I will say that I felt decidedly let down. I was promised this "fan flick," and instead I got a film that left me disappointed, as a fan. I would think that others feel the same way. You finally see this new slick ship in depth, and the story is about Picard almost exclusively.
I'm a Worf fan, and I'd say that Janeway's cameo had more lines to it than he had in the movie. And Dr. Crusher had less than that. It was an effect thriller, but Star Trek has always been about story. This one was about action. It tried to emulate Khan, and managed to get the crazy badguy, though distill all of what made Khan great out of him. It managed to get the major conflict, but it was too busy pulling in Matrix-esk computer interfaces and Mad Max chase scenes to capture what trek is.
There were little touches, like the humor of small things, and seeing things tie together (like the new shuttle, minus the lame buggy, that paid homage to the Delta Flyer). It was nice to see interfaces actually doing something, instead of being a plastic overlay on a lighted panel. I liked how there was a Tablet PC on Picards desk, and how they made the ship look more real.
I only pray that the whole Generation didn't go out like this. They left it open for other movies, but left it so main characters could leave and not be there.
And on a side note... I don't believe that Federation ships are tactically inferior to Klingon and Romulan ships, and the Enterprise is the flagship of the fleet. Which is odd, since there were no flag officers on the ship, but that's another story. It was more a matter of tactics. The Federation ships could pound Birds of Prey, and were supposed to be an even match to Warbirds. Later ships were topped by Federation ships like the E. But that's more Trek-trivia and less movie review.
What I can say is that as a trek fan, it is still worth seeing. However, I'd say it might be worth risking the sunlight and actually catch a matinee for this one, because I myself would rather have watched Generations or Insurrection over this one.
Actually, I do remember it. It's a legal precedent for Truth in Advertising. However, it's something that companies, especially car companies, get busted for all the time.
Why did you think that you'd see a commercial for some truck or some car doing something amazing, and then never see it again. The FCC busted them, and they can't show it. The same thing happened to Campbell's, and will keep happening as more things get debunked.
Take a business law, marketing, or advertising course at a local college, and they will bring up this case. They also teach what false advertising really means, so you can laugh at people in stores yelling about false advertising when something is sold out. It makes for amusing days at the mall.
It's not pertaining to an inventory problem, since it'll be using prexisting floor machines. It's taking an oppertunity and using it for cash flow. No one is using the systems at night, when the store is closed, so might as well get something for it.
Allow me to say that this was very nicely said. Always glad to see a conherent and valid post.
I work as a Tech Support Professional for a large company (read my posts, you'll figure it out quick), and found out quickly that most places don't hired the most qualified techs for the job. Most ISPs also don't hire the top knotch techs out there, but rather people who put forward the best image.
Word of mouth is a powerful enemy, but not a very useful ally. Most people that are happy with a service will tell two-or-three people, maybe, but most are just content. It's one of those situations that come up when someone asks "who do you get on the internet with?" If it's a good company, they'll say so, but most likely, if not asked, they will not say anything.
The reverse of that is one of the most powerful anti-marketing tools out there. Poor word of mouth spreads like disease in an native village. A person is far more likely to tell of the bad than the good, and those people retell it as if it happened to them.
Of course, bad word of mouth is only really damaging to small companies. AOL is still out there, and there's more negative press on them than Microsoft.
That is the main thing that companies would be trying to protect against is the representation of a tech outside of the workplace. He may be Billy the ISP tech, and if something goes wrong, people will blame the ISP. More like plausable denability. I don't think they took the greatest execution on it, and I don't think it's a firing offense, but then again, I'm not the one giving out the checks.
And as for boycotts and protests, they're just empty threats. There's a concept that most business have that is summed up like this: "We can afford to lose you." A good business will not sacrafice more resources than a contact is worth, especially if that contact will still give them negative press. A client that pays $30 a month to an ISP, then complains about them on boards, and also calls in 10 times a week (at @$10 a shot, let's say), then they can afford to lose them.
What I am curious on is whether these techs that were offering help were doing it in downtime or in freetime. One means they were doing it on the job when not on a call (say, like my typing this post), or if I was doing it at home.
Before I get into refuting your post I will touch on a couple of things. First of all, you may have used a big word, but you also misspelled it. Exceptionally. Second of all, words like STUPID, TIGHT, and IDIOT just serve to diminish any argument you make. On a side note, I will not correct your grammar or terrible use of language.
Now on to the post.
#1- your customer is right, always... if you say otherwise you are an IDIOT.
The customer is not always right. The customer is the most important thing to any business, but if they were always right, then they would drive a business under within minutes. A customer can purchase a blender from Target, and use it for a year, and then it breaks. They bring it back in and try to return it. They say it has never has worked. Now, they've had it for a year, and they used it. They have no right to return it, and they need to contact the vendor. It's no different for technical support professionals. You may own a Gateway computer, and you purchase a game for it. Everything else, besides that game, works. That game crashes every time, so who do you call? Gateway? And you expect them to help, and they say no. You have a warranty agreement, and you want help, but they tell you to contact your game vendor. If the customer was right, then they could call who ever they wanted, so long as they could tie it into that company somehow.
#2- encouraging your employees to help your customers in any legal way they can, increases customer satisfaction and therefore profits and bottom line... anyone who disagrees with this is also STUPID.
The American consumer is motivated by price and incentive. Positive attitude only serves to not lose customers. Which is more important to a customer: getting help from someone who probably doesn't know the product or service they're requesting help on, or getting the problem fixed? It costs money to pick up the phone, it costs money to pay a rep to talk on that phone, and customers are not happy waiting for a voice to come to the phone. When a rep is fixing something that is outside of a scope of support, then there is someone with a valid (or, for logic's sake, invalid) issue waiting. And there is no guarantee that a satisfied customer brings about more profits. Any tech will be able to tell you that there are people that wouldn't be satisfied for anything.
#3- any tactic that you use or policy you set that hinders or keeps your employees from doing their jobs is STUPID.
That's true, but you're assuming that their job is to help anyone. That's not true; they're paid to help customers of that company. What these companies are saying is they don't want their techs to help people under someone else's scope of support. When you purchase a product, you typically purchase a warranty or service agreement with it. Just because you're Windows has eaten your important paper doesn't mean your ISP can help you find it.
Companies are in business to make money, and to be successful. Profit = Success in the capitalist marketplace. Losing money because of practices has sunk countless business, just like good business practices don't dictate success. A person's personality does not make a successful company. Do you think Dell, HP and Gateway got where they were at because they nice to people, or because they did something right?
The role of a leader is to both lead and serve. But manager does not equate to leader. Managers are there to manage and aid employees in doing their job. The stock market doesn't give a rat's arse about good intentions or friendly managers; they are motivated by the bottom line and by results.
Actually, most Gateway computers come with the same stuff that you'd get if you purchased any computer, including an IBM. Sure, if you don't run windows it'd seem like junk, but to around 95% of the market out there, these things are required on those new computers, because people don't have any idea. It's all about the number of features. Standard software that includes MusicMatch Jukebox, Roxio EZ CD Creator, Norton anti-virus and AOL (which more people think is their operating system than anything else) should all be there for the common consumer.
And remember, if you don't like it, Gateway provides GWScan, and you can low-level the b*stard and be done with it. KaZaA installs more crap than most OEMs preload, and all it does is crash systems.
I'm just curious how this made anyone a lap dog. Everything I've read here has been speculation about a 1-page article. The product isn't out, and there is no concrete information on what it will contain.
Gateway still offers burners standard with all PCs, still sell Mp3 players, and ship systems with 400gigs total HDD space.
Gateway is just selling the product to get people to buy a computer. They package AOL or MSN with new systems for the same reason.
dW
Am I the only one who remembers the "Buddy Holly" video on the Windows 95?
Actually, I doubt it's the advertising they want to stop, but instead the information of what will be on sale. People plan for this day in advance, and they vollume ship a lot of the merchandise that they will be selling. A lot of deals will only be one place, and most things on sale will be well below cost (in hopes that someone will buy something else). Target would issue something like that because they didn't want Wal-Mart and Best Buy to know what they would have on special that day
Okay... so LucasArts busts down on Illiad, a guy being funny and writing a dang good comic strip, and leaves the Millions of Star Wars fansites, archives, message boards, amatuer writers and the like out there? What is that? We all know MicroSoft is a waste of good Ones and Zeros, but I love LucasArts! So why do they single out UF?