The shovel ware exceeds the quality ware as always but even the quality ware (RE 4, Zelda, Rayman, Warioware) had "shake vigorously" where it used to say "mash buttons".
You're telling me a giant corporation didn't make an exception to their policies for you... well colour me shocked. Obviously you forgot to tell them how you were a unique and special snowflake, and that they must bend to your will because you were too impatient to get your replacement from them. What an interesting comment. So original and insightful....
Warranty repair: Are often refurbished parts. They diminish the average life cycle of the console. So if I sent it for repair odds are I will get the same machine with a refurbed optical driving. Considering the wii was in my possession for less then a day before the drive gave out I didn't want that particular one back (likely damaged in shipping vs manufacturing defect) nor did I want a sort of used refurb (used, I bought mine new). Thus I opted to exchange which is part of the policy from the seller.
Wii Virtual console: I realized that Nintendo would not help transfer or credit even in reasonable circumstances. I am aware as a former customer care agent for a major Telecom that the "policy" is flexible. They were unable to accommodate me and also I realized anything I bought for the wii dies with it. Thus any purchase is only valid for the lifetime of the machine. Thus there is no guarantee that anything i purchase for it from wii shopping will persist past the 1 year warranty. Paid repairs + shipping and billing may exceed the cost of the console when it gives out.
Conclusion: Condescending staff + no reasonable expectation of persistence = Nintendo losing 1 online customer.
I really can't fault Nintendo for your failure to read their terms and conditions. You did agree to them, since you can't use the Wii Shop channel without reading them and agreeing to them. I declare I will hence forth not buy from the online shop due to the "go fuck yourself" more so then the actual $20. I did read it, I asked if an exception could be made as it was withing 24h, I could associated my credit card again and i had recipes of everything (the same mynintendo.com ID was associated with both). The Customer service person sent me a reply stating games were non transferable, with some condescending remarks like yours and a link back to the terms. In turn I vowed never to buy from them and evangelize my point of view.
Xbox360 dies on you So did the PSX's laser, for those of us who remember. Later, the hardware got better. Not nearly to the same degree. It's like comparing the WWII wartime atrocities record of Japan vs Canada.
The Wii can too. That's when I knew Nintendo really was going to be a player in this generation, when I had to ship my Wii back for replacement under warranty. My first one had a defective drive, I opted for an exchange instead of a 3 week warranty replacement and lost $20 on the virtual console store stuff. Nintendo told me to fuck myself too when I inquired about a credit or refund (within 24h of the actual purchase). I will never buy anything from Wii shopping again. Xbox live is also a pain, I've been attempting to remove my Credit card from my friends Xbox after I bought him an expansion without him registering another card. No luck yet. I hear tech support may do it but seriously, why the hell don't they provide an option to remove a CC? So for my money the PSN network has actually been the best experience of the 3. I can transfer my games between machines, i can remove a CC. Odd, Sony not screwing something up.
I read his statement as "we know that the Wii's graphics will look absolutely dated vs the 360's and PS3's in 2 years or so", and that they want to prepare everyone for releasing a new set of hardware earlier than everyone else, out of cycle. In two years? It's already pretty dated. Compare any multi platform game. They just banked on enough people not caring or too new to video games to know better. Some of the graphics like RE4 or Zelda actually hurt my eyes on an HD set if I haven't slept enough. I hear Metroid does it better, but I'm still not certain if the Wii heralds the end to gaming as I enjoy it or will be the next mainstream platform.
So far the games are either retreats with "waggle" replacing "button mash", or "tedious mini games" collections. I enjoy the extra speed the Wii mote gives when aiming but despise the "waggle" that is mandatory to get a license.
I noticed an intriguing possibility over a year ago when I pointed out to my gamer friends that the Wii was full of drop-in components. They won't release a new console. They'll "speed-bump" the Wii.
Faster CPU? Drop in a 750 FX in place of the 750 CX (or some of those Freescale knockoffs). Better graphics? I'm sure a pin-compatible version of a better GPU can be made, or simply add a driver shim to the firmware and put in a completely different GPU. Needs more on-board flash memory? Add some. None of these are things that require a radical redesign of the entire system to accomodate. In fact, they've already done it once, going from Gamecube to Wii. The worst thing they'd have to deal with is a slight redrawing of the circuit board for a new GPU pinout or making space in the Wii form-factor for a larger heatsink. If they're careful, neither of those will be necessary. Thats not a good idea. Changing core specs serve only to fragment your audience. Changing other things is great. A SP is a sexier GBA, a DS is something different. Perhaps some over clocking to stabilize from rates but it may result in a break in compatibility and having new games being unable to run on old systems.
A better idea is do their Model 1.0 is fun but ugly, model 2.0 is sexy but otherwise the same.
Things were a little different back then. Stamping a DVD is much cheaper than burning ROMs. Nintendo doesn't produce the games for you like they used to, so even if they wanted to censor things they would have a harder time today since they aren't the gatekeeper. Nintendo licenses the products that come for the wii. If they don't like your game, you don't get a license. It wasn't because Nintendo stamped the games, it was because Nintendo controlled licensing. They are still the gate keepers because unlicensed products aren't as widely distributed. Normally through some deals with large retail chains. IE. "if you don't sell unlicensed items we'll sell you Wii's 5% cheaper" or "Sorry, I have no shipments for you this week, but I think we might if you stop selling item X". Normally the licensing is for Quality, GUI uniformity guides, and feature utilization. For instance the tacts on wii waggle, achievments for the 360 and the tilt control for the ps3. Nintendo, Microsoft, and Sony are more likely to license your game if you enable those features. All 3 also have rules for GUI too (A is for accept, B is for cancel) ( O is for accept X is for cancel) etc...
But should Nintendo see a point in censoring they might go back.
So how does revealing the truth equate to defamation? This isn't a universal defence. In many countries (for example Canada), you can be successfully sued for defamation even if your accusations/statements are true. Defamation is classified as statements lowering the "esteem" of a person. True of false. Defamation must consider Context and must meet reasonable standards. So a single story on how Paris Hilton is a slut may be okay, two dozen of them may allow a successful defamation law suit.
I'd have to train myself to remember the strokes to draw something with the same movements and pen lifts. Sounds like a pain in the nuts to me. Unless you're Chinese, in which case the swollen knuckles you still have (from being swatted with a chopstick when you learned to write Chinese) will be ample reminder of how to remember stroke order.
Or number 4. Create Good games where people will actually pre-order and stand in line until midnight when the game is to be released. More often then not that is "create good marketing" or "create good hype" not "create a good game".
One writer I know got seriously pissed when her publisher's parent company gave google permission to include her entire book in google books. No, they didn't have the rights required to do that. Did they care? Not really, no. Depending on how the laws are interpreted in the future, Google didn't have to ask permission to archive, index and present excerpts of her book for search purposes as it is generally accepted to fall within research based fair use rights. It's a huge deal in the book industry and library industry but legally it's mostly going in Googles favor. Should it become possible to take more then small excerpts then Google might be in trouble but generally Google attract business so your friend may want to investigate how Google effects her fortunes.
Not to say the issue has been decided. I think litigation is ongoing.
How melodramatic. That's their job, that's what they're paid for.
Universities, and individual academics, who double dip and come up with bullshit excuses about why they should be able to retain the benefits of taxpayer funded work should be given a swift boot up the backside.
You want to keep the work? YOU PAY FOR IT. Maybe, you really have to examine their contracts. If it does not outline provisions for assigning any byproducts of their work to the government then in fact it's not part of their job. Grants fund these academic researchers and different grants come with different strings. This might be private or public funding. There is no guarantee it's your tax dollars. A part of his salary is likely tax dollars but that is for "teaching" services. Grants come with their own strings but if you wish you can push for public money to come with additional strings. Remember universities do take a cut already.
Also funders often fund for no other reason then the prestige of having their name attached and because some of them must spend that endowment (Carnegie/Smithsonian/etc..). Public funders tend to fund for a variety of different reasons most linking back to politics. A requirement to kick back revenue from devices might make academic research even less attractive to talent.
They were just afraid eh might win the whole things. Because dim democrats would vote for him for his recognizable face and dim republicans would vote for him because they can't detect satire. The rest of us would vote for him because it's funny.
How many people who hang out on/. have friends who really like them? Quoth Office Space, "What would I do if I had a million dollars? Two chicks at the same time."
And, you know, if you had a million dollars you could probably hook that up. I mean, you can buy a lottery ticket, or put a buck in the panties of a stripper, and one of them actually gives you a decent chance of getting laid. Who needs a million dollars. You just have to date a bisexual stripper. Ahh fond memories of a youth misspent.
Instead of using absolute dollar figures for your analysis, you should use lifestyle impact.
e.g. One dollar a week == no lifestyle impact; $370MM payout == off the charts lifestyle impact. Also, for 1 dollar a week you are buying a mild emotional high when checking the numbers and a mild emotional low when you find out that math pwned you again.
Actually, these guys seem to have genuinely invented the work they hold the patents for, though they were working for the University of Calgary at the time - does the University allow its employees to hold the IP for inventions made in the course of their University funded research through private holding companies? If I was a Canadian taxpayer, I'm not sure I'd be happy about that. Universities normally have some sort of arcane policy about it. You invent X with grant money university skims Y and Z goes back to the inventors. It's fairly standard. Your tax dollars may fund it, but it's the inventors blood; sweat; tears; time; effort; intellect; experience; grad students; and ingenuity that makes it work. The university does get a cut. There have been times where the policy has screwed people out of great deals of money (University of Alberta: DNA sequencer) by botching the deals and only grabbing a small piece of an immense pie due to bureaucratic wrangling.
thats a neat record. As a former genetics student i can definitely appreciate the contribution to science it offers. As a PS3 owner I don't' run folding@home often for fear of burning my house down. The PS3 is very quiet but gets a bit warm after 3h of folding@home.
And you and others here seem to confuse freedom of the press with freedom of speech. If the founding fathers didn't think there was a difference why then would they provide for both. Also, one is not a subset of the other. The democratization of media via the internet is blurring the line between the two. Social media. The founding fathers lived in a time when a printing press was very expensive, existed in limited numbers, and distribution of the content was extremely difficult. It's very different today. I am a person who gets more news via the internet then any traditional media and our numbers have grown. Thus to me Micheal Giest is the same as Andy Greenberg of forbes. Today any person with a opinion has a chance of getting it displayed in prominent places (slashdot). The better written and targeted the more likely it will be displayed. You don't have to be a journalist only reasonable aware of what the editor prefers. There are drawbacks but you'd be silly not see the short comings of the existing mass media.
Metal Gear uses in game rendering when ever possible. But it also uses film clips when pseudo stock film would advance the story is a better style then in game scenes. I think most games are moving away from pre-rendered cut scenes as they tend to break the illusion of your world a little. FFXII was alright as the cut scenes were noticeably better but in the same style.FFVII was terrible for breaking the illusion with frequent cutscenes in a style very different from the rest of the game.
It becomes very difficult to rate games in the same way as movies. A four star movie from 10 or 20 years ago is typically still a very good movie. A game that would have rated a 85% or a 90% 10 or 20 years ago would not hold up to the same scrutiny today. Love it or hate it, video games exist in a moving target of expectations, and until we see a general leveling off in terms of artistic and technical capabilities, I don't think you'll see the reviewing camps move to a more general rating system. Similar to movies in their first 30-50 years of existence. In those years the initial movies were crude, broadly drawn and over all "terrible". But as time went on the tools to tell a story matured and there is a more even ranking now. Games are still int heir first 30 or so years so you have to consider it the same way. Metropolis was brilliant for it's time, very hokey right now. Super Mario was brilliant for it's time but pretty hokey right now.
You can say that he has the right to speak, sure, but that's not the same thing. Frankly, he's a damned looney nutter, and so no, his opinion is not valid. In my own opinion, of course.
What do you define as "press protection" anyway? Why should he get such treatment? Because he has an opinion? That's no good, everybody has an opinion. No, press protection generally is, in fact, a matter of numbers. If somebody has enough people listening to them, then they have more of a right to speak (actually, more of a right to NOT speak, since that's what "press protection" generally does) than other people.
Sorry, but that's a simple fact. When more people listen to you, what you say is more important. You can curse the darkness all you like, it's when you talk into the lights that you make a difference. Importance is not dictated by the number of people who listen. Extremely important information and opinions can go unheard. Free speech protection and various rights, privileges, and related laws help ensure opinions are not silenced. If the power that be came down on Micheal Giest (prominent columnist/copy right blogger/law professor) or another notable person in the blogsphere he should be afforded the same protection as if he was a columnist for the Phoenix star. They publish their opinions for others to see. What is the difference between a blogger and the independent press? The "don't tase me bro" guy may be a nutter but you ought to hear what he says before you write him off. I have not so I have yet to write him off.
No one has any "more right to speak" then they have "right to be heard". Minority opinions and minority insights should be afforded the same protection as majority opinions and insights. Rush Limbaugh is not right because 13.5 million Americans listen to him, he is right or wrong based on the content of his speech. I am not wrong simply because only 0-100 people see my post, I am right or wrong based on the content of my text. Affording any less protection is to diminish the nascent "social media" that is set to become part of the mainstream media for the next generation.
Slashdot Mirror
The shovel ware exceeds the quality ware as always but even the quality ware (RE 4, Zelda, Rayman, Warioware) had "shake vigorously" where it used to say "mash buttons".
Warranty repair: Are often refurbished parts. They diminish the average life cycle of the console. So if I sent it for repair odds are I will get the same machine with a refurbed optical driving. Considering the wii was in my possession for less then a day before the drive gave out I didn't want that particular one back (likely damaged in shipping vs manufacturing defect) nor did I want a sort of used refurb (used, I bought mine new). Thus I opted to exchange which is part of the policy from the seller.
Wii Virtual console: I realized that Nintendo would not help transfer or credit even in reasonable circumstances. I am aware as a former customer care agent for a major Telecom that the "policy" is flexible. They were unable to accommodate me and also I realized anything I bought for the wii dies with it. Thus any purchase is only valid for the lifetime of the machine. Thus there is no guarantee that anything i purchase for it from wii shopping will persist past the 1 year warranty. Paid repairs + shipping and billing may exceed the cost of the console when it gives out.
Conclusion: Condescending staff + no reasonable expectation of persistence = Nintendo losing 1 online customer.
So did the PSX's laser, for those of us who remember. Later, the hardware got better. Not nearly to the same degree. It's like comparing the WWII wartime atrocities record of Japan vs Canada.
So far the games are either retreats with "waggle" replacing "button mash", or "tedious mini games" collections. I enjoy the extra speed the Wii mote gives when aiming but despise the "waggle" that is mandatory to get a license.
Faster CPU? Drop in a 750 FX in place of the 750 CX (or some of those Freescale knockoffs). Better graphics? I'm sure a pin-compatible version of a better GPU can be made, or simply add a driver shim to the firmware and put in a completely different GPU. Needs more on-board flash memory? Add some. None of these are things that require a radical redesign of the entire system to accomodate. In fact, they've already done it once, going from Gamecube to Wii. The worst thing they'd have to deal with is a slight redrawing of the circuit board for a new GPU pinout or making space in the Wii form-factor for a larger heatsink. If they're careful, neither of those will be necessary. Thats not a good idea. Changing core specs serve only to fragment your audience. Changing other things is great. A SP is a sexier GBA, a DS is something different. Perhaps some over clocking to stabilize from rates but it may result in a break in compatibility and having new games being unable to run on old systems.
A better idea is do their Model 1.0 is fun but ugly, model 2.0 is sexy but otherwise the same.
But should Nintendo see a point in censoring they might go back.
Sorry, too easy. Think what ever floats your boat.
Not to say the issue has been decided. I think litigation is ongoing.
Universities, and individual academics, who double dip and come up with bullshit excuses about why they should be able to retain the benefits of taxpayer funded work should be given a swift boot up the backside.
You want to keep the work? YOU PAY FOR IT. Maybe, you really have to examine their contracts. If it does not outline provisions for assigning any byproducts of their work to the government then in fact it's not part of their job. Grants fund these academic researchers and different grants come with different strings. This might be private or public funding. There is no guarantee it's your tax dollars. A part of his salary is likely tax dollars but that is for "teaching" services. Grants come with their own strings but if you wish you can push for public money to come with additional strings. Remember universities do take a cut already.
Also funders often fund for no other reason then the prestige of having their name attached and because some of them must spend that endowment (Carnegie/Smithsonian/etc..). Public funders tend to fund for a variety of different reasons most linking back to politics. A requirement to kick back revenue from devices might make academic research even less attractive to talent.
They were just afraid eh might win the whole things. Because dim democrats would vote for him for his recognizable face and dim republicans would vote for him because they can't detect satire. The rest of us would vote for him because it's funny.
And, you know, if you had a million dollars you could probably hook that up. I mean, you can buy a lottery ticket, or put a buck in the panties of a stripper, and one of them actually gives you a decent chance of getting laid. Who needs a million dollars. You just have to date a bisexual stripper. Ahh fond memories of a youth misspent.
PS. All the tests came back negative.
e.g. One dollar a week == no lifestyle impact; $370MM payout == off the charts lifestyle impact. Also, for 1 dollar a week you are buying a mild emotional high when checking the numbers and a mild emotional low when you find out that math pwned you again.
thats a neat record. As a former genetics student i can definitely appreciate the contribution to science it offers. As a PS3 owner I don't' run folding@home often for fear of burning my house down. The PS3 is very quiet but gets a bit warm after 3h of folding@home.
It will be 20% faster, 200% hotter, needs a 300% nosier fan, consumes 500% as much power.
Metal Gear uses in game rendering when ever possible. But it also uses film clips when pseudo stock film would advance the story is a better style then in game scenes. I think most games are moving away from pre-rendered cut scenes as they tend to break the illusion of your world a little. FFXII was alright as the cut scenes were noticeably better but in the same style .FFVII was terrible for breaking the illusion with frequent cutscenes in a style very different from the rest of the game.
What do you define as "press protection" anyway? Why should he get such treatment? Because he has an opinion? That's no good, everybody has an opinion. No, press protection generally is, in fact, a matter of numbers. If somebody has enough people listening to them, then they have more of a right to speak (actually, more of a right to NOT speak, since that's what "press protection" generally does) than other people.
Sorry, but that's a simple fact. When more people listen to you, what you say is more important. You can curse the darkness all you like, it's when you talk into the lights that you make a difference. Importance is not dictated by the number of people who listen. Extremely important information and opinions can go unheard. Free speech protection and various rights, privileges, and related laws help ensure opinions are not silenced. If the power that be came down on Micheal Giest (prominent columnist/copy right blogger/law professor) or another notable person in the blogsphere he should be afforded the same protection as if he was a columnist for the Phoenix star. They publish their opinions for others to see. What is the difference between a blogger and the independent press? The "don't tase me bro" guy may be a nutter but you ought to hear what he says before you write him off. I have not so I have yet to write him off.
No one has any "more right to speak" then they have "right to be heard". Minority opinions and minority insights should be afforded the same protection as majority opinions and insights. Rush Limbaugh is not right because 13.5 million Americans listen to him, he is right or wrong based on the content of his speech. I am not wrong simply because only 0-100 people see my post, I am right or wrong based on the content of my text. Affording any less protection is to diminish the nascent "social media" that is set to become part of the mainstream media for the next generation.