Perhaps you missed the first paragraph where it's explicitly stated that it was ONLY a list of UI/usability changes, and specifically ones that were based on user feedback.
I quote:
This blog post talks about a few of the improvements that will be in our Release Candidate (RC) based upon customer feedback. There are many under the hood changes (bug fixes, compatibility fixes, performance improvements, and improvements) across the entire dev team that we just don't have room to discuss here, but we thought you'd enjoy a taste of some changes made by three of our feature teams: Core User Experience, Find & Organize and Devices & Media.
After reading the list, it makes total sense when you think about it from this perspective: Take about 10 people who never played videogames until after the Wii was released. Then make them well informed about video game history and statistics, and let them play the 100 top selling (for their time) games for about 15 minutes each. Then have them list them in the order of "which I liked best".
Using this, the order makes sense, in a vacuum. Until you realize that wasn't even the point of the list, and it stops making sense.
The most obvious problems with the list come when two sequels are on the list. Why is FF12 ranked above FF7, when GTA1 is above GTA3? FF12 might have sold more units, or even been more fun, but FF7 practically CREATED the console RPG market in the U.S. Yeah, some people had already been playing RPGs before this, but their population was TINY compared to post-FF7. People who didn't even own a console bought a PSX just to play it. When FF12 came out, its impact was pretty small. It had already become a "me too" RPG (although with a bigger budget and larger existing fanbase).
And then you have the opposite problem with GTA1 vs. GTA3. GTA1+2 were pretty much ignored by the general console gaming populace, when compared to GTA3. While GTA1 might have had equally controversial content, and came first, GTA3 had the larger impact due to its popularity. No one bought a PSX just to play GTA1+2, but they definitely bought PS2's just to play GTA3.
If you just told someone the history of the GTA series, without them actually being gamers at the times both games were released, then they might say "GTA1 was more controversial, and both games had the same controversial subject matter, so I'll put GTA1 first". The same goes for FF12. "Well, they're basically the same linear crap with a deep story line, but this one has a better translation and sold more total units" without looking at the units sold as a percentage of the gaming market at the time, or the social impact of the two games at their respective times. Why even pick 12 instead of 10? Because it's more recent? Because it sold more copies (even though 12 had the advantage of the largest console install base on earth since the NES, and 10 didn't)?
Anyway, in the end, the list exists to do what all "best" lists do: make people talk about them to garner free advertising for the product. So it really doesn't matter.
Some flat out quit, no doubt. Some go play another game. I know I've been cycling through MMOs and alternating with offline gaming periods, and know a few more people who tried other MMOs too. So basically not _all_ flat out quit MMO gaming either.
And here is your problem. You are an "MMO player", not a "WoW player". Your circle of friends are mostly MMO players. Your demographic probably represent less than 20% of WoW's total subscriber base. You're framing everything on your perspective, which is not representative of the whole. You have to look beyond yourself to see the bigger picture.
In fact, the game that kills WoW doesn't even have to be an MMO game of any sort, or at least, not recognizable as one by today's standards.
Part of the problem is that no other company has both the financial capital and intestinal fortitude to have the patience to deliver the kind of overall quality and polish Blizzard does. In fact, the majority of MMO developers *never* had those qualities, even before WoW.
Remember when WoW came out, and all the problems it had associated with having a player base 50x larger than the expected player base, including lag, server crashes, and queues, and it was *still* considered the most successful MMO launch up to that time? That's a bad sign.
During EQ1's prime, a lot of games came within 50% or better of its market share. No game has even come CLOSE to touching 50% of WoW's market share, no matter how much you massage the numbers to make it look bad. We're talking about significant digits worth of difference here.
I'm not saying WoW will be #1 forever, but there's just no historical precedent for its popularity. You cannot compare it to the EQ1 age or any other similar game type in history.
And there's no way WoW has a million player churn of leaving for other games and coming back, because the only people leaving and coming back are from the old MMO crowd, which is still incredibly small. WoW didn't create new MMO players, it created new WoW players, and when they quit wow, they're more likely to play Halo or Counter-Strike or something than they are another MMO.
If they have a million player churn, it's from players who believe they cannot participate in end-game content, and feel like there's nothing left for them to do in the game (or whatever the complaint of the month is), who are tired of rerolling. They don't go play another MMO, they just flat out quit. And when they come back, it's because of a content patch or expansion for WoW.
While you can probably say almost all MMO players are or were at some point WoW players now, I do not believe you can say all WoW players are now MMO players.
He may be a dick but it's pretty obvious he was using the term "guild" because corporations are analogous to guilds from other games, so WoW players would know what he was talking about, and that he used "Ranger Cowgirl" as a sarcastic and derisive term to try and insult people who play WoW.
Your complacency is allowing your government to deny the rights of those who would possibly want to play said R18+ game or unclassified movie/whatever.
Only analogy I can easily come up with (and admittedly, it's not a very good one) is like allowing the Ku Klux Klan to exercise their right to free speech. Even if I think they're douchebags devoid of merit, they should still have the right to speak and publish books/movies/video games professing their opinion, and people should have the right to buy those items. You can classify them 18+ or whatever and only allow adults to purchase them if you like, but to make them "unclassified" and therefore illegal to sell (a.k.a. censorship) is immoral. Period.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean you have the right to deny other people access to it, or to be silently complicit as your government denies other people the right to it.
I'm pretty sure adding in civilian casualties would not make WW2 any less dominant as the "worst" state of war. Millions of Chinese, Japanese, German Jews, German non-Jews, Russians, and god knows how many other civilians killed. There is no number you can pull out of your ass with any level of credibility that would compare any war since 1945 to WW2.
The warning was that it linked to technologizer.com. Every article I've seen on that site is just a string of lame pictures with even lamer (and often vapid or inaccurate) commentary. And usually the premise is actually interesting, making it even more disappointing when you actually follow the link.
Slashdot Mirror
And in what way does this assertion distinguish it from FF12? :P
Perhaps you missed the first paragraph where it's explicitly stated that it was ONLY a list of UI/usability changes, and specifically ones that were based on user feedback.
I quote:
If you actually look at the list, they're more like UI/usability refinements rather than features.
Same place Doom is, as pointed out by other posters: it's not a console game (and the console port sold poorly and was not popular or influential).
After reading the list, it makes total sense when you think about it from this perspective: Take about 10 people who never played videogames until after the Wii was released. Then make them well informed about video game history and statistics, and let them play the 100 top selling (for their time) games for about 15 minutes each. Then have them list them in the order of "which I liked best".
Using this, the order makes sense, in a vacuum. Until you realize that wasn't even the point of the list, and it stops making sense.
The most obvious problems with the list come when two sequels are on the list. Why is FF12 ranked above FF7, when GTA1 is above GTA3? FF12 might have sold more units, or even been more fun, but FF7 practically CREATED the console RPG market in the U.S. Yeah, some people had already been playing RPGs before this, but their population was TINY compared to post-FF7. People who didn't even own a console bought a PSX just to play it. When FF12 came out, its impact was pretty small. It had already become a "me too" RPG (although with a bigger budget and larger existing fanbase).
And then you have the opposite problem with GTA1 vs. GTA3. GTA1+2 were pretty much ignored by the general console gaming populace, when compared to GTA3. While GTA1 might have had equally controversial content, and came first, GTA3 had the larger impact due to its popularity. No one bought a PSX just to play GTA1+2, but they definitely bought PS2's just to play GTA3.
If you just told someone the history of the GTA series, without them actually being gamers at the times both games were released, then they might say "GTA1 was more controversial, and both games had the same controversial subject matter, so I'll put GTA1 first". The same goes for FF12. "Well, they're basically the same linear crap with a deep story line, but this one has a better translation and sold more total units" without looking at the units sold as a percentage of the gaming market at the time, or the social impact of the two games at their respective times. Why even pick 12 instead of 10? Because it's more recent? Because it sold more copies (even though 12 had the advantage of the largest console install base on earth since the NES, and 10 didn't)?
Anyway, in the end, the list exists to do what all "best" lists do: make people talk about them to garner free advertising for the product. So it really doesn't matter.
Considering history, having anyone pledge to serve a head of state, instead of the country, is extremely disturbing.
I'm trying very very hard not to Godwin here.
It's European.
And here is your problem. You are an "MMO player", not a "WoW player". Your circle of friends are mostly MMO players. Your demographic probably represent less than 20% of WoW's total subscriber base. You're framing everything on your perspective, which is not representative of the whole. You have to look beyond yourself to see the bigger picture.
In fact, the game that kills WoW doesn't even have to be an MMO game of any sort, or at least, not recognizable as one by today's standards.
Part of the problem is that no other company has both the financial capital and intestinal fortitude to have the patience to deliver the kind of overall quality and polish Blizzard does. In fact, the majority of MMO developers *never* had those qualities, even before WoW.
Remember when WoW came out, and all the problems it had associated with having a player base 50x larger than the expected player base, including lag, server crashes, and queues, and it was *still* considered the most successful MMO launch up to that time? That's a bad sign.
During EQ1's prime, a lot of games came within 50% or better of its market share. No game has even come CLOSE to touching 50% of WoW's market share, no matter how much you massage the numbers to make it look bad. We're talking about significant digits worth of difference here.
I'm not saying WoW will be #1 forever, but there's just no historical precedent for its popularity. You cannot compare it to the EQ1 age or any other similar game type in history.
And there's no way WoW has a million player churn of leaving for other games and coming back, because the only people leaving and coming back are from the old MMO crowd, which is still incredibly small. WoW didn't create new MMO players, it created new WoW players, and when they quit wow, they're more likely to play Halo or Counter-Strike or something than they are another MMO.
If they have a million player churn, it's from players who believe they cannot participate in end-game content, and feel like there's nothing left for them to do in the game (or whatever the complaint of the month is), who are tired of rerolling. They don't go play another MMO, they just flat out quit. And when they come back, it's because of a content patch or expansion for WoW.
While you can probably say almost all MMO players are or were at some point WoW players now, I do not believe you can say all WoW players are now MMO players.
He may be a dick but it's pretty obvious he was using the term "guild" because corporations are analogous to guilds from other games, so WoW players would know what he was talking about, and that he used "Ranger Cowgirl" as a sarcastic and derisive term to try and insult people who play WoW.
Your reading comprehension needs some work.
And Germans elected Hitler. </Godwin>
Seriously though, just because you do it doesn't make it right.
Your complacency is allowing your government to deny the rights of those who would possibly want to play said R18+ game or unclassified movie/whatever.
Only analogy I can easily come up with (and admittedly, it's not a very good one) is like allowing the Ku Klux Klan to exercise their right to free speech. Even if I think they're douchebags devoid of merit, they should still have the right to speak and publish books/movies/video games professing their opinion, and people should have the right to buy those items. You can classify them 18+ or whatever and only allow adults to purchase them if you like, but to make them "unclassified" and therefore illegal to sell (a.k.a. censorship) is immoral. Period.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean you have the right to deny other people access to it, or to be silently complicit as your government denies other people the right to it.
I didn't know the Walkman installed DRM/malware.
Oh shit they forgot to replace the text in a help file! I know those are the first things I change when I release a beta of a piece of software.
No, they expect small to medium sized businesses in Singapore to know better.
And that percentage of people ARE DUMB.
Self replying with Wikipedia link: WW2 Casualties
I'm pretty sure adding in civilian casualties would not make WW2 any less dominant as the "worst" state of war. Millions of Chinese, Japanese, German Jews, German non-Jews, Russians, and god knows how many other civilians killed. There is no number you can pull out of your ass with any level of credibility that would compare any war since 1945 to WW2.
If Counter-Strike and World of Warcraft players can be taught to edit the registry, anyone can.
They'll probably just pay off some company in "bit credits" claiming to be "bit neutral" while still continuing their wasteful practices.
Woosh.
The warning was that it linked to technologizer.com. Every article I've seen on that site is just a string of lame pictures with even lamer (and often vapid or inaccurate) commentary. And usually the premise is actually interesting, making it even more disappointing when you actually follow the link.
I'm REALLY tempted to click that, just for old time's sake.
Also, it'd probably be more interesting/newsworthy than the article.
So it wasn't a plot by Nixon to steal Washington D.C.'s water supply??? Nixon sure seems a lot less cool when he's not a bond supervillain.