The store I work at got in one of the demos for this game, and since I'm the "resident computer geek", they had me test it out. The CD part of the game is just a complete gimmick. You buy a ticket, which has some long number you type into the program. You watch it go through some corny animation sequences, where you click on every damn thing on the screen, then afterwards, it shows if you won anything. The CD itself doesn't do anything, you need the $4 ticket to claim the prize.
Personally, I think it's going to flop. A lot of the people that I see who buy lotto tickets either go immediately scratch them, then return five minutes later to cash them and buy more, or they just purchase occasionally. This won't appeal to either group; the occasional buyer won't want to drop $25 for the "starter kit" with CD, and the addicts want their money right away, and won't buy it.
Well, maybe you were looking at a different W3C standard than I was. When I threw Microsoft.com and MSN.com into that validator, they sure didn't validate. Microsoft.com came up with a fatal error, even, due to no document type declaration. Might want to check your claims before posting them next time...
Slashdot Mirror
The store I work at got in one of the demos for this game, and since I'm the "resident computer geek", they had me test it out. The CD part of the game is just a complete gimmick. You buy a ticket, which has some long number you type into the program. You watch it go through some corny animation sequences, where you click on every damn thing on the screen, then afterwards, it shows if you won anything. The CD itself doesn't do anything, you need the $4 ticket to claim the prize.
Personally, I think it's going to flop. A lot of the people that I see who buy lotto tickets either go immediately scratch them, then return five minutes later to cash them and buy more, or they just purchase occasionally. This won't appeal to either group; the occasional buyer won't want to drop $25 for the "starter kit" with CD, and the addicts want their money right away, and won't buy it.
Well, maybe you were looking at a different W3C standard than I was. When I threw Microsoft.com and MSN.com into that validator, they sure didn't validate. Microsoft.com came up with a fatal error, even, due to no document type declaration. Might want to check your claims before posting them next time...