If people like it, it goes in their portfolio. If not, to their trashcan of shame...
That's exactly the point. Every time I watch it I think: "Well, it's easy for you to do that because you don't have to live there...". It's pretty easy to fuck up somebody's house then get in the van at the end of the day and move on. They aren't accountable for any of the work/damage they do.
Damn straight. If they hired talent instead of trying to make/create it themselves they would save millions. They spend so much money finding an artist, creating an image trying to palm it off onto an indifferent public. A catchy song negates the need for mass marketing and publicity, when word of mouth can do the same.
I don't see anyone, not indy labels, not bands selling their own music, who sells CDs for a few bucks each.
Well, over here in Australia the average price for a new release CD is about $30, yet the label i'm involved with sells CD's from ALL the bands we have signed for under $10 (most around the $7 mark). Now that equates to roughly the same price point you are talking about. The other thing your post brings up is a good point about where the money goes. I feel the whole idea of going out, sourcing somebody who may or may not be talented, training them, having songs written for them, having Spike Lee direct clips for them, marketing them, printing a billion CDs up for them and spending money on them in the hope of a return seems like a pretty stupid gamble to me, but this is the way the "pop" scene operates. No wonder they need to earn millions off Britney to pay for all the ones that fail. Basically, I reckon that if you want to manufacture music, you have to pay all the costs involved, building your product from the ground up. But if you source talented artists/bands who have their own direction and skills, you need only worry about a small amount of marketing and the costs involved with the production of the CD itself. The music sells itself, you don't have to spend billions convincing people they like it.
Same here, buddy. When I bought my GameCube a few months ago, I tossed up on which games to get with it. I decided on Capcom Vs SNK2 and an x-arcade joystick (instead of two games) and I swear to God, my mates and I have not spent this much time on a game since I was 14 playing street fighter at the local fish & chip shop. I now have a bunch of other games too, but it is the pure gameplay and strategy of the fights that we keep coming back to night after night. It's nice to see a franchise over 10 years old that has been refined to the point of pure gaming bliss. If you are a fan of the SF franchise, do yourself a favour and check it out, just don't play on the GC settings with the gamecube controller. Its sacrilege to the good name of Capcom.
That makes me even more suspicious, as the game had been out for ages before Nintendo even considered hosting on their platform. Your friend, he was a playtester for Nintendo, in Japan, In the 80's? wow. I don't know how he got that info, as I was a playtester for ozi-soft in the early 90's (distributed SEGA games in Australia) and you are very far removed from almost everything about the game. You play it, you tell 'em what you think (according to certain criteria). They certainly don't tell you about business dealings or the like. I think he was making it up.
Technos was the japanese developer, Taito released the game worldwide. They have no ties with Nintendo whatsoever, except for occasionally releasing their games on that format.
That will make it pretty difficult to cut meat in the kitchen, or drive to work, or shave, or control pests in their garden, or hammer a nail. Guns have a functional use other than killing, and so do all those other tools that enable those legitimate activities, however all can be used for killing.
I Hate this arguement, it is rubbish. All of the objects you mentioned have valid uses that do not involve the taking of life, and I have no problem with people having them. If somebody uses them incorrectly, yes, they could kill, but so does everything. What I have a problem with is people trying to justify the ownership of a deadly weapon that has no other function but to kill. (or practice your killing skill, if you want to bring up target shooting.)
Judging a technology based on how it can be used by people is something that most people on Slashdot are very much against. It should be no different with guns. Technology is never good or evil.
I'm with you to a degree, but how does chemical weapons or the like fit into that view? There are no positive uses for those, either.
Wow, I didn't know you didn't need a license to own a gun in the US. That explains a lot.
My dad is the treasurer at the local gun club, and is also a gunsmith though.
There you go. You have a vested interest in keeping guns on the street. You've also obviously been brought up in a house that supports the idea that every man deserves the right to keep a deadly weapon. There's nothing I or anyone is going to be able to say to dissuade you from that.
No Einstein, a golf club is for hitting a golf ball. As for your plenty of sports, there is... erm.. shooting. Are you trying to say every gun owner in the US is a licensed sports shooter? No wonder you have no problems with violent crimes involving firearms. Put a gun in the hand of a pussy, and he instantly thinks he is a tough guy. I can guess you own one.
Well iv'e listened to a lot of it, in fact I did some roadie work for part of his Australian spoken word tour a couple of years ago. I absolutely disagree with your statement of "keen intellect". He speaks, but it isn't anything that hasn't been said a million times before. Of course he realises "the pen (or the voice) is mightier than the sword (or the fist)", that's why he spends so much time being Captain Loveable for the ego-strokers on E! and the like. So he can improve the size of his already "mighty" bank account. Henry Rollins is to punk what Metallica is to Heavy Metal.
Right, but this game is obviously targeted at the more mature user with the sexual content. Sheesh, it'll be at least R18+ rated, so it won't even be available to children. The same argument could be used for animation or music, too. Just because it seems to the casual passer-by that the game is aimed at a certain demographic, it doesn't make it true. I could rattle off stacks of titles that appear to be children's games (graphically), but the puzzles or content are obviously aimed at a higher age group. I feel the same applies to this. Whether it's a BMX game or tiddlywinks, games can be enjoyed by all age groups. I don't think it is up to a retail store to pretend to be our moral compass.
The title may be XXX, but I doubt very much the content will actually be X-rated. After all, it is a game with nude girls riding bikes, not engaging in penetrative sex. From all the reviews i've read, it is just a rehash of the last game but with scantily-clad ladies on the bikes instead of blokes in baggy trousers.
I can sort of understand why the toy stores won't stock it, but i'm assuming walmart/bestbuy are department stores. If they sell DVD titles (movies) that are R18+ rated, why the double standard for a video game? Did these stores also refuse GTA3 and the forthcoming GTA3:vice-city for their sexual content? It seems a little contradictory to me.
I have to go one further here. I agree that the death of the pinball machine was the beginning of the end, but I believe the arcade's final nail in the coffin is the advent of the higher-power home consoles. Before the Super Nintendo and such, you had to visit your local arcade because the best games were only available on the robust hardware, but now... Every kid has a equally powerful system parked under their television at home. Man, I remember putting about $10 a day through my local street fighter machine but nowadays I could buy my own copy instead for the price of a couple of days' play. (i'm not ignoring the rapid adoption of PC's, its just that PC's have only become common for the average Joe over the last 10 years or so. Before that, it was enthusiasts only!) Consoles brought gaming to the masses, and will continue to do so.
Maybe, but PS2 and X-Box have had almost a 12 month head start, at least here in Australia anyway. The gamecube release schedule shows titles will be coming out thick and fast from here on in. My release list shows over 100 titles coming out before christmas.
Slashdot Mirror
That's exactly the point. Every time I watch it I think: "Well, it's easy for you to do that because you don't have to live there...". It's pretty easy to fuck up somebody's house then get in the van at the end of the day and move on. They aren't accountable for any of the work/damage they do.
Damn straight. If they hired talent instead of trying to make/create it themselves they would save millions. They spend so much money finding an artist, creating an image trying to palm it off onto an indifferent public. A catchy song negates the need for mass marketing and publicity, when word of mouth can do the same.
Well, over here in Australia the average price for a new release CD is about $30, yet the label i'm involved with sells CD's from ALL the bands we have signed for under $10 (most around the $7 mark). Now that equates to roughly the same price point you are talking about. The other thing your post brings up is a good point about where the money goes. I feel the whole idea of going out, sourcing somebody who may or may not be talented, training them, having songs written for them, having Spike Lee direct clips for them, marketing them, printing a billion CDs up for them and spending money on them in the hope of a return seems like a pretty stupid gamble to me, but this is the way the "pop" scene operates. No wonder they need to earn millions off Britney to pay for all the ones that fail. Basically, I reckon that if you want to manufacture music, you have to pay all the costs involved, building your product from the ground up. But if you source talented artists/bands who have their own direction and skills, you need only worry about a small amount of marketing and the costs involved with the production of the CD itself. The music sells itself, you don't have to spend billions convincing people they like it.
soy-D's
Same here, buddy. When I bought my GameCube a few months ago, I tossed up on which games to get with it. I decided on Capcom Vs SNK2 and an x-arcade joystick (instead of two games) and I swear to God, my mates and I have not spent this much time on a game since I was 14 playing street fighter at the local fish & chip shop. I now have a bunch of other games too, but it is the pure gameplay and strategy of the fights that we keep coming back to night after night. It's nice to see a franchise over 10 years old that has been refined to the point of pure gaming bliss. If you are a fan of the SF franchise, do yourself a favour and check it out, just don't play on the GC settings with the gamecube controller. Its sacrilege to the good name of Capcom.
I like: Jesus Saves! Jews win by two...
That makes me even more suspicious, as the game had been out for ages before Nintendo even considered hosting on their platform. Your friend, he was a playtester for Nintendo, in Japan, In the 80's? wow. I don't know how he got that info, as I was a playtester for ozi-soft in the early 90's (distributed SEGA games in Australia) and you are very far removed from almost everything about the game. You play it, you tell 'em what you think (according to certain criteria). They certainly don't tell you about business dealings or the like. I think he was making it up.
Technos was the japanese developer, Taito released the game worldwide. They have no ties with Nintendo whatsoever, except for occasionally releasing their games on that format.
I think you're mistaken, considering Taito made the original Double Dragon for the arcade in 1987. Nintendo weren't even involved.
I Hate this arguement, it is rubbish. All of the objects you mentioned have valid uses that do not involve the taking of life, and I have no problem with people having them. If somebody uses them incorrectly, yes, they could kill, but so does everything. What I have a problem with is people trying to justify the ownership of a deadly weapon that has no other function but to kill. (or practice your killing skill, if you want to bring up target shooting.)
Judging a technology based on how it can be used by people is something that most people on Slashdot are very much against. It should be no different with guns. Technology is never good or evil.
I'm with you to a degree, but how does chemical weapons or the like fit into that view? There are no positive uses for those, either.
My dad is the treasurer at the local gun club, and is also a gunsmith though.
There you go. You have a vested interest in keeping guns on the street. You've also obviously been brought up in a house that supports the idea that every man deserves the right to keep a deadly weapon. There's nothing I or anyone is going to be able to say to dissuade you from that.
Who's we, you got a turd in your pocket?
No Einstein, a golf club is for hitting a golf ball. As for your plenty of sports, there is... erm.. shooting. Are you trying to say every gun owner in the US is a licensed sports shooter? No wonder you have no problems with violent crimes involving firearms. Put a gun in the hand of a pussy, and he instantly thinks he is a tough guy. I can guess you own one.
I agree, but computers and aeroplanes have valid uses. What is a gun for if not for killing life?
Well iv'e listened to a lot of it, in fact I did some roadie work for part of his Australian spoken word tour a couple of years ago. I absolutely disagree with your statement of "keen intellect". He speaks, but it isn't anything that hasn't been said a million times before. Of course he realises "the pen (or the voice) is mightier than the sword (or the fist)", that's why he spends so much time being Captain Loveable for the ego-strokers on E! and the like. So he can improve the size of his already "mighty" bank account. Henry Rollins is to punk what Metallica is to Heavy Metal.
(Thanks Troy McClure)
I have two diferent brand DVD players at home, and I can press "menu/main menu/top menu" on both and skip the warnings as well.
Right, but this game is obviously targeted at the more mature user with the sexual content. Sheesh, it'll be at least R18+ rated, so it won't even be available to children. The same argument could be used for animation or music, too. Just because it seems to the casual passer-by that the game is aimed at a certain demographic, it doesn't make it true. I could rattle off stacks of titles that appear to be children's games (graphically), but the puzzles or content are obviously aimed at a higher age group. I feel the same applies to this. Whether it's a BMX game or tiddlywinks, games can be enjoyed by all age groups. I don't think it is up to a retail store to pretend to be our moral compass.
The title may be XXX, but I doubt very much the content will actually be X-rated. After all, it is a game with nude girls riding bikes, not engaging in penetrative sex. From all the reviews i've read, it is just a rehash of the last game but with scantily-clad ladies on the bikes instead of blokes in baggy trousers.
I can sort of understand why the toy stores won't stock it, but i'm assuming walmart/bestbuy are department stores. If they sell DVD titles (movies) that are R18+ rated, why the double standard for a video game? Did these stores also refuse GTA3 and the forthcoming GTA3:vice-city for their sexual content? It seems a little contradictory to me.
I dunno... it always felt like a glorified version of "The Last Ninja" to me...
I have to go one further here. I agree that the death of the pinball machine was the beginning of the end, but I believe the arcade's final nail in the coffin is the advent of the higher-power home consoles. Before the Super Nintendo and such, you had to visit your local arcade because the best games were only available on the robust hardware, but now... Every kid has a equally powerful system parked under their television at home. Man, I remember putting about $10 a day through my local street fighter machine but nowadays I could buy my own copy instead for the price of a couple of days' play. (i'm not ignoring the rapid adoption of PC's, its just that PC's have only become common for the average Joe over the last 10 years or so. Before that, it was enthusiasts only!) Consoles brought gaming to the masses, and will continue to do so.
Yep, they can go up and down, but not side to side or back in time.
Yeah, damn straight. And who works for who now? ;o)
Maybe, but PS2 and X-Box have had almost a 12 month head start, at least here in Australia anyway. The gamecube release schedule shows titles will be coming out thick and fast from here on in. My release list shows over 100 titles coming out before christmas.