"What kind of weight does such a bill place on you? Are we talking about the fact that you have to go out and buy the game yourself?"
If my kid is 15, has his own job, is paying for his own car and insurance like I was at that age, then yes it is a problem. Let him go be independent if he's earned it.
"So should we do away with any law that pertains to a minor?"
No, that's not what I was saying. What I was saying was that there's nothing that proves games are harmful. All of the evidence suggests that behavioural related problems are a parenting problem, not Mario coaxing kids into blowing away fellow students. I have no problem with smoking and alcohol laws.
"You probably are a good parent, and therefore you can see the problems that such a situation would present."
I feel like if my kid has earned independence, he/she should be allowed to go enjoy it. Bills like this erode away at his/her ability to do that.
I appreciate your response, some people were thinking that I want to be lazy. What I'm saying is I'll make the choices for my kids, not the gov't.
"No one is talking about BANNING anything, not rock and roll, not cellphones, not videogames."
I'm sure there are those out there that would ban video games if they could. What they're doing today is a step in the right direction. And the fact is they're acting without really finding out what the need for it really is.
It only gets easier at this point for them to pass shitty laws. If you don't believe me, I have 4 letters for you. D M C A.
"Turn off the TV. Don't record anything. Find other things to do with the time."
Actually, I'm having lots of fun finding ways to skip the commercials anyway. After building my own PVR, I am no longer tied to a TV schedule. I can zip past commercials with no problem. If they want me to watch commercials at this point, they'd better start offering better deals on TV.
I read the Sunday ads alot. I feel like spending money, and I go through the ads to find something interesting. Why not expand the ads section and leave TV alone?
"The Columbine shooting was a combination of nutty kids and adults who left guns within their fucking reach"
My memory is a little fuzzy on this topic, but I did get to read why they thought DOOM/Duke Nukem (it was one of those games...) was to blame. One of the shooters left a journal that described in detail how he thought the event should go down. He used a Doom/Duke reference (which reminded me more of the Matrix than this game...) to illustrate how he wanted it to go down. He wanted it to look like a scene in a movie.
The reason he referred to the game was that it provided a visual he needed to illustrate his idea. There was no hint in what I read (not all of it was made public, btw...) that his playing the game inspired him to go shoot up the school. His desire to do that was more about not having any friends than anything else.
No no... some politicians collecting votes out there twisted it into a 'the video game made him do it' story. Afterall, games are the easy scapegoat because they haven't been around that long.
My point is that there was a lot of anti-game crap going on after Columbine that was all based on a biased interpretation of events. That is exactly the problem with this law. They're taking a right away, but with no solid reason why not to do it. At least with alcohol, it's obvious that it's addictive and dangerous.
"In conclusion, let's please think about this objectively; this legislation would not give up any of our current rights, and in protecting our children from corruption would actually serve to protect our rights for generations to come. "
The problem isn't about our rights, it's about conservative over-reaction. 'We think games bad' is turning into 'law says games be good'. There is simply no proof that this really needs to be done. This kind of behvaiour 50 years ago would have resulted in a similar law on Rock and Roll music. Do you really think Rock and Roll turned kids into hoodlums?
What happens when this law gets passed? What's the next one going to be? Cell phone ban without the need to prove that they're really harmful? Maybe they'll stop showing Law and Order because it gives children ideas about how to commit crimes.
Sorry, I don't want to live in a world where the people passing the laws think that children should be seen and not heard.
It is my job to be the parent of my kids, not the Government's. I want to be the one to choose what my kids can and cannot play.
I know damned good and well that I won't be able to prevent my kids from drinking or smoking or watching Beavis and Butthead. But I do know that while they're in my supervision, they'll behave. The way I see it, if they go out and experiment a little, that's fine. It's called curiosity. If my kid is 10 years old and watches a porno with his friend that stole it from his dad, oh well. That stuff happens all the time. Yet kids somehow still manage to be normal.
If I decide a game is too violent for my kids, then I'll make sure that they're not allowed to in my house. If they still manage to play it at a friend's house anyway, I may frown on that, but at least I know that because of me their exposure is still limited. The benefitting factor is that some of their need to see this game is satisfied, and it's not a big issue.
But what if the Gov't bans the sale of games to minors? That decision places a lot of weight on me that I don't need. On top of that, I don't approve of that decision! What if I write a note saying "Please let my child by this game anyway?" Will the retailer accept it? I doubt it. The law sounds like it's going to be too absolute to allow for things like their parents okaying it.
Let me parent my kids, don't make the decisions for me. If you feel the decision must be made for me, you better convince me that there's a problem that you're really fixing. There is 0 proof that video games have a negative impact on the health or behaviour of a child. Only speculation.
I was thinking the same thing. Is this the type of thing that could set a legal precedent? Or is it more of a drama?
And before you tell me to read it, consider that some of us like to have an idea of what we're reading about before we go off reading articles. In other words, define ur acronyms!
Is it a slow enough news day that you'd oversimplify a situation just so you could get modded up for griping? Never mind that you'd prefer we say 'goodbye' tomorrow than say 'get well' today.
Imagine the Matrix universe with animated Akira visual style. It is just too easy to take a live-action super-hero movie and make it really bad. Animated movies, though, have much more freedom, and the audience is much more tolerant of unrealistic scenes.
Oh well... I guess I can re-watch my animated Spawn DVD's.
I'm a little concerned this guy was more modded down just for saying 'I don't like what everybody else likes' instead of really riling people up.
I kind of feel the same way about the movie. I didn't hate it, though. I thought it was alright. But the style did outweigh the plot. I'm really concerned that the 2nd movie will focus too much on the style and not get into other aspects of good filmmaking such as character development and so on.
That's one of thew few movies I don't have on DVD because it was fun to watch the first and even the second time, but after that it just kind of fizzled out.
Anyhoo, that's just what I think. No harm intended. My main reason for writing was not to blast the Matrix, but to illustrate my concern over whether the 2nd movie will be worth watching, or if it'll be an over-milking of the franchise.
Sadly, it'll probably be a cross between Quake and Max Payne.
I have no idea what the game will be like, but I seriously hope that they try something innovative with it. Imagine a Lucas Arts style adventure game (like Maniac Mansion, Full Throttle, or Day of the Tentacle...), with some action sequences as well.
What I don't want to do is go running around blowing stuff up, and not having much other to do than that. Give me an adventure, not an FPS.
Sorry for the negativity, I'm just really concerned that they'll time the release of the game to the release of the movie, and bank on the title of the game instead of the substance. Too MANY games are like that today. The original Matrix movie could lend itself really well to some original concepts in gaming and I just can't imagine they'll do anything more than remake Quake with the stopped time effects.
"To those that think MS is a monopoly, it probably seems like another example of it squashing competing platforms in favor of their own."
You really should be careful about when to brand MS a monopoly and hate them for it, and when not to. What MS did with Halo was typical of *any* business. They do not deserved to be punished for it. Punish them for what they're doing wrong, don't punish them for what they're doing right. MS has a monopoly on the OS market and the browser market. They have a LONG way to go before they could possibly dominate the game market. (Face it, the only possible way MS could have a monopoly there is if the customers supported it just like they did with Windows. They can't buy it. Go back a couple of days on Slashdot and you'll see they tried to buy Nintendo, didn't work.)
Let me explain what could happen: Let's say people won't buy XBOX's because it's MS. Your alternatives are Sony and Nintendo. Nintendo is very monopolistic with their system, but they also care about making good games so most people don't even worry about it. (Hell, I don't!) Sony, however, is not only very monopolistic, but they have no clue how to make a game system. The PS2 is a nice system and all, but there are a lot of not so subtle hints that they are ruthless, and really only out to make money. Frankly, I see Sony as a Japanese version of MS. Here's an example: The first few batches of Playstations had a very high defect rate. Sony has 25 billion dollars in the bank, but for a customer to get their PS fixed they'd have to ship it at their expense along with a check for $75. All to fix a defect that showed up in normal use of the system. Nintendo and Sega put a great deal of effort into designing their systems that very few people know what it's like having to get their unit replaced. I've heard good stories about both those companies.
I'm sure I'll draw flack for those comments, but I don't want you carrying away that Sony is evil from my post, instead I want you to carry away a piece of advice: Don't let your hatred for MS cause you to give power to somebody who's WORSE.
MS made the XBOX, arguably it's a good system with good software support. Make sure that what MS does right with that machine and other companies will take notice. Not supporting MS for a non-related issue only gives power to somebody who may very well misuse it like Sony has done.
It will perpetually sell, provided it's not kicked out of it's roost for being the 'must have' game.
Consider: Nearly All Super Mario Games, Sonic the Hedgehog 1 and 2, Twisted Metal and Demolition Derby (I think that was the name, both for Playstation), Tetris, any Zelda game, any Final Fantasy game, any game made by Rare, and so on...
It's not so easy to find PC games that have sold near as much as the console games I have mentioned. The main reason is that console games stay on the shelf a hell of a lot longer. Halo could easily hit 5 million units if the XBOX is reasonably successful. The only thing that'd prevent that is if a new game comes along that generates a hell of a lot of buzz.
I haven't dug into this matter too deeply, but the benchmarks I've read suggest that Mac CPU's can hold their own against Intel. In certain optimized apps, they perform even better.
Trust me, if they were half the speed of Intel processors, they wouldn't be going anywhere. (This from a guy who uses a 300mhz laptop more than his 1.2 gig Athlon.. hee hee. I guess there's a lot to be said for interface.)
Take a look at my parent post again. I think I made a pretty good point. I don't understand why my response was considered flame bait, but when somebody calls me stupid in the same thread and in the same topic, offering very little information to back up his claim isn't considered flame bait.
I took the time to put together a rebuttal to a point of view. There's a large difference between writing that and writing a post intended to make people fight with me about it.
Please reconsider your moderations of the parent post to my reply here.
Diablo2 has sold more copies for PC than there are X-Boxen in existance.
Halo for PC would most likely sell as many copies as RTCW, which is > 1,000,000"
I'm stupid? Okay, let's talk about your post for a sec:
1.) Diablo 2 is a rare cirumstance. It's a AAA title made by a highly regarded company, Blizzard. A 'successful game' on the PC is defined by selling 500,000 copies. (at least that was what a publisher told me back in 97, that info may be different today, but I doubt it.) Most games don't go that high in terms of sales at all.
2.)Halo could potentially hit the 1 million mark on the PC. I doubt it, but it's possible. With the XBOX, though, we're talking like 5 million copies at LEAST. Console games have a much higher chance of selling at least a million copies. Square did it routinely with it's Final Fantasy series.
3.) If you had read what I said, you'd notice that I said Halo would continue to sell as long as XBOXes are being sold. So your argument that Diablo 2 sold more copies than XBOX's in existance really doesn't hold a whole lot of water. You could have saved yourself that embarrasment if you had just paid a little more attention about what I said.
4.) Did you catch the part where Bungie said they're still planning to release a PC and Mac version? Okay, so it's later, but virtually no harm done.
Am I really that stupid? Of course my attitude is biased, but my idea looks a lot clearer than yours does.
"Actually, I would refute this. I have seen games like Luigi's Mansion running on the Cube, and the fact of the matter is that the graphics are rather poor quality"
You picked the worst graphic game on GC and compared it to the best graphic game on XBOX, heh. Why don't you go take a look at Rogue Squadron? That game is an excellent example of the power that GC houses. Frankly, I'd rather play Luigi's Mansion anyway. I'm thoroughly sick of running around killing monsters. Been there. Done that.
"This page [xbox.com] has a list of every wonderful game being developed for the XBox, and most anyone will begin to drool when reading the page. I haven't seen games this good since Pong.
Heh, I found this comment amusing. That's not a list of 'good games', it's a list of "Games in Development". As a matter of fact, that list is very similar to games in development for PS2 and GameCube. Very few, if any, of those games are XBOX exclusives. Know what that means? It means that the decision between buying an XBOX, PS2, or GC is decided by a gamble as to which system will provide you with the most games that you want.
And no, I don't drool over them. I have enough experience with games on previous systems (PSONE, for example...) to know that nearly every one of those games will be mediochre at best. Derivitive, derivitive, Derivitive. If you're not running around shooting monsters, you're racing, fighting, or playing a sport. YAWN.
Now, driving this post back into my original point, that decision will likely be based on potential power of the system, the features of the system, or the price of it. That could be in Microsoft's favor in this round, but all bets are off when the next generation of game systems come into being. If MS gets overly zealous like Sony did, their next system could very easily be inferior, power wise, to their competitors. The PS2 has a nasty bottleneck that automatically makes it's games noticably blurrier than any of their competitors' (including Dreamcast, out a year earlier...), lack of VRAM. They have to halve their vertical resolution and interpolate it back in order to have RAM for other things to do. Blurry blurry blurry.
See my point now? There's very little keeping you interesting in buying the next MS machine that comes out. Now, if MS were to emulate Nintendo by creating their own in house games (note: These have to be AAA titles, not just the regurgitated crap most companies produce), then you have the comfort of knowing that MS's next system will carry over that tradition. Even if the other systems have games that you want, MS will still be making games that you'll likely be interested in.
It is for this reason that Nintendo has a mobile audience, willing to absorb anything they produce. It's not because we're all idiots. I know that if Miyamoto makes a game, it'll be cool. I know that if RARE makes a game, it'll be cool. Back in the SNES days, if Square made a game, I know it'd be cool.
Btw, Chumbawumba seems to understand the power of the internet. Though they don't 100% fit my vision of what a web-based band should do, they are much much closer. Here's their site:
Not only do they seem to understand that the internet is a powerful tool for selling their music, but they also provide some songs to download for free. I highly recommend reading their FAQ because they talk about their views on file trading and how the corps try to soak up more money than they deserve.
Be cautioned, though, they are basically an anti-corporate band. Although I'd highly recommend you read about what they're about instead of taking my overly-processed view of who they are.:)
"Unfortunately most of the restrictive contracts the artists are forced to sign prohibit them from selling their content by other means other than the record company. "
You bring up an excellent point. I thought about that while I was writing my original post. If they do future albums, they may not be covered under the contracts. (Although, my hair wouldn't exactly stand up if I found out that there were contracts out there that screw them out of that too...)
Future artists, though, should consider being aware of internet licensing. If I download an MP3, then I didn't cost the music producer any media fees. If I got it from Kazaa, then I didn't even cost them bandwidth. I would like that savings passed on to me. If I paid double their royalty, then they'd not only get more, but I'm still saving money.
I envision a day before too long where an artist makes music, puts it on a site, and is very fair and flexible about licensing of his/her songs. I'm hoping a popular visionary comes along before too long...
"Because after MS bought Bungie, it wound up shipping for X-Box, and, so far, nothing else. (Though Bungie continues to assert [bungie.net] "There WILL be Mac and PC versions of Halo." -- I'll believe it when it ships.)"
Okay, I found this comment a little offensive. Yeah yeah, it's cool to hate MS and all, but you're not considering an important factor here: Console games sell better than PC games. Always.
Halo would likely only be on the shelfs for a month or so on PC. It would hardly make any money at all on the Mac. What benefit is that to Bungie? As an XBOX exclusive, though, they have a title that will sell for months and months. Even today, they're still selling copies of it with new XBOX's because it's that graphic game that really shows off the power of the system.
It was a wise business choice for Bungie because it allowed them to earn money to fund future development (i.e. PC and Mac), plus it helped MS sell more XBOXes. More XBOXes, more developer support, and so on. If you're anti-MS, you hate this news. If you're an avid gamer, you love this news.
The fact that Bungie is saying 'Halo will be on other platforms', indicates that MS didn't do anything but give Halo a much better chance for success.
Consider that before you use Halo as an anti-MS weapon.
... right now is that the RIAA has labeled me a thief. It wasn't all that long ago that I was downloading music and then making trips to the music store. Somebody'd say "Chemical Brothers is pretty good.." and I'd go find some CB songs and listen to them. Boom, found an interesting album, went and bought a CD.
Now, though, I'm a thief because I download songs. That's it. No other definition. They don't care that the MP3's I had were complimented with store bought CD's. Hell, they even tried to take my rights away with the SSSCA. Did they even try to support me as a customer? Nope. They still sell albums but not singles (not enough singles I should say...). They still insist that I can only listen to the CD and not the MP3 version. They don't cater to my new demands that I'm willing to pay for. They assume that because I own an MP3 Player and a CD Burner that I'm automatically going to stop paying for music. They even use numbers based on that (fictional numbers I might add...) in order to grease up a politician into getting the Government to pass laws to keep their ancient business model going. I'm sorry, but I'm not giving any more money to the RIAA so they can buy legislation that takes my rights away.
Right now, my only realistic approach to buy used CD's. Unfortunately, I feel bad because I really would like to support the artists out there. If there are any artists reading this article now, please... provide me with a way to pay you directly. I'll pay double what your royalty from a CD would be. At this point, I don't care about having MP3's legitimately anymore, but I do care about making sure the artists have incentive to keep doing their work.
Here that RIAA? You're scaring off your customers! How long do you think that business model will last?
Slashdot Mirror
"What kind of weight does such a bill place on you? Are we talking about the fact that you have to go out and buy the game yourself?"
If my kid is 15, has his own job, is paying for his own car and insurance like I was at that age, then yes it is a problem. Let him go be independent if he's earned it.
"So should we do away with any law that pertains to a minor?"
No, that's not what I was saying. What I was saying was that there's nothing that proves games are harmful. All of the evidence suggests that behavioural related problems are a parenting problem, not Mario coaxing kids into blowing away fellow students. I have no problem with smoking and alcohol laws.
"You probably are a good parent, and therefore you can see the problems that such a situation would present."
I feel like if my kid has earned independence, he/she should be allowed to go enjoy it. Bills like this erode away at his/her ability to do that.
I appreciate your response, some people were thinking that I want to be lazy. What I'm saying is I'll make the choices for my kids, not the gov't.
"No one is talking about BANNING anything, not rock and roll, not cellphones, not videogames."
I'm sure there are those out there that would ban video games if they could. What they're doing today is a step in the right direction. And the fact is they're acting without really finding out what the need for it really is.
It only gets easier at this point for them to pass shitty laws. If you don't believe me, I have 4 letters for you. D M C A.
"Turn off the TV. Don't record anything. Find other things to do with the time."
Actually, I'm having lots of fun finding ways to skip the commercials anyway. After building my own PVR, I am no longer tied to a TV schedule. I can zip past commercials with no problem. If they want me to watch commercials at this point, they'd better start offering better deals on TV.
I read the Sunday ads alot. I feel like spending money, and I go through the ads to find something interesting. Why not expand the ads section and leave TV alone?
"The Columbine shooting was a combination of nutty kids and adults who left guns within their fucking reach"
My memory is a little fuzzy on this topic, but I did get to read why they thought DOOM/Duke Nukem (it was one of those games...) was to blame. One of the shooters left a journal that described in detail how he thought the event should go down. He used a Doom/Duke reference (which reminded me more of the Matrix than this game...) to illustrate how he wanted it to go down. He wanted it to look like a scene in a movie.
The reason he referred to the game was that it provided a visual he needed to illustrate his idea. There was no hint in what I read (not all of it was made public, btw...) that his playing the game inspired him to go shoot up the school. His desire to do that was more about not having any friends than anything else.
No no... some politicians collecting votes out there twisted it into a 'the video game made him do it' story. Afterall, games are the easy scapegoat because they haven't been around that long.
My point is that there was a lot of anti-game crap going on after Columbine that was all based on a biased interpretation of events. That is exactly the problem with this law. They're taking a right away, but with no solid reason why not to do it. At least with alcohol, it's obvious that it's addictive and dangerous.
"In conclusion, let's please think about this objectively; this legislation would not give up any of our current rights, and in protecting our children from corruption would actually serve to protect our rights for generations to come. "
The problem isn't about our rights, it's about conservative over-reaction. 'We think games bad' is turning into 'law says games be good'. There is simply no proof that this really needs to be done. This kind of behvaiour 50 years ago would have resulted in a similar law on Rock and Roll music. Do you really think Rock and Roll turned kids into hoodlums?
What happens when this law gets passed? What's the next one going to be? Cell phone ban without the need to prove that they're really harmful? Maybe they'll stop showing Law and Order because it gives children ideas about how to commit crimes.
Sorry, I don't want to live in a world where the people passing the laws think that children should be seen and not heard.
It is my job to be the parent of my kids, not the Government's. I want to be the one to choose what my kids can and cannot play.
I know damned good and well that I won't be able to prevent my kids from drinking or smoking or watching Beavis and Butthead. But I do know that while they're in my supervision, they'll behave. The way I see it, if they go out and experiment a little, that's fine. It's called curiosity. If my kid is 10 years old and watches a porno with his friend that stole it from his dad, oh well. That stuff happens all the time. Yet kids somehow still manage to be normal.
If I decide a game is too violent for my kids, then I'll make sure that they're not allowed to in my house. If they still manage to play it at a friend's house anyway, I may frown on that, but at least I know that because of me their exposure is still limited. The benefitting factor is that some of their need to see this game is satisfied, and it's not a big issue.
But what if the Gov't bans the sale of games to minors? That decision places a lot of weight on me that I don't need. On top of that, I don't approve of that decision! What if I write a note saying "Please let my child by this game anyway?" Will the retailer accept it? I doubt it. The law sounds like it's going to be too absolute to allow for things like their parents okaying it.
Let me parent my kids, don't make the decisions for me. If you feel the decision must be made for me, you better convince me that there's a problem that you're really fixing. There is 0 proof that video games have a negative impact on the health or behaviour of a child. Only speculation.
I was thinking the same thing. Is this the type of thing that could set a legal precedent? Or is it more of a drama?
And before you tell me to read it, consider that some of us like to have an idea of what we're reading about before we go off reading articles. In other words, define ur acronyms!
Is it a slow enough news day that you'd oversimplify a situation just so you could get modded up for griping? Never mind that you'd prefer we say 'goodbye' tomorrow than say 'get well' today.
I think all this hooplah over video game violence is a reflection of the quality of parenting here in the USA.
Well if you can name three other games like it, it still wouldn't be that innovative, would it?
You're absolutely right. Every single game in a genre is 100% alike. I forgot to narrow my mind when I posted that.
Imagine the Matrix universe with animated Akira visual style. It is just too easy to take a live-action super-hero movie and make it really bad. Animated movies, though, have much more freedom, and the audience is much more tolerant of unrealistic scenes.
Oh well... I guess I can re-watch my animated Spawn DVD's.
I'm a little concerned this guy was more modded down just for saying 'I don't like what everybody else likes' instead of really riling people up.
I kind of feel the same way about the movie. I didn't hate it, though. I thought it was alright. But the style did outweigh the plot. I'm really concerned that the 2nd movie will focus too much on the style and not get into other aspects of good filmmaking such as character development and so on.
That's one of thew few movies I don't have on DVD because it was fun to watch the first and even the second time, but after that it just kind of fizzled out.
Anyhoo, that's just what I think. No harm intended. My main reason for writing was not to blast the Matrix, but to illustrate my concern over whether the 2nd movie will be worth watching, or if it'll be an over-milking of the franchise.
Heh interestingly enough tho, I'm excited about MiB 2 coming out! *G*
Sadly, it'll probably be a cross between Quake and Max Payne.
I have no idea what the game will be like, but I seriously hope that they try something innovative with it. Imagine a Lucas Arts style adventure game (like Maniac Mansion, Full Throttle, or Day of the Tentacle...), with some action sequences as well.
What I don't want to do is go running around blowing stuff up, and not having much other to do than that. Give me an adventure, not an FPS.
Sorry for the negativity, I'm just really concerned that they'll time the release of the game to the release of the movie, and bank on the title of the game instead of the substance. Too MANY games are like that today. The original Matrix movie could lend itself really well to some original concepts in gaming and I just can't imagine they'll do anything more than remake Quake with the stopped time effects.
"...they explode from the heat and spew various fire-retardants all over the place..."
That sounds like a colorful metaphor for most Slashdot articles about Microsoft. Heh.
"To those that think MS is a monopoly, it probably seems like another example of it squashing competing platforms in favor of their own."
You really should be careful about when to brand MS a monopoly and hate them for it, and when not to. What MS did with Halo was typical of *any* business. They do not deserved to be punished for it. Punish them for what they're doing wrong, don't punish them for what they're doing right. MS has a monopoly on the OS market and the browser market. They have a LONG way to go before they could possibly dominate the game market. (Face it, the only possible way MS could have a monopoly there is if the customers supported it just like they did with Windows. They can't buy it. Go back a couple of days on Slashdot and you'll see they tried to buy Nintendo, didn't work.)
Let me explain what could happen: Let's say people won't buy XBOX's because it's MS. Your alternatives are Sony and Nintendo. Nintendo is very monopolistic with their system, but they also care about making good games so most people don't even worry about it. (Hell, I don't!) Sony, however, is not only very monopolistic, but they have no clue how to make a game system. The PS2 is a nice system and all, but there are a lot of not so subtle hints that they are ruthless, and really only out to make money. Frankly, I see Sony as a Japanese version of MS. Here's an example: The first few batches of Playstations had a very high defect rate. Sony has 25 billion dollars in the bank, but for a customer to get their PS fixed they'd have to ship it at their expense along with a check for $75. All to fix a defect that showed up in normal use of the system. Nintendo and Sega put a great deal of effort into designing their systems that very few people know what it's like having to get their unit replaced. I've heard good stories about both those companies.
I'm sure I'll draw flack for those comments, but I don't want you carrying away that Sony is evil from my post, instead I want you to carry away a piece of advice: Don't let your hatred for MS cause you to give power to somebody who's WORSE.
MS made the XBOX, arguably it's a good system with good software support. Make sure that what MS does right with that machine and other companies will take notice. Not supporting MS for a non-related issue only gives power to somebody who may very well misuse it like Sony has done.
It will perpetually sell, provided it's not kicked out of it's roost for being the 'must have' game.
Consider: Nearly All Super Mario Games, Sonic the Hedgehog 1 and 2, Twisted Metal and Demolition Derby (I think that was the name, both for Playstation), Tetris, any Zelda game, any Final Fantasy game, any game made by Rare, and so on...
It's not so easy to find PC games that have sold near as much as the console games I have mentioned. The main reason is that console games stay on the shelf a hell of a lot longer. Halo could easily hit 5 million units if the XBOX is reasonably successful. The only thing that'd prevent that is if a new game comes along that generates a hell of a lot of buzz.
I haven't dug into this matter too deeply, but the benchmarks I've read suggest that Mac CPU's can hold their own against Intel. In certain optimized apps, they perform even better.
Trust me, if they were half the speed of Intel processors, they wouldn't be going anywhere. (This from a guy who uses a 300mhz laptop more than his 1.2 gig Athlon.. hee hee. I guess there's a lot to be said for interface.)
I just wanted to say that was very interesting and I appreciate you posting this info. I wish I had mod points to give you a +1 interesting. :)
Take a look at my parent post again. I think I made a pretty good point. I don't understand why my response was considered flame bait, but when somebody calls me stupid in the same thread and in the same topic, offering very little information to back up his claim isn't considered flame bait.
I took the time to put together a rebuttal to a point of view. There's a large difference between writing that and writing a post intended to make people fight with me about it.
Please reconsider your moderations of the parent post to my reply here.
"u r stupid.
Diablo2 has sold more copies for PC than there are X-Boxen in existance.
Halo for PC would most likely sell as many copies as RTCW, which is > 1,000,000"
I'm stupid? Okay, let's talk about your post for a sec:
1.) Diablo 2 is a rare cirumstance. It's a AAA title made by a highly regarded company, Blizzard. A 'successful game' on the PC is defined by selling 500,000 copies. (at least that was what a publisher told me back in 97, that info may be different today, but I doubt it.) Most games don't go that high in terms of sales at all.
2.)Halo could potentially hit the 1 million mark on the PC. I doubt it, but it's possible. With the XBOX, though, we're talking like 5 million copies at LEAST. Console games have a much higher chance of selling at least a million copies. Square did it routinely with it's Final Fantasy series.
3.) If you had read what I said, you'd notice that I said Halo would continue to sell as long as XBOXes are being sold. So your argument that Diablo 2 sold more copies than XBOX's in existance really doesn't hold a whole lot of water. You could have saved yourself that embarrasment if you had just paid a little more attention about what I said.
4.) Did you catch the part where Bungie said they're still planning to release a PC and Mac version? Okay, so it's later, but virtually no harm done.
Am I really that stupid? Of course my attitude is biased, but my idea looks a lot clearer than yours does.
"Actually, I would refute this. I have seen games like Luigi's Mansion running on the Cube, and the fact of the matter is that the graphics are rather poor quality"
You picked the worst graphic game on GC and compared it to the best graphic game on XBOX, heh. Why don't you go take a look at Rogue Squadron? That game is an excellent example of the power that GC houses. Frankly, I'd rather play Luigi's Mansion anyway. I'm thoroughly sick of running around killing monsters. Been there. Done that.
"This page [xbox.com] has a list of every wonderful game being developed for the XBox, and most anyone will begin to drool when reading the page. I haven't seen games this good since Pong.
Heh, I found this comment amusing. That's not a list of 'good games', it's a list of "Games in Development". As a matter of fact, that list is very similar to games in development for PS2 and GameCube. Very few, if any, of those games are XBOX exclusives. Know what that means? It means that the decision between buying an XBOX, PS2, or GC is decided by a gamble as to which system will provide you with the most games that you want.
And no, I don't drool over them. I have enough experience with games on previous systems (PSONE, for example...) to know that nearly every one of those games will be mediochre at best. Derivitive, derivitive, Derivitive. If you're not running around shooting monsters, you're racing, fighting, or playing a sport. YAWN.
Now, driving this post back into my original point, that decision will likely be based on potential power of the system, the features of the system, or the price of it. That could be in Microsoft's favor in this round, but all bets are off when the next generation of game systems come into being. If MS gets overly zealous like Sony did, their next system could very easily be inferior, power wise, to their competitors. The PS2 has a nasty bottleneck that automatically makes it's games noticably blurrier than any of their competitors' (including Dreamcast, out a year earlier...), lack of VRAM. They have to halve their vertical resolution and interpolate it back in order to have RAM for other things to do. Blurry blurry blurry.
See my point now? There's very little keeping you interesting in buying the next MS machine that comes out. Now, if MS were to emulate Nintendo by creating their own in house games (note: These have to be AAA titles, not just the regurgitated crap most companies produce), then you have the comfort of knowing that MS's next system will carry over that tradition. Even if the other systems have games that you want, MS will still be making games that you'll likely be interested in.
It is for this reason that Nintendo has a mobile audience, willing to absorb anything they produce. It's not because we're all idiots. I know that if Miyamoto makes a game, it'll be cool. I know that if RARE makes a game, it'll be cool. Back in the SNES days, if Square made a game, I know it'd be cool.
Btw, Chumbawumba seems to understand the power of the internet. Though they don't 100% fit my vision of what a web-based band should do, they are much much closer. Here's their site:
:)
http://www.chumba.com
Not only do they seem to understand that the internet is a powerful tool for selling their music, but they also provide some songs to download for free. I highly recommend reading their FAQ because they talk about their views on file trading and how the corps try to soak up more money than they deserve.
Be cautioned, though, they are basically an anti-corporate band. Although I'd highly recommend you read about what they're about instead of taking my overly-processed view of who they are.
"Unfortunately most of the restrictive contracts the artists are forced to sign prohibit them from selling their content by other means other than the record company. "
You bring up an excellent point. I thought about that while I was writing my original post. If they do future albums, they may not be covered under the contracts. (Although, my hair wouldn't exactly stand up if I found out that there were contracts out there that screw them out of that too...)
Future artists, though, should consider being aware of internet licensing. If I download an MP3, then I didn't cost the music producer any media fees. If I got it from Kazaa, then I didn't even cost them bandwidth. I would like that savings passed on to me. If I paid double their royalty, then they'd not only get more, but I'm still saving money.
I envision a day before too long where an artist makes music, puts it on a site, and is very fair and flexible about licensing of his/her songs. I'm hoping a popular visionary comes along before too long...
"Because after MS bought Bungie, it wound up shipping for X-Box, and, so far, nothing else. (Though Bungie continues to assert [bungie.net] "There WILL be Mac and PC versions of Halo." -- I'll believe it when it ships.)"
Okay, I found this comment a little offensive. Yeah yeah, it's cool to hate MS and all, but you're not considering an important factor here: Console games sell better than PC games. Always.
Halo would likely only be on the shelfs for a month or so on PC. It would hardly make any money at all on the Mac. What benefit is that to Bungie? As an XBOX exclusive, though, they have a title that will sell for months and months. Even today, they're still selling copies of it with new XBOX's because it's that graphic game that really shows off the power of the system.
It was a wise business choice for Bungie because it allowed them to earn money to fund future development (i.e. PC and Mac), plus it helped MS sell more XBOXes. More XBOXes, more developer support, and so on. If you're anti-MS, you hate this news. If you're an avid gamer, you love this news.
The fact that Bungie is saying 'Halo will be on other platforms', indicates that MS didn't do anything but give Halo a much better chance for success.
Consider that before you use Halo as an anti-MS weapon.
... right now is that the RIAA has labeled me a thief. It wasn't all that long ago that I was downloading music and then making trips to the music store. Somebody'd say "Chemical Brothers is pretty good.." and I'd go find some CB songs and listen to them. Boom, found an interesting album, went and bought a CD.
Now, though, I'm a thief because I download songs. That's it. No other definition. They don't care that the MP3's I had were complimented with store bought CD's. Hell, they even tried to take my rights away with the SSSCA. Did they even try to support me as a customer? Nope. They still sell albums but not singles (not enough singles I should say...). They still insist that I can only listen to the CD and not the MP3 version. They don't cater to my new demands that I'm willing to pay for. They assume that because I own an MP3 Player and a CD Burner that I'm automatically going to stop paying for music. They even use numbers based on that (fictional numbers I might add...) in order to grease up a politician into getting the Government to pass laws to keep their ancient business model going. I'm sorry, but I'm not giving any more money to the RIAA so they can buy legislation that takes my rights away.
Right now, my only realistic approach to buy used CD's. Unfortunately, I feel bad because I really would like to support the artists out there. If there are any artists reading this article now, please... provide me with a way to pay you directly. I'll pay double what your royalty from a CD would be. At this point, I don't care about having MP3's legitimately anymore, but I do care about making sure the artists have incentive to keep doing their work.
Here that RIAA? You're scaring off your customers! How long do you think that business model will last?