It affects consumers because the technology is there to make it harder to import games from another region and play them, so surely the license holders expect the technology to be used. And I wouldn't be surprised if not using region coding, when it's possible, could be grounds for a legal action.
I'm not saying it's a GOOD idea or that I like it. I'm just saying that I see reasons why it's done.
Region codes on games serve _no_ legitimate purpose.
I have to disagree with you here.
Region codes on games have purposes. Games sometimes have licensed content - and the costs of licensing that content can very depending on where the game will be distributed. It may be cheaper to license that music track for US audiences only, or the company they licensed the content from may themselves have the rights to the content for only certain countries. Japanese DDR games are a prime example - they're region coded because they've licensed the content for Japan only.
There are probably games that region code when they don't serve a purpose, but I'd like to believe that this is minimal because doing so can only hurt profits. I suspect that most game region coding is there for a reason.
I have a 4G iPod, and a Zune. My iPod sits in the dock in the clock-radio we have at home. The Zune is what travels along with me in my purse and gets most of the use. I don't need to buy accessories to keep it from getting scratched up, the larger screen is all around better (especially when I'm wasting time watching AMV Hell 3 on my Zune), and I think the UI is slightly better in most ways.
You'll find that the industry places varying degrees of importance on QA. Some places give it minimal importance, hiring contractors and disposable employees to do just enough QA to get by. Those places will have horrible hours, low pay, and be miserable experiences, taking advantage of the fact that a lot of people want to do gaming. Other places will give it proper importance, making it a clear part of the lifecycle. They'll pay decently, actually listen to input, and give the requisite resources and time to make sure that quality is taken care of.
The key is to get in at one of the latter places, though to be fair, it'll also be harder to get in there because more people will be interested, and they'll have tougher requirements when doing the hiring. They're also the places that you'll do things worth putting on a resume and can lead you to becoming even more involved in the industry, should to want to leave QA.
And never forget about positions on the edge of the industry, as those can be some of the best ways in, since there's not the same demand as getting in to an actual game developer, but you'll still make the contacts and learn relevant things. I gave up on getting into the gaming industry years ago. But 5 years ago, I decided to move to Seattle, and got a position at Microsoft (yeah, I know what people here think, but I haven't regretted it for a moment) - and realized I had an opportunity to get into gaming here, and now I've got a position on the Xbox team (UI test). I've been learning a lot, making contacts, and I've found that quite a few people have gone on from this team to take up positions at game developers.
Major Nelson has links to videos of the new content on his site. Believe me, they are worth watching. The new equipment and Keys to the City videos are incredible - they're really giving people a sandbox to just have fun!
Though when I do play online I only play against friends, very rarely do I play against random people that I've never met before.
It's a bit off topic here, but I think the key with online gaming is to merge these two where possible. I think that's one of the things that made Halo 2 so popular on Xbox Live - you could play WITH your friends as a team, and take that team against a team of strangers. And not just random people, but people of approximately the same skill level.
It's an incredibly fun way of doing it that blunts the annoyingness of asshats you meet online - since you're still on a team of friends, and you don't hear the other team much during the game.
And don't forget the big titles before then - Forza Motorsport 2, Mass Effect, and BioShock. All three seem poised to be system sellers, from what I've been hearing.
I think it'll be interesting to see how the release of Forza 2 affects those waiting for GT4.
Microsoft is also the publisher for Gears of War. The company owns the IP. So it's not a matter of telling someone else what they can charge, but deciding for themselves what to charge.
If Epic was publishing the game themselves, then they could make the decisions about what to charge.
That's not a new controller. It's just an attachment for a controller. So you can just put it on when you need it.
And you'll get the connectivity to messenger that you want - when someone on your friends list signs on to their Xbox 360, you'll see that they're on the 360 and what they're playing.
Last.fm has got me more interested in music than I have ever been. The site is responsible for altering my music tastes and introducing me to a large number of artists that make music I love, artists that I would likely have never discovered through record stores and the radio because they're not mainstream. I spend more money on music than I ever have before, and I enjoy the fact that almost all of it is to non-RIAA artists and labels. And I buy CDs, not crappy sub-quality possibly DRM-laden tracks online.
The music industry itself isn't dying - I think it's more alive than ever because of digital distribution and mulitple methods of discovering artists via the web. Heck, even the casual music fan can easily find smaller artists that they'll love, with only a minimum of effort.
What's dying is crappy lowest-common-denominator music being pushed to everyone by huge record labels that aren't about finding new and interesting music but whatever they can make the quickest profit off of. RIAA labels are dying, and mainstream radio is dying.
Actually, I read something regarding the whole idea of new bands getting discovered through MySpace. The conclusion was that it was NOT true. Nobody has picked up a record deal just because of their MySpace page - some artist who had signed record deals had their MySpace pages put up before they released anything, but they already had the deal and the backing before the page went up.
And many major bands don't actually have MySpace pages - there are a considerable number that were started by fans or such. There's a reason that many of them have like four or five all touting themselves as "XXX Bands' OFFICIAL MySpace".
I'm sure MySpace is having an effect, but I don't think anyone's been discovered or the like because of it.
Guitar Hero is significantly better than GuitarFreaks. I played GF a couple times at the arcade, and it just didn't do a lot for me. Guitar Hero, on the other hand, just seems to nail it a lot better. I don't know what it is - and it's not just the fact that GF does Japanese Music while GH does more American rock music either, as I know that I much prefer the Japanese DDR songs to the licensed stuff on the US home versions, and would much rather play on a grey market imported arcade machine.
I hope they manage the drums well - I do love DM, and wish there was a machine close to me to play on, and if Rock Band is at least as good, then I'll be very, very happy.
The PC, until now, doesn't have the Xbox Live model. There is no persistent identity from game to game, no gamer profile that sticks with people that allows you to look at someone else and see what games they play. The idea of a "friends list" is either per game, or you're talking about IM. If you're in the middle of one PC game, and your friends want you to come play with them in another, is there a simple way for them to send you a game invite that you can accept that will end the current game, start the new one, and go right into the game they're in? What about playing cross platform between the PC and the Xbox?
There are quite a few things that Xbox Live does that just aren't really there in any coherent form on the PC. Whether or not it catches on with the PC is to be seen.
I have found so much great music thanks to Last.fm over the past couple years - to the point that my entire music preferences have changed drastically. A large percentage of the stuff I like now and that I'm buying isn't major label, which makes me feel even better. The generated recommendations, lists of similar artists, and people that I've met have all contributed greatly.
It varies through Microsoft depending on what's available and what people prefer. When I started there, I had onw 19" LCD screen. About two months later, I managed to get my PC upgraded to handle 2 monitors, and found a 19" CRT to add on, and used that for the 2 1/2 years. When I switched jobs, I wasn't able to take much with me, so I had to find new monitors - started out with a pair of 21" CRTs, and managed to replace one with a LCD, and hopefully the second soon too. I've seen people with nice widescreen displays, someone down the hall with three monitors, etc. Most people have two 19" or 21" screens.
I'll tell why it's not used on other Xbox Live games.
Bungie put a lot of work and time into developing that system. Most game developers aren't willing to commit that level of resources to that level of multiplayer, when there are much easier methods of putting together a standard lobby system.
Until it starts really being a clear hit against a title to have the standard lobby system, it's going to be hard to get them to stop. I don't see any game reviews in magazines even making much of a deal about it.
Saying this now doesn't mean that the team's only coming to this realization now.
Why certify games with such bad multiplayer setups? Often because it's a matter of that game vs. no game. The higher the bar is for games that are going to be certified, the fewer number of games that are going to get published. And since a significant percentage of 360s aren't even connected to Xbox Live, there are plenty of gamers that are going to only care about the single player experience.
Besides, multiplayer done right is hard - otherwise we'd see a lot more that had done a really good job.
The idea is to stop doing things the way they've always been done just because they've been done that way. The current server list method is a decade old, and the process of getting into a game of Gears of War is effectively no different than getting into a game of Quake.
It's about focusing on what's key to the experience, and being willing to change things. That's what Halo 2 matchmaking did - it's no longer about wading through a list of servers to find a game that you want to join, only to find that they've already started, or that the host is kicking people who aren't their friends, or that the game settings have changed. It's about saying "I want to play this type of game, with this group of friends", and letting the console do the work to find other people who want to play the same way, who have similar skill levels, and then letting the game choose host based on who has the best connection.
With Halo 2, I could load up the game, go into the Rumble Pit playlist, hit start, and be assured that within a couple minutes I was playing a free-for-all game, with enough people, people that would challenge but not horribly slaughter me, with a very slim chance of any network issues. There's no old-style server browser and lobby system that can guarantee that.
The ideal console matchmaking system duplicates that experience. The ability to play with friends as a team, against people of similar skill levels, and letting the console take care of the stuff that the players shouldn't have to worry about so players can get into games as quickly as possible and spent their time playing.
It doesn't mean completely eliminating game lobbies, it just means reworking them to fit this type of setup. Halo had brief pre-game lobbies, post-game lobbies where everyone can chat, and between games you and your friends can sit in a party lobby and chat all you want.
Yes, I have. And it gets boring because you get more or less the same people over and over again, with little variety. Halo 2 lets you play WITH friends, so you have your community feel, while at the same time get matched up against random people so that you always have to keep on your toes.
And when I say play people of your skill level, I don't mean exactly the same - but in a nearby range. So you will play against teams that are a bit worse, and teams that are a bit better. And as you win, your rank goes up, and you play tougher teams. This means that there aren't many hugely lopsided games - and when you're getting slaughtered by a hugely superior team, it's never fun, and if you're doing the slaughtering, it's only fun for a little bit. You learn new tricks here and there, and you can never just sit back and screw around for a game since your competition is always a challenge.
Slashdot Mirror
It affects consumers because the technology is there to make it harder to import games from another region and play them, so surely the license holders expect the technology to be used. And I wouldn't be surprised if not using region coding, when it's possible, could be grounds for a legal action.
I'm not saying it's a GOOD idea or that I like it. I'm just saying that I see reasons why it's done.
Region codes on games serve _no_ legitimate purpose.
I have to disagree with you here.
Region codes on games have purposes. Games sometimes have licensed content - and the costs of licensing that content can very depending on where the game will be distributed. It may be cheaper to license that music track for US audiences only, or the company they licensed the content from may themselves have the rights to the content for only certain countries. Japanese DDR games are a prime example - they're region coded because they've licensed the content for Japan only.
There are probably games that region code when they don't serve a purpose, but I'd like to believe that this is minimal because doing so can only hurt profits. I suspect that most game region coding is there for a reason.
Obviously you've never used a Zune.
I have a 4G iPod, and a Zune. My iPod sits in the dock in the clock-radio we have at home. The Zune is what travels along with me in my purse and gets most of the use. I don't need to buy accessories to keep it from getting scratched up, the larger screen is all around better (especially when I'm wasting time watching AMV Hell 3 on my Zune), and I think the UI is slightly better in most ways.
You'll find that the industry places varying degrees of importance on QA. Some places give it minimal importance, hiring contractors and disposable employees to do just enough QA to get by. Those places will have horrible hours, low pay, and be miserable experiences, taking advantage of the fact that a lot of people want to do gaming. Other places will give it proper importance, making it a clear part of the lifecycle. They'll pay decently, actually listen to input, and give the requisite resources and time to make sure that quality is taken care of.
The key is to get in at one of the latter places, though to be fair, it'll also be harder to get in there because more people will be interested, and they'll have tougher requirements when doing the hiring. They're also the places that you'll do things worth putting on a resume and can lead you to becoming even more involved in the industry, should to want to leave QA.
And never forget about positions on the edge of the industry, as those can be some of the best ways in, since there's not the same demand as getting in to an actual game developer, but you'll still make the contacts and learn relevant things. I gave up on getting into the gaming industry years ago. But 5 years ago, I decided to move to Seattle, and got a position at Microsoft (yeah, I know what people here think, but I haven't regretted it for a moment) - and realized I had an opportunity to get into gaming here, and now I've got a position on the Xbox team (UI test). I've been learning a lot, making contacts, and I've found that quite a few people have gone on from this team to take up positions at game developers.
Major Nelson has links to videos of the new content on his site. Believe me, they are worth watching. The new equipment and Keys to the City videos are incredible - they're really giving people a sandbox to just have fun!
Never mind that with single player, even on a desert island it'll still take a very long time to collect all the most powerful items.
Though when I do play online I only play against friends, very rarely do I play against random people that I've never met before.
It's a bit off topic here, but I think the key with online gaming is to merge these two where possible. I think that's one of the things that made Halo 2 so popular on Xbox Live - you could play WITH your friends as a team, and take that team against a team of strangers. And not just random people, but people of approximately the same skill level.
It's an incredibly fun way of doing it that blunts the annoyingness of asshats you meet online - since you're still on a team of friends, and you don't hear the other team much during the game.
And don't forget the big titles before then - Forza Motorsport 2, Mass Effect, and BioShock. All three seem poised to be system sellers, from what I've been hearing.
I think it'll be interesting to see how the release of Forza 2 affects those waiting for GT4.
Microsoft is also the publisher for Gears of War. The company owns the IP. So it's not a matter of telling someone else what they can charge, but deciding for themselves what to charge.
If Epic was publishing the game themselves, then they could make the decisions about what to charge.
That's not a new controller. It's just an attachment for a controller. So you can just put it on when you need it.
And you'll get the connectivity to messenger that you want - when someone on your friends list signs on to their Xbox 360, you'll see that they're on the 360 and what they're playing.
Last.fm has got me more interested in music than I have ever been. The site is responsible for altering my music tastes and introducing me to a large number of artists that make music I love, artists that I would likely have never discovered through record stores and the radio because they're not mainstream. I spend more money on music than I ever have before, and I enjoy the fact that almost all of it is to non-RIAA artists and labels. And I buy CDs, not crappy sub-quality possibly DRM-laden tracks online.
The music industry itself isn't dying - I think it's more alive than ever because of digital distribution and mulitple methods of discovering artists via the web. Heck, even the casual music fan can easily find smaller artists that they'll love, with only a minimum of effort.
What's dying is crappy lowest-common-denominator music being pushed to everyone by huge record labels that aren't about finding new and interesting music but whatever they can make the quickest profit off of. RIAA labels are dying, and mainstream radio is dying.
Actually, I read something regarding the whole idea of new bands getting discovered through MySpace. The conclusion was that it was NOT true. Nobody has picked up a record deal just because of their MySpace page - some artist who had signed record deals had their MySpace pages put up before they released anything, but they already had the deal and the backing before the page went up.
And many major bands don't actually have MySpace pages - there are a considerable number that were started by fans or such. There's a reason that many of them have like four or five all touting themselves as "XXX Bands' OFFICIAL MySpace".
I'm sure MySpace is having an effect, but I don't think anyone's been discovered or the like because of it.
Guitar Hero is significantly better than GuitarFreaks. I played GF a couple times at the arcade, and it just didn't do a lot for me. Guitar Hero, on the other hand, just seems to nail it a lot better. I don't know what it is - and it's not just the fact that GF does Japanese Music while GH does more American rock music either, as I know that I much prefer the Japanese DDR songs to the licensed stuff on the US home versions, and would much rather play on a grey market imported arcade machine.
I hope they manage the drums well - I do love DM, and wish there was a machine close to me to play on, and if Rock Band is at least as good, then I'll be very, very happy.
hahahaha... nope, not bought, all mine from the moment I registered. I think it was back in mid-98...
Well, it gets used with the clock radio, and since the Zune doesn't work as a portable hard drive, I use it for that now and again too.
When the Zune starts working as a portable hard drive, then sure, I'll sell my iPod.
I take it you've never actually used a Zune...
I have a Zune and a 4G color iPod. My iPod sits in the dock on the clock radio we have for it. The Zune is what I take everywhere with me.
Well, that's the easiest way if you're playing games with random people you don't want to talk to.
Others include, if you're playing with only 1 friend, being in private chat with them.
Or mute the specific fucktard who's talking crap, and make sure to submit feedback (a voice ban or two calms some of them down).
Or play games with friends only, just like on the Wii, without the pain of friend codes.
Press Guide Button -> Personal Settings -> Voice - > Set Volume to 0
It's just that easy.
It's actually NOT charging for what was free.
The PC, until now, doesn't have the Xbox Live model. There is no persistent identity from game to game, no gamer profile that sticks with people that allows you to look at someone else and see what games they play. The idea of a "friends list" is either per game, or you're talking about IM. If you're in the middle of one PC game, and your friends want you to come play with them in another, is there a simple way for them to send you a game invite that you can accept that will end the current game, start the new one, and go right into the game they're in? What about playing cross platform between the PC and the Xbox?
There are quite a few things that Xbox Live does that just aren't really there in any coherent form on the PC. Whether or not it catches on with the PC is to be seen.
Just what I was thinking.
I have found so much great music thanks to Last.fm over the past couple years - to the point that my entire music preferences have changed drastically. A large percentage of the stuff I like now and that I'm buying isn't major label, which makes me feel even better. The generated recommendations, lists of similar artists, and people that I've met have all contributed greatly.
I'm still discovering new artists all the time.
It varies through Microsoft depending on what's available and what people prefer. When I started there, I had onw 19" LCD screen. About two months later, I managed to get my PC upgraded to handle 2 monitors, and found a 19" CRT to add on, and used that for the 2 1/2 years. When I switched jobs, I wasn't able to take much with me, so I had to find new monitors - started out with a pair of 21" CRTs, and managed to replace one with a LCD, and hopefully the second soon too. I've seen people with nice widescreen displays, someone down the hall with three monitors, etc. Most people have two 19" or 21" screens.
I'll tell why it's not used on other Xbox Live games.
Bungie put a lot of work and time into developing that system. Most game developers aren't willing to commit that level of resources to that level of multiplayer, when there are much easier methods of putting together a standard lobby system.
Until it starts really being a clear hit against a title to have the standard lobby system, it's going to be hard to get them to stop. I don't see any game reviews in magazines even making much of a deal about it.
Saying this now doesn't mean that the team's only coming to this realization now.
Why certify games with such bad multiplayer setups? Often because it's a matter of that game vs. no game. The higher the bar is for games that are going to be certified, the fewer number of games that are going to get published. And since a significant percentage of 360s aren't even connected to Xbox Live, there are plenty of gamers that are going to only care about the single player experience.
Besides, multiplayer done right is hard - otherwise we'd see a lot more that had done a really good job.
The idea isn't to have lobbies.
The idea is to stop doing things the way they've always been done just because they've been done that way. The current server list method is a decade old, and the process of getting into a game of Gears of War is effectively no different than getting into a game of Quake.
It's about focusing on what's key to the experience, and being willing to change things. That's what Halo 2 matchmaking did - it's no longer about wading through a list of servers to find a game that you want to join, only to find that they've already started, or that the host is kicking people who aren't their friends, or that the game settings have changed. It's about saying "I want to play this type of game, with this group of friends", and letting the console do the work to find other people who want to play the same way, who have similar skill levels, and then letting the game choose host based on who has the best connection.
With Halo 2, I could load up the game, go into the Rumble Pit playlist, hit start, and be assured that within a couple minutes I was playing a free-for-all game, with enough people, people that would challenge but not horribly slaughter me, with a very slim chance of any network issues. There's no old-style server browser and lobby system that can guarantee that.
The ideal console matchmaking system duplicates that experience. The ability to play with friends as a team, against people of similar skill levels, and letting the console take care of the stuff that the players shouldn't have to worry about so players can get into games as quickly as possible and spent their time playing.
It doesn't mean completely eliminating game lobbies, it just means reworking them to fit this type of setup. Halo had brief pre-game lobbies, post-game lobbies where everyone can chat, and between games you and your friends can sit in a party lobby and chat all you want.
Yes, I have. And it gets boring because you get more or less the same people over and over again, with little variety. Halo 2 lets you play WITH friends, so you have your community feel, while at the same time get matched up against random people so that you always have to keep on your toes.
And when I say play people of your skill level, I don't mean exactly the same - but in a nearby range. So you will play against teams that are a bit worse, and teams that are a bit better. And as you win, your rank goes up, and you play tougher teams. This means that there aren't many hugely lopsided games - and when you're getting slaughtered by a hugely superior team, it's never fun, and if you're doing the slaughtering, it's only fun for a little bit. You learn new tricks here and there, and you can never just sit back and screw around for a game since your competition is always a challenge.