After all, would anyone want music from the 1970's?
The older you get, the older your music gets. Following the "you like what was good in high school" theory, when you're 40 years old you'll be listening to music from ~20 years ago.
I'm 33 and still listen to 80's music quite often, so I follow the numbers.
This is not intended as an American bash, by the way. I simply wish to point out that in a democratically elected society, particularly one that stands so firmly behind the right of its population to keep weapons on hand in case they need to overthrow the government, what your leaders do on your behalf is your own collective responsibility.
I just want to point out that this is a republic, we do not have a democratically elected president. Contrary to popular belief, the "popular vote" doesn't actually count at all, the electoral votes are not nationally legislated to have to follow it. Sone states do, but it has happened in the past where the electoral votes were cast in stark opposition to the popular vote, even on a state level.
And I bet if you looked at those 19 cases, you'd find that those kids had willingly and intentionally done some sick shit. 18 years is a guide, IMHO. If a 17 year old has the balls and brains to hack his Aunt Millie up and feed her into a wood chipper, well, he should get the same treatment as a 19 year old that did the same thing, don't you think?
That's one of my main problems with amnesty.org, they really don't seem to have a whole lot of common sense. They also seem to cling to the idea that criminals have more rights than their victims did.
Good luck getting it legalized. The DEA has entirely too much budget and too many connections, coupled with a vested interest in keeping drugs illegal (or they'd be out of jobs, you see).
And our "ordered and structured legal system" works so well.
Seriously, I think spammers forfeited their right to clean bandwidth when they took my right to it away. Criminals should not have rights. Act inhuman, get treated inhumanely, you know?
The effects were no worse than RE1, and they were certainly better than the games and were on par with the effects from other movies. And the plot, well, the last RE I played I was stuck on a train. A TRAIN. Oooh, scary! But the game itself was still good. I look at the movie the same way. Yeah, you know Umbrella's behind it... But the plot was par for the RE course.
And the action sequences were ok too, considering this was an action movie based on a game. I wasn't expecting LoTR cinematography, Chan or Woo moves, or Wachowski effects, and I didn't get them. Maybe my realistic expectations are why I liked it?
It's possible to find a flaw with any movie, but it's more fun just to enjoy them. Except for Blair Witch and Dead Man Walking, of course. They just suck.;-)
True, RE2 was less "survival horror" than RE1, but it did keep the action going and it also extended and elaborated a lot on the characters from RE1 (even if not everyone caught it). I don't think it was a bad movie by any means.
I think the Excite Bike comment was a joke... You know, sarcasm? I think you're close with the Zelda idea, though. Especially since the new game is supposed to move away from the "cartoony" look.
No, it wasn't. It was a great movie, for what it was. It was NOT supposed to be a "Ma, we saved the farm" movie. It WAS supposed to be an action flick, and both movies in the series accomplished that just fine.
Then again, I also liked Final Fantasy (it was nonsensical plotwise, just like the game) and I thought the first Tomb Raider movie was good, though I didn't go see the second one.
I also am afraid that this "subscription" crap is going to spread to other game types. It's easy to see Valve charging a subscription to stay on the Steam service, or even a WON service.
I'd believe you, except I hosted my own UO shard on Sphere. I can't compare it to a Doom server, but running the UO shard was easier than making a Steam DoD server run on Linux...
An MMO has a monthly fee for a number of reasons. Server maintenance and bandwidth costs are high, but the consumer doesn't really care about that. However, MMO's do offer something the consumer cares about: regularly updated content, balancing, etc.
And that would be the incentive for people to sign up for the "premium" worlds, as opposed to just paying on the free ones.
There's also the fact that in those places citizens are allowed to garry guns of their own, giving potential ne'er do wells something to think about before they try anything.
The poor sods trapped in gun restricted areas (Chicago or all of Kalifornia) don't have the luxury of being anything but prey for the predators.
It's not too hard to see how this works: Look at the crime rate in Vermont, where everyone over 21 is allowed to carry without a permit. There is very little violent crime there.
You clearly have no idea how small an MMO can really scale. Like the AC said, it's not as bad as you might think. I ran a UO shard on a box with dual Xeon 450s, and it was overkill. Admittedly, if I had 10000 friends try to play on it all at once I would have issues, but I'd probably run out of bandwidth on my cable connection before I ran out of PC power.
There are (were?) quite a few player run shards with hundreds of players at one time.
PS I hate Counterstrike, Day of Defeat is a much better mod.:P
Like the AC said, it's not as bad as you might think. I ran a UO shard on a box with dual Xeon 450s, and it was overkill. Admittedly, if I had 10000 friends try to play on it all at once I would have issues, but I'd probably run out of bandwidth on my cable connection before I ran out of PC power.
There are (were?) quite a few player run shards with hundreds of players at one time.
PS I hate Counterstrike, Day of Defeat is a much better mod.:P
You got modded as Flamebait, but I totally agree with you. I just don't like "Pay to Play" games. Once I plunk down my money for the game, I want to be able to play for free.
If Blizz wants to charge for a "Premium World", so be it... But they should also allow for free, user hosted shards. THAT would pique my interest.
Slashdot Mirror
The older you get, the older your music gets. Following the "you like what was good in high school" theory, when you're 40 years old you'll be listening to music from ~20 years ago.
I'm 33 and still listen to 80's music quite often, so I follow the numbers.
I just want to point out that this is a republic, we do not have a democratically elected president. Contrary to popular belief, the "popular vote" doesn't actually count at all, the electoral votes are not nationally legislated to have to follow it. Sone states do, but it has happened in the past where the electoral votes were cast in stark opposition to the popular vote, even on a state level.
And I bet if you looked at those 19 cases, you'd find that those kids had willingly and intentionally done some sick shit. 18 years is a guide, IMHO. If a 17 year old has the balls and brains to hack his Aunt Millie up and feed her into a wood chipper, well, he should get the same treatment as a 19 year old that did the same thing, don't you think?
That's one of my main problems with amnesty.org, they really don't seem to have a whole lot of common sense. They also seem to cling to the idea that criminals have more rights than their victims did.
Good luck getting it legalized. The DEA has entirely too much budget and too many connections, coupled with a vested interest in keeping drugs illegal (or they'd be out of jobs, you see).
Now I wish I'd saved some mod points. +1 Frikkin' Hilarious
We're so well off in the USA we can even afford to have two standards. ;-)
Agreed, I was just muddying the waters (as evidenced by my feeble attempt at an emote there at the end).
And oopsie needs an "i". :P
Don't forget World of Warcraft uses ogg also.
Go for it! Just remember to pick up your shell casings afterwards... ;-)
Seriously, I think spammers forfeited their right to clean bandwidth when they took my right to it away. Criminals should not have rights. Act inhuman, get treated inhumanely, you know?
True, but Nintendo has got a LOT worse material to draw from instead of Excite Bike. Ice Climbers, gor instance... ;-)
And the action sequences were ok too, considering this was an action movie based on a game. I wasn't expecting LoTR cinematography, Chan or Woo moves, or Wachowski effects, and I didn't get them. Maybe my realistic expectations are why I liked it?
It's possible to find a flaw with any movie, but it's more fun just to enjoy them. Except for Blair Witch and Dead Man Walking, of course. They just suck. ;-)
True, RE2 was less "survival horror" than RE1, but it did keep the action going and it also extended and elaborated a lot on the characters from RE1 (even if not everyone caught it). I don't think it was a bad movie by any means.
I think the Excite Bike comment was a joke... You know, sarcasm? I think you're close with the Zelda idea, though. Especially since the new game is supposed to move away from the "cartoony" look.
Then again, I also liked Final Fantasy (it was nonsensical plotwise, just like the game) and I thought the first Tomb Raider movie was good, though I didn't go see the second one.
I also am afraid that this "subscription" crap is going to spread to other game types. It's easy to see Valve charging a subscription to stay on the Steam service, or even a WON service.
I'd believe you, except I hosted my own UO shard on Sphere. I can't compare it to a Doom server, but running the UO shard was easier than making a Steam DoD server run on Linux...
Oops, I meant "playing on the free ones".
And that would be the incentive for people to sign up for the "premium" worlds, as opposed to just paying on the free ones.
The poor sods trapped in gun restricted areas (Chicago or all of Kalifornia) don't have the luxury of being anything but prey for the predators.
It's not too hard to see how this works: Look at the crime rate in Vermont, where everyone over 21 is allowed to carry without a permit. There is very little violent crime there.
Given the caliber of some of the people I've dealt with in MMORPGs, a huge server populated solely by my friends donsn't seem like such a bad deal...
There are (were?) quite a few player run shards with hundreds of players at one time.
PS I hate Counterstrike, Day of Defeat is a much better mod. :P
There are (were?) quite a few player run shards with hundreds of players at one time.
PS I hate Counterstrike, Day of Defeat is a much better mod. :P
If Blizz wants to charge for a "Premium World", so be it... But they should also allow for free, user hosted shards. THAT would pique my interest.