As I understand it, the ESRB exists to warn consumers of potentially offensive material and allow them to make a more informed purchase. This rating is based on the content of said purchase. I assert that this content includes multimedia assets and game code/instructions. I do not believe you can separate the two and rate the game based on one or the other, but instead must judge the product as a whole, as it is available to the end consumer.
Through modification of the code, nudity is available. This is a modification of the content, and must be downloaded after market, or explicitly written by the user. I don't believe the ESRB has the right to change the rating of a product based on what people in the market can do after the product's release, but should stick to rating what the product actual does do. Otherwise, they are no longer of use to anyone.
The only way I can see a justification for the action they have taken (and this is a slim chance) is if they are including the construction kit in the rating evaluation. Because with that, any user can modify the game's content, using software (more content) that shipped with the product. But this still would not justify the rating change on the xbox 360 version. I see no reason for that change other than fear of Hilary Clinton and her political agenda. I don't own Oblivion, so I am not aware if the construction set is a separate download or not on the PC version.
"...they have every right to rate the content that actually ships on the disc."
I agree completely with this statement, although I disagree with your conclusion. As I understand it, the ESRB exists to warn consumers of potentially offensive material and allow them to make a more informed purchase. This rating is based on the content of said purchase. I assert that this content includes multimedia assets and game code/instructions. I do not believe you can separate the two and rate the game based on one or the other, but instead must judge the product as a whole, as it is available to the end consumer.
Through modification of the code, nudity is available. This is a modification of the content, and must be downloaded after market, or explicitly written by the user. I don't believe the ESRB has the right to change the rating of a product based on what people in the market can do after the product's release, but should stick to rating what the product actual does do. Otherwise, they are no longer of use to anyone.
The only way I can see a justification for the action they have taken (and this is a slim chance) is if they are including the construction kit in the rating evaluation. Because with that, any user can modify the game's content, using software (more content) that shipped with the product. But this still would not justify the rating change on the xbox 360 version. I see no reason for that change other than fear of Hilary Clinton and her political agenda. I don't own Oblivion, so I am not aware if the construction set is a separate download or not on the PC version.
And I would assume they will also notice that they are getting the cheapest price in the world for the xbox 360. Joystiq says that they are getting the equivalent of the $400 package for $350. They may have to wait a couple extra weeks, but that's still a pretty sweet deal.
Re:As if the N-Gage comment didn't throw me off...
on
The Handheld War
·
· Score: 1
It's called sarcasm. In case you didn't know, Microsoft hasn't shipped 360 versions of xbox yet either.
The only question I have is how tough are these formats? Will they be more resistant to scratching than DVD, or worse? No one seems to be talking about this, instead focusing on the capacity. I assume that both will have adequate space for me to view my future HD videos, but which format will allow me to view those same videos ten years in the future? Or does physical quality even matter any more, and I'm just being a naive optimist? If I'm paying more for each game I buy in the next generation, I don't want to have to pay twice for any of them.
Does anyone know why console makers insist on putting relatively small amounts of ram in their consoles? When the xbox came out, 64 seemed rather conservative and now that 1GB is commonplace, 256MB seems very conservative as well. You'd think since ram is so cheap now that they wouldn't be so frugal.
I'd say it's the modern day equivalent to "saving the princess"
The answer is obvious
on
Getting the Girl
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
When discussing a topic such as gender profiling, one is forced to resort to flagrant generalizations, so apologies in advance.
My belief is that there is a small set of games that appeal primarily to males, a large set of games that appeal to both males and females, and again another small set that appeals primarily to females. So far, the vast majority of games have used violent conflict as a central progression indicator. This includes everything from duck hunt to Doom 3. I believe this sort of game falls under the category of being primarily enjoyed by males. It is the auxiliary features that distinguish each game within this theme and make it interesting.
Lately I have started playing World of Warcraft, which, at its essence, is merely another way of slaying endless adversaries. The rewards are different, and the audio/visuals and networking are different, but it's still about killing things. Now I would be willing to bet (without knowing the actual player demographics) that the vast majority of WoW players are male.
Now, in my opinion again, not only does this concentration on one type of game lead to unbalanced player demographics, but it also leads to a severe draught of innovative and fun games. From the perspective of a male, female gamers most likely just want "fun" and "innovative" games. They don't care if the lead character (if there is one) is a strong female or how big her boobs are, and they don't want to only ever play the Sims. I think when developers find time to give up on striving for better graphics, better physics, and better gore simulation and instead try to make a game that is not a puzzle game that doesn't involve violence of any sort (not because it's offensive, but because it's been done ad nauseum) then female gamer numbers will just rise of their own accord. No need to be targetted by a marketing department. Male and females can even play the same games! Imagine that, just like they enjoy lots of the same movies!
Why does the game industry as a whole have this fixation on violent games? Well recently, I would imagine it's because companies don't like to take risks, and violent games are a proven formula. But why in the first place did everyone have this obsession? Well, my guess is that because games were always terribly constrained by the hardware on which they were running, some sacrifices needed to be made to the gameplay in order to have a complete game. Conflict is easy to simulate. There are two statuses I can think of: winner and loser. Alive and dead. How binary. But now we have machines capable of simulating much more and yet we don't. Anyway, that's my take on why we still do so many violent games.
"...but it seems Apple are acknowledging their influence..."
Apple is an organization, and therefore should be referred to as a singular entity, not as a group of people. Therefore, it is acknowledging its influence. The crowd on/. (especially story submitters) has been propagating this gramatical problem long enough! Also, Sony is an organization, and so is Microsoft.
yeah, here's a link to a gamespot article trying to clear up the confusion. These are not patents for a next generation Nintendo console, but old patents that have finally be granted many years after originally being submitted.
When I was a teenager, I wasted countless hours playing RPG's to all hours of the night. Now that I have a full time job, I just don't have the time necessary to devote to one of these massive games, and I therefore simply can't justify the subscription price. If content were episodic in nature, I would most likely be able to play some of these games again without worrying about the time commitment. If I bought it and didn't play it for more than 4 hours, it wouldn't matter as much.
Now I appreciate your assertion that this is a much less attractive revenue model from the producer's point of view, however, I'd be willing to bet there'd be a much larger audience for this.
Hell, don't the stats say that most game players are in their mid twenties now anyway? That demographic may have a lot more disposible income than teenagers, but they have a lot less time!
Slashdot Mirror
Through modification of the code, nudity is available. This is a modification of the content, and must be downloaded after market, or explicitly written by the user. I don't believe the ESRB has the right to change the rating of a product based on what people in the market can do after the product's release, but should stick to rating what the product actual does do. Otherwise, they are no longer of use to anyone.
The only way I can see a justification for the action they have taken (and this is a slim chance) is if they are including the construction kit in the rating evaluation. Because with that, any user can modify the game's content, using software (more content) that shipped with the product. But this still would not justify the rating change on the xbox 360 version. I see no reason for that change other than fear of Hilary Clinton and her political agenda. I don't own Oblivion, so I am not aware if the construction set is a separate download or not on the PC version.
According to http://www.gamesindustry.biz/content_page.php?aid= 16600, the BBFC sees it this way as well.
I agree completely with this statement, although I disagree with your conclusion. As I understand it, the ESRB exists to warn consumers of potentially offensive material and allow them to make a more informed purchase. This rating is based on the content of said purchase. I assert that this content includes multimedia assets and game code/instructions. I do not believe you can separate the two and rate the game based on one or the other, but instead must judge the product as a whole, as it is available to the end consumer.
Through modification of the code, nudity is available. This is a modification of the content, and must be downloaded after market, or explicitly written by the user. I don't believe the ESRB has the right to change the rating of a product based on what people in the market can do after the product's release, but should stick to rating what the product actual does do. Otherwise, they are no longer of use to anyone.
The only way I can see a justification for the action they have taken (and this is a slim chance) is if they are including the construction kit in the rating evaluation. Because with that, any user can modify the game's content, using software (more content) that shipped with the product. But this still would not justify the rating change on the xbox 360 version. I see no reason for that change other than fear of Hilary Clinton and her political agenda. I don't own Oblivion, so I am not aware if the construction set is a separate download or not on the PC version.
According to http://www.gamesindustry.biz/content_page.php?aid= 16600, the BBFC sees it this way as well.
And I would assume they will also notice that they are getting the cheapest price in the world for the xbox 360. Joystiq says that they are getting the equivalent of the $400 package for $350. They may have to wait a couple extra weeks, but that's still a pretty sweet deal.
It's called sarcasm. In case you didn't know, Microsoft hasn't shipped 360 versions of xbox yet either.
The only question I have is how tough are these formats? Will they be more resistant to scratching than DVD, or worse? No one seems to be talking about this, instead focusing on the capacity. I assume that both will have adequate space for me to view my future HD videos, but which format will allow me to view those same videos ten years in the future? Or does physical quality even matter any more, and I'm just being a naive optimist? If I'm paying more for each game I buy in the next generation, I don't want to have to pay twice for any of them.
obviously you've never played Snood...
Does anyone know why console makers insist on putting relatively small amounts of ram in their consoles? When the xbox came out, 64 seemed rather conservative and now that 1GB is commonplace, 256MB seems very conservative as well. You'd think since ram is so cheap now that they wouldn't be so frugal.
I'd say it's the modern day equivalent to "saving the princess"
My belief is that there is a small set of games that appeal primarily to males, a large set of games that appeal to both males and females, and again another small set that appeals primarily to females. So far, the vast majority of games have used violent conflict as a central progression indicator. This includes everything from duck hunt to Doom 3. I believe this sort of game falls under the category of being primarily enjoyed by males. It is the auxiliary features that distinguish each game within this theme and make it interesting.
Lately I have started playing World of Warcraft, which, at its essence, is merely another way of slaying endless adversaries. The rewards are different, and the audio/visuals and networking are different, but it's still about killing things. Now I would be willing to bet (without knowing the actual player demographics) that the vast majority of WoW players are male.
Now, in my opinion again, not only does this concentration on one type of game lead to unbalanced player demographics, but it also leads to a severe draught of innovative and fun games. From the perspective of a male, female gamers most likely just want "fun" and "innovative" games. They don't care if the lead character (if there is one) is a strong female or how big her boobs are, and they don't want to only ever play the Sims. I think when developers find time to give up on striving for better graphics, better physics, and better gore simulation and instead try to make a game that is not a puzzle game that doesn't involve violence of any sort (not because it's offensive, but because it's been done ad nauseum) then female gamer numbers will just rise of their own accord. No need to be targetted by a marketing department. Male and females can even play the same games! Imagine that, just like they enjoy lots of the same movies!
Why does the game industry as a whole have this fixation on violent games? Well recently, I would imagine it's because companies don't like to take risks, and violent games are a proven formula. But why in the first place did everyone have this obsession? Well, my guess is that because games were always terribly constrained by the hardware on which they were running, some sacrifices needed to be made to the gameplay in order to have a complete game. Conflict is easy to simulate. There are two statuses I can think of: winner and loser. Alive and dead. How binary. But now we have machines capable of simulating much more and yet we don't. Anyway, that's my take on why we still do so many violent games.
Apple is an organization, and therefore should be referred to as a singular entity, not as a group of people. Therefore, it is acknowledging its influence. The crowd on /. (especially story submitters) has been propagating this gramatical problem long enough! Also, Sony is an organization, and so is Microsoft.
I found this link for more info: Plural Noun Forms
My impression is they are trying to say that OLED screens will be able to be much larger than LCD screens, but with the same or better frame rate.
yeah, here's a link to a gamespot article trying to clear up the confusion. These are not patents for a next generation Nintendo console, but old patents that have finally be granted many years after originally being submitted.
When I was a teenager, I wasted countless hours playing RPG's to all hours of the night. Now that I have a full time job, I just don't have the time necessary to devote to one of these massive games, and I therefore simply can't justify the subscription price. If content were episodic in nature, I would most likely be able to play some of these games again without worrying about the time commitment. If I bought it and didn't play it for more than 4 hours, it wouldn't matter as much.
Now I appreciate your assertion that this is a much less attractive revenue model from the producer's point of view, however, I'd be willing to bet there'd be a much larger audience for this.
Hell, don't the stats say that most game players are in their mid twenties now anyway? That demographic may have a lot more disposible income than teenagers, but they have a lot less time!