Precisely like the DAB radios on beta test in Malta right now. Next year we will have DAB+ and people will have to throw away their radios.
Sell them on Amazon UK, then. We formally adopted the 90s-tech DAB system here some time back, unfortunately. Though it's never taken off quite as much as it should have, and there's still talk of DAB+.
3D? Existing systems require goggles; either polarizing glasses (which give you the 3D effect through psychological effects arising from how the brain processes video and gives "priority" to the eye which receives more light)
Polarised glasses require the images for each eye to use (differently) polarised light, so they don't work with ordinary non-polarised TV or cinema screens. However, they don't have the limitations you describe here:-
which give you the 3D effect through psychological effects arising from how the brain processes video and gives "priority" to the eye which receives more light) which gives you 3D only when pans and other movement is moving in the correct direction
That applies to the Pulfrich system. However, the Pulfrich system does have the advantage of working perfectly fine with ordinary TVs. In fact the BBC used it for several programmes in 1993 (most notably on a Doctor Who "special").
Technically, the system worked quite well, although it didn't stop the Doctor Who special being absolutely f****** horrid.
Bearing in mind that approximately 40% of all Star Trek: The Next Generation stories revolved around something going wrong with the holodeck, I'll wait a bit longer until they get the wrinkles sorted out...
Because Google tend to do things that genuinely appeal and pander to geeks' intellects and identity (and demonstrate that they understand them).
Using the word "1337" like that is the kind of stereotypical thing someone *trying* to give the appearance of geek-friendliness and cool- who is themselves quite out of touch- would do. It's cheesy and tacky and...
and it was 5 years ago
Yeah, well you never see anyone using it now. And like it or not, geeks *do* follow fads.
If you want a rationalisation of that, a few years back, only message-board geeks knew what "1337" meant; anyone using it demonstrated that they probably were a geek, or at least understood those people. Then 1337-5p34k got more popular, then it started appearing in magazine articles explaining what those strange symbols your children typing were. At this point, anyone "knew" what 1337 meant, and could fake geek cred by using the expression. Oddly, it was also at this point (circa 2006 or so) that genuine 13375p34k dropped off the face of the earth, almost certainly because any obfuscating purpose and in-group identification had been killed off. Like any fashion.
And like it or not, geeks do follow fashions (for the sake of fashion), just not necessarily mainstream-style ones.
"Sleet"? Well, I guess the soggy snow we got in the week before Christmas was lethally slippy once the thaw/refreeze turned it into sheet ice...
Anway, given that Google is normally good at flattering geeks, the 1337 reference is (a) way too obvious and (b) way too five years ago (when was the last time you heard anyone use 1337-5p34k in a non-ironic sense?)
They could at least have made the reward some power of two (though they might have been accused of ripping off Donald Knuth, since IIRC he did that first) or something related to e or pi. Dropped the ball there...
Perhaps they'll donate $318008 to the person who finds the Playboy centrefold Easter egg?;-)
Then what about a service that requires you to create an account or log in before you can access it? Facebook, for example.
At most, what you say implies that the line between the "web" and totally private content is blurred, and the term itself really doesn't have the level of precision that your assertion relies on.
Parenthetically, I recently purchase a Bullet M and outdoor antenna from Ubiquiti, and wanting to avoid the whole 2.4GHz zoo, I bought the 5GHz version.
I actually did something similar when I bought my first wireless router five years back.
Wireless networking was just starting to really take off around that time and even then I was worried about potential congestion issues. Most devices being sold then were 2.4GHz 802.11g/b models, with 802.11a support being far less common.
Anyway, I bought a tri-format 802.11a/b/g laptop card and router precisely *because* 802.11a was far less popular and less likely to suffer congestion. Unfortunately, such devices were also more expensive- I assume because they needed dual radios- which is probably the reason 802.11a was never that popular in the first place!
Turned out that congestion was never a major issue in my situation, and my current laptop doesn't support 802.11a anyway. When was the last time you heard of 802.11a anyway?
But I'd still buy 802.11n equipment with 5GHz usage in mind, so long as the cost difference wasn't prohibitive. (One interesting question; can 802.11n devices support 802.11a in the same way that the 2.4GHz 802.11g devices supported 802.11b?)
When Salon was free I didn't use it much but it was part of the web community. When any site goes pay, it becomes something you access through the internet--in no way is it part of the web.
Yes it is. Unless you're now forced to access it via some other nonstandard means, if you still view it using a browser via a web server... it's still a part of the web. That's a technical definition, regardless of how much you would like it to be a social one.
I'm an American citizen, did a PhD in the US, and moved to Sweden to work because I was tired of the whitehouse administration. I now run a research group in Germany, but I guess that's only because I am a spy... according to the GP.
Or a Communist agent called back to the motherland?
Maxis always been bit of a cash cow milker even when independent from EA. There were a lot of Sim games in the early 90's, some good, some bad ones.
Um, yeah. They even released a game called Sim Ant.
This is not a joke.
It was exactly what it sounded like (well... "Sim Ants", if one really wants to be pedantic). FWIW, check out how many "Sim" games are listed in the box at the bottom of the Sim Ant article, even just the "other Sim games" section...!
2600 Pac Man had lousy graphics but OK gameplay. I had the 5200 version, which had the opposite (mostly because of the unsuitable controllers).
Since the 5200 was internally near-identical to the 400/800 computers (*), its version of Pac Man was effectively the 400/800 version with added inter-level animations. Which was in turn later backported to the 400/800; and I can confirm that with my 800XL's traditional-style joysticks, it was indeed an excellent version of Pac-Man.
(*) AFAIK the internal hardware was the same; the OS was replaced with a simpler version and the memory map had some minor differences. But aside from having to rewrite the joystick handler, I doubt there was much involved in "porting" games either way.
And it seriously damaged Atari (and the whole game industry). I think we've got a winner.
Though not in the context of the article, which was only discussing failures from 2000 to 2009 (I hate that damn word "noughties", and I swear I never remember hearing it used before the recent end-of-decade navel gazing...)
Human rights and the well-being of their population, they probably wouldn't have half the dissent and problems they have now.
Yes, but they wouldn't necessarily be the ones in power. And frankly, I'm surprised that they don't have a lot more trouble with dissent.
Which would, in turn, require less effort to police the people and would result in much less of a need to 'control' their population.
Yes, but they're not concerned with the most efficient form of governance. They're most concerned with the one that keeps them in power.
You cannot completely control a population the size of China's. If you want them to conform you have to win them over.
You win them over by presenting a point of view that's favourable to the ruling party, and one aspect of that is censoring anything that is inconvenient to that.
I find the above unpleasant, and do not condone it, but nor is pretending otherwise beneficial.
Google Voice and other similar sites will be used to create generic SMS accounts that smartphones will then be programmed to send random 140 character junk messages at random intervals just to skew the results and make it more difficult to track individuals sending pornographic texts. We may not have privacy anymore, but what does that really matter when we can just hide in the torrent?
This causes minor confusion for a short while until someone figures out a fairly straightforward pattern to the artificially-generated messages, manages to filter them out, then goes back to looking at all the *real* SMS messages sent by people under a false sense of security.
It really annoys me how naive and shortsighted the people who propose all these "swamp them with bogus data" schemes are. Even if something works in the short term, the messages have still been recorded and can easily be re-filtered and re-examined (possibly using improved data mining techniques) once the scheme has been identified. Bingo, you've been incriminated on something you sent a couple of years ago when your scheme *wasn't* known about- but it is now.
And, of course, to give lots of people the benefit of the scheme, you've got to be open about it anyway, so unless it's *very* cleverly- and truly randomly- designed, the government- or whoever- is going to know how it works and spot it quite quickly anyway. I can assure you now that some random smartass twonk designing a plugin to Firefox that sends periodic generated queries to Google in an attempt to "hide" someone's browsing probably *isn't* going to cut it.
If you're not bothered about the evidence being incriminating in the medium to long term (e.g. if you're planning on being a suicide bomber), this might not be an issue, but that's not much good for those who want to use SMS to help conduct their lives or run a campaign without government oppression.
Incidentally, watch out in the next few years for all those people who mindlessly put personal data "out there" on the likes of Facebook having this come back to bite them. (Even *now*, even *without having logged in*, I could screen-scrape Facebook pages that tell me who's friends with who, and build up a complex picture of social networks if I was willing to program an app to do that). This is going to be a major "shit hits the fan" type thing if future governments are as pathologically obsessed with violating people's privacy in the way that current ones are, and even those who think they're being clever now (see above) may well get a shock.
I wonder what's going to happen in the next decade or so, say around 2019 when Google will probably have launched the sixth or so version of the Nexus? These "smart" phones will have grown *so* damn smart that they'll have developed a survival instinct; if you cancel your contract, they'll have to send a representative of the telcos out to deal with them.
I suspect that by then it won't be called termination.
But not after wasting years dicking about with nonsense like that and losing the opportunity to retain success in the portable audio field which they popularised in the first place.
"iPod" is the dominant name associated with the past decade, not "Walkman", which is still more closely associated with the original cassette-based devices of the 1980s.
They might make some nice MP3 players, but they'll never dominate the MP3 market the way the once did with cassettes.
My wife has pretty much the entire animated Disney collection from before 2004 on VHS. A lot of good they do us seeing as we no longer own a working VCR.
Considering that almost everyone has a video recorder, and that almost no-one really wants one these days, I suspect that there must be countless tons of them for sale for next to nothing on EBay. That's assuming they aren't being still being sold new at the rock bottom prices they were available for from the early 2000s onwards.
for example in copying we have horrendous artificial "shakey cam" footage to "make it feel urban and gritty like youtube
"Shakey cam" has been around since at least the 1990s. I remember people complaining about its use on the BBC's 1990s drama "This Life".
It definitely is worse nowadays though. Even the likes of the BBC use it on documentary and current affairs programmes, where I particularly despite it. Reason being that- aside from being annoying in itself- in such cases it's blatantly contrived, affected and simply fake- i.e. the cameraman isn't unable to keep the camera still (either through circumstances or through incompetence), he's quite obviously moving it around to make it look like that.
I don't blame the cameramen personally- I suspect they've been *told* by their directors or producers to shoot that way. Is it to give the programme a contrived and inappropriate sense of "immediacy" and "realism"? (Or rather pseudo-realism, since moving the camera about is *less* natural in a situation where they could quite easily keep it still).
Or have they twigged that keeping things moving retains the attention of jaded viewers?
Isn't it even longer than that now? Anyway, Duke Nukem Forever had already moved from badly delayed to standing joke in the early-2000s. Now the joke's worn thin and just plain strange. The fact that someone hasn't just slapped the name on *something* and released it as Duke Nukem Forever long before now is what is weird.
I suspect that any game released would end up being the "Snakes on a Plane" of games. People discussing it a lot, but not necessarily buying it. Anyone who remembers playing the original games in their mid-90s heyday would have to be at least in their 20s now, and even then I suspect that most of them have moved on.
Disclaimer; though I'm old enough to have been a typical DN fan, I never played- nor had even heard of it- during its heyday, only becoming aware of it through DNF's reputation as a standing joke several years ago. Even *that* was so long ago that many kids probably aren't aware of it. Its best hope is as a tongue-in-cheek attempt to ride an "ironic" revival of the 1990s. Yuk.
3DRealms is done. Supposedly, Take-Two Interactive now owns rights to Duke Nukem. Maybe they're going to finish this game now. They did invest a couple of million into the game already. They have a fiscal responsibility to try and see it released.
Yes; but over what time period was that money invested? Any money spent on development and marketing (e.g.) ten- or five!- years ago is lost anyway, since they'd probably be much quicker developing from scratch rather than trying to contrive the inclusion of obsolete code and dated graphics which would have to be reworked to the point of being new anyway.
Any pretence otherwise is an accounting/legal trick to avoid having to write off losses and/or to make the companies involved appear better.
Nuken 3D was a ludicrously delayed joke in the early-2000s. Now it's beyond silly, and just strange if anyone's putting money into it- what exactly were they expecting?
It's just a computer game. Why didn't they just get someone to develop something and slap a name on it? The fact that they didn't suggests that this isn't a development issue. I'm not sure what it is.
Slashdot Mirror
That would be easy, just get George Lucas to do it.
NO!
Surely you mean "Dune Not Want"?
Precisely like the DAB radios on beta test in Malta right now. Next year we will have DAB+ and people will have to throw away their radios.
Sell them on Amazon UK, then. We formally adopted the 90s-tech DAB system here some time back, unfortunately. Though it's never taken off quite as much as it should have, and there's still talk of DAB+.
3D? Existing systems require goggles; either polarizing glasses (which give you the 3D effect through psychological effects arising from how the brain processes video and gives "priority" to the eye which receives more light)
You're confusing polarising glasses (which someone else explained) with those which exploit the Pulfrich effect.
Polarised glasses require the images for each eye to use (differently) polarised light, so they don't work with ordinary non-polarised TV or cinema screens. However, they don't have the limitations you describe here:-
which give you the 3D effect through psychological effects arising from how the brain processes video and gives "priority" to the eye which receives more light) which gives you 3D only when pans and other movement is moving in the correct direction
That applies to the Pulfrich system. However, the Pulfrich system does have the advantage of working perfectly fine with ordinary TVs. In fact the BBC used it for several programmes in 1993 (most notably on a Doctor Who "special").
Technically, the system worked quite well, although it didn't stop the Doctor Who special being absolutely f****** horrid.
ill wait for the holodeck thank you very much.
Bearing in mind that approximately 40% of all Star Trek: The Next Generation stories revolved around something going wrong with the holodeck, I'll wait a bit longer until they get the wrinkles sorted out...
SO what ? what if it was too obvious
Because Google tend to do things that genuinely appeal and pander to geeks' intellects and identity (and demonstrate that they understand them).
Using the word "1337" like that is the kind of stereotypical thing someone *trying* to give the appearance of geek-friendliness and cool- who is themselves quite out of touch- would do. It's cheesy and tacky and...
and it was 5 years ago
Yeah, well you never see anyone using it now. And like it or not, geeks *do* follow fads.
If you want a rationalisation of that, a few years back, only message-board geeks knew what "1337" meant; anyone using it demonstrated that they probably were a geek, or at least understood those people. Then 1337-5p34k got more popular, then it started appearing in magazine articles explaining what those strange symbols your children typing were. At this point, anyone "knew" what 1337 meant, and could fake geek cred by using the expression. Oddly, it was also at this point (circa 2006 or so) that genuine 13375p34k dropped off the face of the earth, almost certainly because any obfuscating purpose and in-group identification had been killed off. Like any fashion.
And like it or not, geeks do follow fashions (for the sake of fashion), just not necessarily mainstream-style ones.
if you read it properly of course.
"Sleet"? Well, I guess the soggy snow we got in the week before Christmas was lethally slippy once the thaw/refreeze turned it into sheet ice...
;-)
Anway, given that Google is normally good at flattering geeks, the 1337 reference is (a) way too obvious and (b) way too five years ago (when was the last time you heard anyone use 1337-5p34k in a non-ironic sense?)
They could at least have made the reward some power of two (though they might have been accused of ripping off Donald Knuth, since IIRC he did that first) or something related to e or pi. Dropped the ball there...
Perhaps they'll donate $318008 to the person who finds the Playboy centrefold Easter egg?
Maybe it'll get them to pick a name that doesn't suck as much shit.
That's odd... I thought the implication was that it sucked *blood*.
Then what about a service that requires you to create an account or log in before you can access it? Facebook, for example.
At most, what you say implies that the line between the "web" and totally private content is blurred, and the term itself really doesn't have the level of precision that your assertion relies on.
Parenthetically, I recently purchase a Bullet M and outdoor antenna from Ubiquiti, and wanting to avoid the whole 2.4GHz zoo, I bought the 5GHz version.
I actually did something similar when I bought my first wireless router five years back.
Wireless networking was just starting to really take off around that time and even then I was worried about potential congestion issues. Most devices being sold then were 2.4GHz 802.11g/b models, with 802.11a support being far less common.
Anyway, I bought a tri-format 802.11a/b/g laptop card and router precisely *because* 802.11a was far less popular and less likely to suffer congestion. Unfortunately, such devices were also more expensive- I assume because they needed dual radios- which is probably the reason 802.11a was never that popular in the first place!
Turned out that congestion was never a major issue in my situation, and my current laptop doesn't support 802.11a anyway. When was the last time you heard of 802.11a anyway?
But I'd still buy 802.11n equipment with 5GHz usage in mind, so long as the cost difference wasn't prohibitive. (One interesting question; can 802.11n devices support 802.11a in the same way that the 2.4GHz 802.11g devices supported 802.11b?)
When Salon was free I didn't use it much but it was part of the web community. When any site goes pay, it becomes something you access through the internet--in no way is it part of the web.
Yes it is. Unless you're now forced to access it via some other nonstandard means, if you still view it using a browser via a web server... it's still a part of the web. That's a technical definition, regardless of how much you would like it to be a social one.
I'm an American citizen, did a PhD in the US, and moved to Sweden to work because I was tired of the whitehouse administration. I now run a research group in Germany, but I guess that's only because I am a spy ... according to the GP.
Or a Communist agent called back to the motherland?
Fatherland. Motherland is Mother Russia
With Sweden being the Brother-in-Law-land?
You avoid standing with the Liberal Arts undegrads in the unemployment line, i.e. you get your own special Hell.
You mean Dante made one especially for MBAs? Sounds okay to me!
10^640 years should be enough for anyone.
Except possibly for the developers of Duke Nukem Forever...
Maxis always been bit of a cash cow milker even when independent from EA. There were a lot of Sim games in the early 90's, some good, some bad ones.
Um, yeah. They even released a game called Sim Ant.
This is not a joke.
It was exactly what it sounded like (well... "Sim Ants", if one really wants to be pedantic). FWIW, check out how many "Sim" games are listed in the box at the bottom of the Sim Ant article, even just the "other Sim games" section...!
2600 Pac Man had lousy graphics but OK gameplay. I had the 5200 version, which had the opposite (mostly because of the unsuitable controllers).
Since the 5200 was internally near-identical to the 400/800 computers (*), its version of Pac Man was effectively the 400/800 version with added inter-level animations. Which was in turn later backported to the 400/800; and I can confirm that with my 800XL's traditional-style joysticks, it was indeed an excellent version of Pac-Man.
(*) AFAIK the internal hardware was the same; the OS was replaced with a simpler version and the memory map had some minor differences. But aside from having to rewrite the joystick handler, I doubt there was much involved in "porting" games either way.
ET For the Atari 2600?
And it seriously damaged Atari (and the whole game industry). I think we've got a winner.
Though not in the context of the article, which was only discussing failures from 2000 to 2009 (I hate that damn word "noughties", and I swear I never remember hearing it used before the recent end-of-decade navel gazing...)
Human rights and the well-being of their population, they probably wouldn't have half the dissent and problems they have now.
Yes, but they wouldn't necessarily be the ones in power. And frankly, I'm surprised that they don't have a lot more trouble with dissent.
Which would, in turn, require less effort to police the people and would result in much less of a need to 'control' their population.
Yes, but they're not concerned with the most efficient form of governance. They're most concerned with the one that keeps them in power.
You cannot completely control a population the size of China's. If you want them to conform you have to win them over.
You win them over by presenting a point of view that's favourable to the ruling party, and one aspect of that is censoring anything that is inconvenient to that.
I find the above unpleasant, and do not condone it, but nor is pretending otherwise beneficial.
Google Voice and other similar sites will be used to create generic SMS accounts that smartphones will then be programmed to send random 140 character junk messages at random intervals just to skew the results and make it more difficult to track individuals sending pornographic texts. We may not have privacy anymore, but what does that really matter when we can just hide in the torrent?
This causes minor confusion for a short while until someone figures out a fairly straightforward pattern to the artificially-generated messages, manages to filter them out, then goes back to looking at all the *real* SMS messages sent by people under a false sense of security.
It really annoys me how naive and shortsighted the people who propose all these "swamp them with bogus data" schemes are. Even if something works in the short term, the messages have still been recorded and can easily be re-filtered and re-examined (possibly using improved data mining techniques) once the scheme has been identified. Bingo, you've been incriminated on something you sent a couple of years ago when your scheme *wasn't* known about- but it is now.
And, of course, to give lots of people the benefit of the scheme, you've got to be open about it anyway, so unless it's *very* cleverly- and truly randomly- designed, the government- or whoever- is going to know how it works and spot it quite quickly anyway. I can assure you now that some random smartass twonk designing a plugin to Firefox that sends periodic generated queries to Google in an attempt to "hide" someone's browsing probably *isn't* going to cut it.
If you're not bothered about the evidence being incriminating in the medium to long term (e.g. if you're planning on being a suicide bomber), this might not be an issue, but that's not much good for those who want to use SMS to help conduct their lives or run a campaign without government oppression.
Incidentally, watch out in the next few years for all those people who mindlessly put personal data "out there" on the likes of Facebook having this come back to bite them. (Even *now*, even *without having logged in*, I could screen-scrape Facebook pages that tell me who's friends with who, and build up a complex picture of social networks if I was willing to program an app to do that). This is going to be a major "shit hits the fan" type thing if future governments are as pathologically obsessed with violating people's privacy in the way that current ones are, and even those who think they're being clever now (see above) may well get a shock.
I wonder what's going to happen in the next decade or so, say around 2019 when Google will probably have launched the sixth or so version of the Nexus? These "smart" phones will have grown *so* damn smart that they'll have developed a survival instinct; if you cancel your contract, they'll have to send a representative of the telcos out to deal with them.
I suspect that by then it won't be called termination.
It will be called retirement.
They learned their lesson.
But not after wasting years dicking about with nonsense like that and losing the opportunity to retain success in the portable audio field which they popularised in the first place.
"iPod" is the dominant name associated with the past decade, not "Walkman", which is still more closely associated with the original cassette-based devices of the 1980s.
They might make some nice MP3 players, but they'll never dominate the MP3 market the way the once did with cassettes.
My wife has pretty much the entire animated Disney collection from before 2004 on VHS. A lot of good they do us seeing as we no longer own a working VCR.
Considering that almost everyone has a video recorder, and that almost no-one really wants one these days, I suspect that there must be countless tons of them for sale for next to nothing on EBay. That's assuming they aren't being still being sold new at the rock bottom prices they were available for from the early 2000s onwards.
Walkman is now used for Sony's MP3 line, like the NWZ-E436 I'm listening to right now.
And before that they used it for their silly non-MP3 line that only supported MP3 by converting it to ATRAC before copying it over.
Sony- and the Walkman brand- very, *very* deservedly lost their crown in the portable audio market.
for example in copying we have horrendous artificial "shakey cam" footage to "make it feel urban and gritty like youtube
"Shakey cam" has been around since at least the 1990s. I remember people complaining about its use on the BBC's 1990s drama "This Life".
It definitely is worse nowadays though. Even the likes of the BBC use it on documentary and current affairs programmes, where I particularly despite it. Reason being that- aside from being annoying in itself- in such cases it's blatantly contrived, affected and simply fake- i.e. the cameraman isn't unable to keep the camera still (either through circumstances or through incompetence), he's quite obviously moving it around to make it look like that.
I don't blame the cameramen personally- I suspect they've been *told* by their directors or producers to shoot that way. Is it to give the programme a contrived and inappropriate sense of "immediacy" and "realism"? (Or rather pseudo-realism, since moving the camera about is *less* natural in a situation where they could quite easily keep it still).
Or have they twigged that keeping things moving retains the attention of jaded viewers?
Fuck 'em.
No publisher would throw away 12 years of hype.
Isn't it even longer than that now? Anyway, Duke Nukem Forever had already moved from badly delayed to standing joke in the early-2000s. Now the joke's worn thin and just plain strange. The fact that someone hasn't just slapped the name on *something* and released it as Duke Nukem Forever long before now is what is weird.
I suspect that any game released would end up being the "Snakes on a Plane" of games. People discussing it a lot, but not necessarily buying it. Anyone who remembers playing the original games in their mid-90s heyday would have to be at least in their 20s now, and even then I suspect that most of them have moved on.
Disclaimer; though I'm old enough to have been a typical DN fan, I never played- nor had even heard of it- during its heyday, only becoming aware of it through DNF's reputation as a standing joke several years ago. Even *that* was so long ago that many kids probably aren't aware of it. Its best hope is as a tongue-in-cheek attempt to ride an "ironic" revival of the 1990s. Yuk.
3DRealms is done. Supposedly, Take-Two Interactive now owns rights to Duke Nukem. Maybe they're going to finish this game now. They did invest a couple of million into the game already. They have a fiscal responsibility to try and see it released.
Yes; but over what time period was that money invested? Any money spent on development and marketing (e.g.) ten- or five!- years ago is lost anyway, since they'd probably be much quicker developing from scratch rather than trying to contrive the inclusion of obsolete code and dated graphics which would have to be reworked to the point of being new anyway.
Any pretence otherwise is an accounting/legal trick to avoid having to write off losses and/or to make the companies involved appear better.
Nuken 3D was a ludicrously delayed joke in the early-2000s. Now it's beyond silly, and just strange if anyone's putting money into it- what exactly were they expecting?
It's just a computer game. Why didn't they just get someone to develop something and slap a name on it? The fact that they didn't suggests that this isn't a development issue. I'm not sure what it is.