You're right, availability isn't an issue. After seeing Bowling for Columbine tough, you'll see that the US still has a major problem.
Even tough the United States has about 10 times the population of Canada ( 300 million compared to 30 million), it has almost 100 times for death by a gun than Canada ( 11000 compared to 150).
If guns are not to blame, then who is? The answer is simple : Gun don't kill people, people kill people.
Whatever is happening is the United States with guns, it's happening because of people. What went wrong at some point that made people that weapons should be used as they are is anybodys guess.
Thing is, if you have a scared or aggressive population, these numbers are going to get distorted. I'd like to quote Bowling for Columbine to explain this.
IIRC, 11,000 people die each year in the US because of a gun and about 137 die for the same reasons in Canada. Now think about, Canada has 10 time less people than United States. So you should only get about a thousand death by guns in the US. Instead, you get ten times that. Some other countries which have a bigger population then Canada like France have even less death by a gun than Canada.
So what makes the US so special? Is it because they have a violent history? How do you explain then that France, Germany and England, countries with a far bloodier past than the US, don't have more death by guns?
Is it the culture? Don't think so, since english canadian people have been pretty much assimilated by the american culture and there isn't the same rate of violence.
Could it be racial differences? US doesn't have a bigger percentage of immigrants or "colored" (or whatever the right term is these days) people than other countries IIRC.
What then? I think it would be because americans are scared the shit out of them by the media, terrorist threats and pseudo-threat level issued by the government.
So this is what is probably going to distort you statistic. While people are maybe going to think twice before a rape or stealing something, someone who is scared has more chance to pull then trigger then just force the person to go away.
Hundreds of millions of people play video games, why aren't at least a few million of us out there emulating them If you saw Bowling for Columbine, you'll remember that at some point a guy is saying that we should ban Marilyn Manson music. Why? Because I drives some people to kill. (in regard to the events of Columbine.) His logic is that most people won't buy a car when they see an ad for it on TV, but some will. Apply that line of though to videogames, music, topic of your choice which promotes violence, and you get that while most people won't go on a killing spree for consuming a certain product, some will.
That's why you need a license to drive, because it can be dangerous. That's why you have to be 18 (or 21, depends where you live) to buy alchool. It's because people decided that we had this rule that said that if you were over that age, you should be able to handle a certain product.
Thing is, we do have a similar thing called the ESRB for videogames, but retaillers are not caring, and parents don't care. They think games are for kids therefore they should not contain violence or nudity.
These kids are to blame for doing what they did, but if you want to blame GTA3 for twisting their fragile little mind, then you'll also have to blame the parents or the retailer who sold the game because you have to be 17 at least to buy this game.
... this might be what finally pushes me to buy a Palm. I know they're more then portable calendars (a la Outlook) and note takers, but I've never seen them as anything more. If it turns out to be a little machine and has a few decent games, that might convinces me to buy one. So now I could put little electronic memos on the calendar to remind me to play a game on it.;)
... this new Myst seems to be a text adventure set in a computer world like in Tron. The trailer says Bandwidth Limit Exceeded The server is temporarily...
I would agree with you, but I wouldn't only blame it on the ethnocentricity of Japan. It's a fact that they don't like all the type of games that american plays. That's why you almost never see a japanese FPS. But these games are HUGE here.
Personally, I thinkg Microsoft shouldn't worry about how their doing in Japan. What's important is how they do in the global market. Even tough they're not even close to third in Japan, what's important is that they're number two in the world. Not too bad for a company's first console.
And I don't agree that Japanese games are that much better. Personally, the games I've been mostly look for in the recent months are american made or european made, with the exception of Splinter Cell : Pandora Tomorrow, which comes from my home-turf, Montreal, in Canada. I couldn't care less that I won't be able to play FFX-2, which sole reason to exist is to put girls in mini-skirts. Young Japanese men soooooo need to get a girlfriend.
Screw Japan, allright? I mean, why should I care if they even like the Xbox at all? What is important is that Microsoft keeps bringing me cool games HERE in Canada. I don't care if Japanese people don't like the Xbox. Even though an RPG a la Final Fantasy would we nice on the Xbox, an american developper is bound to realize soon that there is a huge market for this kind of game on the Xbox and then they'll develop a japanese-like RPG and every Xboxers will be happy. Anyway, I couldn't care less about Final Fantasy anymore since they hoped on the Playstation wagon, because I feel their games are putting FMV in front of gameplay and storytelling. Also, ever played Xenosaga? What a sorry excuse for a video game. Play 2 minutes, watch 30 minutes for FMV or in engine movie, start playing for 5 minutes, another cutscene. Let the Japanese play the games they like on their Nintendo and Playstations. I, for one, am not going to cry over the fact that the Xbox doesn't rule over there.
Get over Japan people. It's not as if we need their blessing to play our games.
You think you're so hot, eh? But think about us, the losers with no friends and no girlfriends, who is going to play with us? I'm tired to play with myself!!! (errrr....)
You're right, the Scientific Atlanta can't do that, but since I live in Canada, TiVo is not an option for me. But if it was, I would gladly ditch my current TV provider. Does the TiVo cable signal digital or analog tought? And does it let you record two channels while listening to a recording? Cause I like my picture crystal clear and I often record two shows at a time.
I own an Explorer 8000 from Scientific Atlanta, and the big advantage from that box is that it has built in TV-Guide for the next 3 days, and you can go to the show of your choice and tell the PVR to record the show for you. I'm willing to lose a few functionnality to get this extremely usefull feature.
I never said Java is not dumbed down version of C++. I said that like Java, C# is more or less a dumbed down C++.
And if you need a lot of RAM for your app, maybe Java is not the right language for you. Unless you really need the crossplatform advantage. In that case Java is pretty much the only reasonnable choice.
If you remember a demo of the original Half-Life took a few month to be released even after the game was on store shelves... unless you had a Voodoo 2 that came with the Half-Life : Day one special demo that shipped months before the game. I didn't have a Voodoo 2, but I found the demo on the net, and it ran just fine on my Voodoo 1 back then.
I mean, I haven't really read on the subject. I skimmed through a 400 pages book in an evening, trying to see C#'s features, and how it compared to Java, and while it has some interresting concepts, like the "using" instruction, I find it to be less usable than Java or C#. Like Java, C# is more of less a dumbed down C++. The problem is that it's a badly dumbed down C++. You have to specify if a function is virtual or not, you might even have to specify destructors! When I started coding in Java, I was glad that virtual was by default and that I never had to write a destructor to free resources, since the language did it for me. But you still have to do it in C# sometimes. From what I've learned so far from C#, it's a pretty average language.
Now don't get me wrong. I'm really good in C++ and don't have problem writing destructors, virtual methods and managing memory, it's just that I'd rather not have to think about them and concentrate on features, and Java seems to be a great tool for that.
You do have an interresting point. But DVDs and tapes can also be borrowed. I lend my DVDs all the time to friends and family. And movies are often watched as a group, like video games are often played together, or with someone looking at y ou playing.
The revenue of each industry cannot be taken into account, since the cost of a unit are so different. You cannot compare them by length of the unit either, because the "amount of fun" you have with a product is not equal to it's popularity. I had more fun watching the 80 minute movie "Phone Booth" then watching the 2 hours + "SW : Episode 2". But I also had more fun to play the 29 hours Final Fantasy 6 compared to the 15 hours Final Fantasy 1.
So, how could we measure the popularity? I think you can compare movies between themselves, or games between themselves, but you can't really compare two genre together. It's like saying that food is more popular that video games because they sell so much more. Most people eat as an after though or hate it, like my mom.
and therefore miss out on making the PSP an "exciting and versatile media playback device."
Sony is not in this for versatility. They're in it for money. Last time I checked, Nintendo was raking in a lot of money with the Gameboy, even tough it only plays games (except for a peripheral or two that plays MP3 and stuff like that). That should be enough for Sony.
Sure, there are 12$ games, but if you look at new titles, they all cost 40$ to 70$ (In Canadian money anyway). And those are the games that help the industry make 10 billions. 7 million copies of GTA3 at 40.99US$ is what drives the industry to higher profits.
And the length has nothing to do with being more popular or not. The only thing it has to do with is the hours of fun/$$$ ratio.
As in another post, revenue is not a sign of popularity. A game costs 60$. Going to the movies costs between 5$ to 15$. It's not because you make more money that you are more popular. Movies make more money each year but have less and less customers. You could say that videogames will be as popular as movies when they make at least 3 or 4 times the amount of money Hollywood makes each year. Right now, they are nowhere as popular as movies.
A game costs 60$. Going to the movies costs between 5$ to 15$. It's not because you make more money that you are more popular. Movies make more money each year but have less and less customers. You could say that videogames will be as popular as movies when they make at least 3 or 4 times the amount of money Hollywood makes each year.
Slashdot Mirror
Guns don't kill people, kids who play violent videogames do.
You're right, availability isn't an issue. After seeing Bowling for Columbine tough, you'll see that the US still has a major problem.
Even tough the United States has about 10 times the population of Canada ( 300 million compared to 30 million), it has almost 100 times for death by a gun than Canada ( 11000 compared to 150).
If guns are not to blame, then who is? The answer is simple : Gun don't kill people, people kill people.
Whatever is happening is the United States with guns, it's happening because of people. What went wrong at some point that made people that weapons should be used as they are is anybodys guess.
Thing is, if you have a scared or aggressive population, these numbers are going to get distorted. I'd like to quote Bowling for Columbine to explain this.
IIRC, 11,000 people die each year in the US because of a gun and about 137 die for the same reasons in Canada. Now think about, Canada has 10 time less people than United States. So you should only get about a thousand death by guns in the US. Instead, you get ten times that. Some other countries which have a bigger population then Canada like France have even less death by a gun than Canada.
So what makes the US so special? Is it because they have a violent history? How do you explain then that France, Germany and England, countries with a far bloodier past than the US, don't have more death by guns?
Is it the culture? Don't think so, since english canadian people have been pretty much assimilated by the american culture and there isn't the same rate of violence.
Could it be racial differences? US doesn't have a bigger percentage of immigrants or "colored" (or whatever the right term is these days) people than other countries IIRC.
What then? I think it would be because americans are scared the shit out of them by the media, terrorist threats and pseudo-threat level issued by the government.
So this is what is probably going to distort you statistic. While people are maybe going to think twice before a rape or stealing something, someone who is scared has more chance to pull then trigger then just force the person to go away.
Hundreds of millions of people play video games, why aren't at least a few million of us out there emulating them
If you saw Bowling for Columbine, you'll remember that at some point a guy is saying that we should ban Marilyn Manson music. Why? Because I drives some people to kill. (in regard to the events of Columbine.) His logic is that most people won't buy a car when they see an ad for it on TV, but some will. Apply that line of though to videogames, music, topic of your choice which promotes violence, and you get that while most people won't go on a killing spree for consuming a certain product, some will.
That's why you need a license to drive, because it can be dangerous. That's why you have to be 18 (or 21, depends where you live) to buy alchool. It's because people decided that we had this rule that said that if you were over that age, you should be able to handle a certain product.
Thing is, we do have a similar thing called the ESRB for videogames, but retaillers are not caring, and parents don't care. They think games are for kids therefore they should not contain violence or nudity.
These kids are to blame for doing what they did, but if you want to blame GTA3 for twisting their fragile little mind, then you'll also have to blame the parents or the retailer who sold the game because you have to be 17 at least to buy this game.
... this might be what finally pushes me to buy a Palm. I know they're more then portable calendars (a la Outlook) and note takers, but I've never seen them as anything more. If it turns out to be a little machine and has a few decent games, that might convinces me to buy one. So now I could put little electronic memos on the calendar to remind me to play a game on it. ;)
... this new Myst seems to be a text adventure set in a computer world like in Tron. The trailer says Bandwidth Limit Exceeded The server is temporarily...
As someone said, XIII came after. So, what did you guess? :p
I would agree with you, but I wouldn't only blame it on the ethnocentricity of Japan. It's a fact that they don't like all the type of games that american plays. That's why you almost never see a japanese FPS. But these games are HUGE here.
Personally, I thinkg Microsoft shouldn't worry about how their doing in Japan. What's important is how they do in the global market. Even tough they're not even close to third in Japan, what's important is that they're number two in the world. Not too bad for a company's first console.
And I don't agree that Japanese games are that much better. Personally, the games I've been mostly look for in the recent months are american made or european made, with the exception of Splinter Cell : Pandora Tomorrow, which comes from my home-turf, Montreal, in Canada. I couldn't care less that I won't be able to play FFX-2, which sole reason to exist is to put girls in mini-skirts. Young Japanese men soooooo need to get a girlfriend.
Screw Japan, allright? I mean, why should I care if they even like the Xbox at all? What is important is that Microsoft keeps bringing me cool games HERE in Canada. I don't care if Japanese people don't like the Xbox. Even though an RPG a la Final Fantasy would we nice on the Xbox, an american developper is bound to realize soon that there is a huge market for this kind of game on the Xbox and then they'll develop a japanese-like RPG and every Xboxers will be happy. Anyway, I couldn't care less about Final Fantasy anymore since they hoped on the Playstation wagon, because I feel their games are putting FMV in front of gameplay and storytelling. Also, ever played Xenosaga? What a sorry excuse for a video game. Play 2 minutes, watch 30 minutes for FMV or in engine movie, start playing for 5 minutes, another cutscene. Let the Japanese play the games they like on their Nintendo and Playstations. I, for one, am not going to cry over the fact that the Xbox doesn't rule over there.
Get over Japan people. It's not as if we need their blessing to play our games.
You think you're so hot, eh? But think about us, the losers with no friends and no girlfriends, who is going to play with us? I'm tired to play with myself!!! (errrr....)
You're right, the Scientific Atlanta can't do that, but since I live in Canada, TiVo is not an option for me. But if it was, I would gladly ditch my current TV provider. Does the TiVo cable signal digital or analog tought? And does it let you record two channels while listening to a recording? Cause I like my picture crystal clear and I often record two shows at a time.
10% is nothing. Since I bought my 279.99CAN$ Xbox, the sales of consoles have gone 100% down for the next 3 years in my case.
You're right, that the otehr big advantage, I didn't really think about it, but yeah, it's really great! Must be because I'm so used to it now. :p
Anyway, I meant "ONE of the big advantage". Sorry, my bad!
I own an Explorer 8000 from Scientific Atlanta, and the big advantage from that box is that it has built in TV-Guide for the next 3 days, and you can go to the show of your choice and tell the PVR to record the show for you. I'm willing to lose a few functionnality to get this extremely usefull feature.
You can beat the slashdot effect. ;)
I never said Java is not dumbed down version of C++. I said that like Java, C# is more or less a dumbed down C++.
And if you need a lot of RAM for your app, maybe Java is not the right language for you. Unless you really need the crossplatform advantage. In that case Java is pretty much the only reasonnable choice.
If you remember a demo of the original Half-Life took a few month to be released even after the game was on store shelves... unless you had a Voodoo 2 that came with the Half-Life : Day one special demo that shipped months before the game. I didn't have a Voodoo 2, but I found the demo on the net, and it ran just fine on my Voodoo 1 back then.
I mean, I haven't really read on the subject. I skimmed through a 400 pages book in an evening, trying to see C#'s features, and how it compared to Java, and while it has some interresting concepts, like the "using" instruction, I find it to be less usable than Java or C#. Like Java, C# is more of less a dumbed down C++. The problem is that it's a badly dumbed down C++. You have to specify if a function is virtual or not, you might even have to specify destructors! When I started coding in Java, I was glad that virtual was by default and that I never had to write a destructor to free resources, since the language did it for me. But you still have to do it in C# sometimes. From what I've learned so far from C#, it's a pretty average language.
Now don't get me wrong. I'm really good in C++ and don't have problem writing destructors, virtual methods and managing memory, it's just that I'd rather not have to think about them and concentrate on features, and Java seems to be a great tool for that.
You do have an interresting point. But DVDs and tapes can also be borrowed. I lend my DVDs all the time to friends and family. And movies are often watched as a group, like video games are often played together, or with someone looking at y ou playing.
The revenue of each industry cannot be taken into account, since the cost of a unit are so different. You cannot compare them by length of the unit either, because the "amount of fun" you have with a product is not equal to it's popularity. I had more fun watching the 80 minute movie "Phone Booth" then watching the 2 hours + "SW : Episode 2". But I also had more fun to play the 29 hours Final Fantasy 6 compared to the 15 hours Final Fantasy 1.
So, how could we measure the popularity? I think you can compare movies between themselves, or games between themselves, but you can't really compare two genre together. It's like saying that food is more popular that video games because they sell so much more. Most people eat as an after though or hate it, like my mom.
You're both right and wrong. I'm a canadian, not an american, but I agree with you, americans change their minds after the rest of the world, eh? ;)
and therefore miss out on making the PSP an "exciting and versatile media playback device."
Sony is not in this for versatility. They're in it for money. Last time I checked, Nintendo was raking in a lot of money with the Gameboy, even tough it only plays games (except for a peripheral or two that plays MP3 and stuff like that). That should be enough for Sony.
Sure, there are 12$ games, but if you look at new titles, they all cost 40$ to 70$ (In Canadian money anyway). And those are the games that help the industry make 10 billions. 7 million copies of GTA3 at 40.99US$ is what drives the industry to higher profits.
And the length has nothing to do with being more popular or not. The only thing it has to do with is the hours of fun/$$$ ratio.
As in another post, revenue is not a sign of popularity. A game costs 60$. Going to the movies costs between 5$ to 15$. It's not because you make more money that you are more popular. Movies make more money each year but have less and less customers. You could say that videogames will be as popular as movies when they make at least 3 or 4 times the amount of money Hollywood makes each year. Right now, they are nowhere as popular as movies.
A game costs 60$. Going to the movies costs between 5$ to 15$. It's not because you make more money that you are more popular. Movies make more money each year but have less and less customers. You could say that videogames will be as popular as movies when they make at least 3 or 4 times the amount of money Hollywood makes each year.
Let's see what are their launch titles... hum...
:)
Bikini Karate Babes.
Okay, that does it. You lost your one chance at credibility.