After some brief googling, it would seem that 15-20hz is the key danger frequency for triggering photosensitive epilepsy, as well has high contrast patterns in a cycle of 1-4hz per degree. So having guidelines that would make games safe most photosensitive people seems to be a possability, but I think it would be rather difficult to make all developers aware of this.
Guidelines of this nature would simply cause publishers to up the system requirements on games (which may actually be a good thing, because I think the minimum tends to be unreasonably low most of the time). Even then, you can't guarantee that someone's system isn't going to crawl at 15-20 fps when a strobe hits the screen. There are too many factors that the developers and publishers have no control over, which is generally why not only the developers and publishers disclaim against this sort of thing, but also the video card and monitor manufacturers (I find it interesting that game consoles carry this warning but neither video cards nor monitors do, at least in the few manuals I checked online).
If it's "virtually" impossible, how does that differ from "really" impossible?
Or even, "simply" impossible?
A simply lookup of the word "virtually" would answer this question for you. The word means "practically", or "almost but not quite". In other words, it's completely possible in the realm of reality, but the IP problems and costs are extremely likely to prevent it from happening.
In other words, to say something is "virtually impossible" is to say that it is possible, but it is not going to happen.
I have a PS2, I don't have a PS1, and I don't have any PS1 games. Anyone who has a library of PS1 games presumably already has a PS1 to play them on. Wasn't the PS2's backward-compatibility more for people like me, who want to play the occasional classic PS1 game we come across without having to buy a PS1? And just how many people like me are there?
I've purchased more PS1 games after I sold my PS1 than I did when I had it. If the PS2 didn't have backwards compatability, I would've waited a little longer (I didn't buy it at launch, though) to buy it, and would've kept my PS1. At this point, though, I've got enough consoles in my living room that I'd be a bit irritated to have to increase the number of boxes sitting next to the TV.
I don't know if "shooting themselves in the foot" is accurate, but I do believe it could make a very big difference in early sales if one of the three consoles has it and the other two don't.
Backwards compatability isn't just about getting people that already own your system to upgrade early. It's also about expanding your launch library to include all of your previous titles. What Sony proved with the PS2 was that the people that never owned a PS1 and bought a PS2 early would buy a couple of PS1 titles at some point in the system's life. Additionally, it allowed developers to continue putting out PS1 titles knowing that the market wouldn't disappear when the PS2 came out (Square probably took more advantage of this than anyone else, releasing FFIX as a PS1 title near the launch of the PS2 and porting several older FF titles to the PS1 near and after the PS2's launch).
Get a grip, people. Backward compatibility means nothing except to the dozen morons here who are so stupid they have shitty jobs and can't afford a place to live that is big enough for two game consoles.
Try someone that already has 5 consoles (would've been 6 if the PS2 wasn't backwards compatable, 7 if I hadn't accidentally left the TG-16 in San Diego). If I can get an XBox 2 that plays XBox 1 games and a PS3 that plays PS2 and PS1 games, the number doesn't have to go up, and I can trade in the older consoles to knock a little off the price (most likely to buy another game).
Besides, who even plays old games once the new console has been out a while?
Given that I have 1 PS1 title that was released in the past year (making it newer than about 2/3 of my PS2 titles), I'd say backwards compatability is more than just old titles. That being said, why toss your old games just because a new system is out? The old games aren't worse just because there's another system out there, and not every game gets a sequel worthwhile on the new system (or a sequel that's a real replacement of the older game).
What's better? Buying a port of an old game for your new system or being able to simply play that old game on your new system? If all there is to a game is flashy graphics and good sound, then I can see the point of not playing old games when a new system comes out, but realistically, I try not to waste too much of my time with games like that.
When the PS2 was released, the PS1 titles dropped in price dramatically. A lot of people that never owned a PS1 have picked up at least a couple of PS1 titles since buying a PS2, either because they purchased the console early (which was rare among people that did not own a PS1), or because the capability was there and the number of launch titles was somewhat low.
Backwards compatability also had a great deal to do with the PS2's win over the DreamCast, even before the PS2 launched.
As for a 'layer of old code', that's hardly needed. The PS2 used a chip that combined the functionality of the I/O and the PS1. The only code needed was to determine whether the disc was a PS1 or PS2 disc and start the system appropriately. Once the disc was detected as a PS2 disc, the PS1 functionality wasn't in the picture (the I/O portion of the chip was all that was used). On the other hand, if the PS3 doesn't support PS1 games, I'll simply play them on my PS2. Either way, even with the next XBox, I'll hold off on purchasing a new console until there are enough titles that I want to justify the purchase, just as I did with this generation. If the PS3 doesn't have a strong launch lineup, full backwards compatability can make or break early sales, and the same can be said for the next MS and Nintendo consoles. In the long term, it only makes a difference on software sales, and I'm sure most of the PS1 titles sold today (though not in the early PS2 days) are used (besides the FF games released since the PS2 was released).
I haven't checked current numbers but XBox sales haven't shot up recently due to XBox Live getting better market penetration. If anything, I would say that XBox Live offers a nice service but Halo was what made XBox the console it is today.
I would agree that Live didn't make the XBox what it is today. On the other hand, Live is really impressive with current games, especially Crimson Skies and PGR2 (with the latter really showing why consoles should be online). Still, with the subscription model and the lack of Live enabled titles until very recently, Live was almost holding the XBox back. Now, it looks to be a model of what the next generation of consoles could bring, and, at the very least, where the XBox will be pulling ahead until that next generation is on the shelves.
Apparently the AC that posted this comment does, because Myth was very much a real-time title. The major difference is that Myth wasn't a resource-gathering/unit-building title, but instead involved tactical and strategy elements as the most important part of the game, probably making it more of an RTS than most of the titles normally given that genre label.
Tiberian Sun was the sequel to Tiberian Dawn, but, imo, wasn't a very good game. You can probably pick it up for next to nothing now, and iirc they're selling it in a 4-pack with RA2 and the expansions.
If they had decided to do a Tiberian Twilight, it probably got shelved for Generals, and may be something they'll work on in a few years. Last I heard, they're working on a LotR RTS with the movie license and a massively upgraded Generals engine.
Of course, there's also a possibility that we'll see a 3rd Red Alert before we see Tiberian Twilight, given that RA2 and the expansion seemed to do better than Tiberian Sun and that expansion.
Don't you love it when people don't understand what the RT in RTS stands for?
In case the original poster didn't get the hint, Advance Wars is turn-based, RTS games are (R)eal (T)ime.
While I enjoy Advance Wars and a number of S/TRPGs, they don't belong in a list of RTS games, unless, at the very least, they're actually real time rather than turn based games.
The Joy of Coffee [amazon.ca] recommends this process over normal drip coffeemakers in any case, as there is no boiler apparatus to get gummed up and fill your coffee-water with smelly scum. The only things in actual contact with your coffee are an easily cleanable cone, a disposable filter, and your kettle.
Something else to recommend for people that don't really care about all of the extras, or for people that simply want a better coffe maker: either filter your water before you use it or get a coffee maker with a built-in water filter (and make sure to replace whatever part of the filter is supposed to be replaced when it's supposed to be replaced, whether it's the whole filter, a cartridge, or whatever). Filtered water makes all the difference in the world in the taste of the coffee and in the lifetime of a coffee maker (or that maker's ability to continue putting out good coffee).
I think he was probably pointing out the absurdity of the person's place of work having a microwave but not a kettle...
hmm where I work we have 2 microwaves and 4 or 5 coffee pots, but no kettle. I'm not sure why this is, but I assume that if it had been an issue for anyone a kettle would've appeared eventually.
Starbucks in the store goes for around $8 for a 12oz bag. Go to Costco and get 3lb for $8.
Unfortunately, I usually buy Sumatra, which Costco (at least around here) doesn't sell, so I'm stuck buying a bag a week at Starbucks.
On the bright side, a 3lb. bag would probably start to go stale before I finished it.
My best advice for someone looking to get through the day in an office that won't allow you to go out and get coffee during the day is to bring a large caraffe that'll keep the coffee at a good temperature throughout the day. I make a pot every morning and take most of it with me (if I don't leave some behind for the girlfriend, I have a problem on my hands that could've been avoided).
UbiSoft are the same bunch of worthless publishers that released Pool of Radiance 2 with the infamous "erase your hard drive if you uninstall it" bug, along with a host of other less publicized crapfests.
That's the same bug that was in Half-Life's original release, and, amazingly enough, it didn't effect me in either game. Then again, I bought PoR almost a year after it was released (and multiple patches were available, including a patch for that bug), and still haven't uninstalled Half-Life.
Yes, but if a game continues to sell well (and this goes for all 3 platforms) it rarely goes into the Platinum Hits (or Greatest Hits, or Player's Choice) listing until Microsoft (or Sony or Nintendo) decides that they won't lose significant profits by dropping the price. Halo's a good example, as it was one of the first titles to pass the sales marks usually required for this status, but was still selling full price 2 years after release.
You can see the same thing with the Final Fantasy series on the Greatest Hits lines and Zelda on the Player's Choice side. Mario Kart easily broke the sales points usually set for the Player's Choice line in less than 7 weeks, so it's almost guaranteed not to see Player's Choice status for another year.
All Sony games are eligable for rerelease as a greatest hit at $20, wheras Nintendo's "Player's Choice" system is almost completly first person titles (mentioned in the article) and usually priced closer to $30.
Nintendo's Player's Choice titles tend to be 1st party titles simply because those are the titles that sell best on the platform. You could just as easily say that Sony's 1st party titles rarely make it to "Greatest Hit" status.
As for the price, I usually find that by the time Nintendo comes around to re-releasing it as a Player's Choice title, it's already available at or below the $30 range, especially for used copies. In fact, since I bought my Cube most of the titles I've paid more than $30 for were recently released titles (F-Zero and Mario Kart, though Zelda would count if I didn't get it with my Cube). Pikmin, Metroid Prime, Super Monkey Ball 2, Rogue Squadron 2, Super Smash Bros Melee, and Mario Party 4 each cost me $20, and are on that list (additionally, most of the Resident Evil titles are in the $15-25 range, and Eternal Darkness is in the $12-18 range). Part of it may also be store pricing policies coming into effect, they may not realize that Player's Choice titles are any different than Greatest Hits titles (or individual stores may feel that people will pay the higher price for Cube titles). Animal Crossing wasn't a Player's Choice title when I bought it, and was still around $30-40, and as far as I can remember was the only older title that cost me more than $30 on the Cube.
I think the price is the major reason I have managed to purchase so many titles for my Cube in such a short time frame. I have nearly the same number of Cube titles as PS2 titles. Considering that I bought my PS2 primarily for GT3, GTA3, Tekken Tag Tournament, and the Final Fantasy titles, I wasn't going to wait for those games to hit "Greatest Hits" status. On the other hand, I didn't buy the Cube until most of the titles I wanted had already dropped in price. My GBA library is also doing fairly well because even the most expensive games are in the $30-35 range rather than the $50 release price of most home console games.
I rather have a short, immersive extremely well done game (PoP:SoT, Elite Force (the first one) or Max Payne 2), then to have a game that can give lots of gameplay time but with poor mechanics/plot/whatever that make it a grueling experience (Super Mario Sunshine for example).
If I had to choose between the two, I'd wait until the first was $20.
Fortunately, I don't have to make that choice, because there are plenty of longer games without the problems you mention. Unfortunately, I did buy Super Mario Sunshine at slightly more than half price and probably have spent less time on it than it would take to play through PoP. I bought the first Max Payne for $20, played through it in one sitting (something I wouldn't have done if i hadn't known the length of the game), and never touched it again, but was perfectly happy with that (though I would've liked something more from the game).
From Gamespot's review of BG&E: Nonlethal stealth is quickly becoming one of those "love it or hate it" gameplay elements, and while the stealth in BG&E is handled well, there's enough of it to turn off people who don't care for it.
Running around dark corridors isn't the only thing you'll do in Beyond Good & Evil. The game's 10- to 15-hour quest [...]
Personally, it takes a lot to make me go out and buy a game that's only 10-15 hours in length. Additionally, I'm in the latter crowd on stealth gameplay. While PoP's ads were decent, BG&E had some of the worst video game ads I've ever seen (ok, FF:TA was worse, by far, only showing that ads won't deter me from a game I really want).
Prince of Persia is also noted as being a short game, but I've still considered picking it up.
A typical single player game has 20-40 hours of content.
In MMORPGs players average 18-20 hours per week. A player may stay for 6 months or more. So for even an average player, that's around 500 hours of content. How much are you willing to pay for this?
What you're missing, though, is that in a typical single player RPG the amount of content you experience in 18-20 hours (I also can't see that being an average player, though it may be an average for players that play 5+ days a week) is significantly more than you experience in an MMO game. 18-20 hours into the average single player RPG you're a fairly high level character either at the mid-point or near the end of the game. In an MMO game you've achieved very little in terms of character level and probably not experienced much outside the initial starting point (assuming you're not power-levelling with friends and getting high-end equipment from them for your low-level character).
Of course, the slower level of progression is justified by a necessity to keep players coming back, keep them subscribed to your game, paying the fees. What it misses out on is the wish by players to experience a game, to explore a new world, without spending 90+% of their time on a treadmill. Diablo 2, for instance, is a fairly small game content-wise, but people keep playing despite a somewhat tedious mid- to end-game and a high amount of repetition beyond the first 5 hours of play. The content in your average MMO game is far beyond that of Diablo 2, yet you experience more of Diablo 2's content in a short timeframe than many players experience in the average MMO game over the same time period.
People usually play games to feel empowered, to get away from reality for a while, and to be entertained. MMO games, for the most part, instead make people feel their characters are weak, need to be built up, and require work from the player. People find it entertaining for a while, and some people get sucked into it for various reasons, but in the end people don't want their wookie running away from a crab or to spend 30 hours killing bats to gain 1 level simply because they die in 2 minutes if they venture beyond the bats. Furthermore, they want to know why they're killing bats, why they're gaining levels, and so on. Many of these games just don't give you that feeling of an overall purpose, and you end up with short term goals that are replaced with new short term goals as you accomplish them, and even the most long-term of goals is only made long-term by the grossly inflated times it takes to acheive anything of merit.
As for player-created content, there are 2 major drives behind players wanting that capability: 1) a lack of decent developer-created content 2) a wish for the ability to actually have an effect on the world around them and to personalize their part of that world
If players feel the game has engrossing content provided by the developers and the game gives them a feeling of being able to change the world around them, the need for player-created content would diminish dramatically.
Really, they can have as many types of chief whatever officers as they want.
Exactly. 15 years ago you really didn't hear about Chief Financial Officers or Chief Operating Officers, either. It was the CEO and that's about it (Chairman of the Board, maybe, but most of the Board of Directors didn't have additional titles like CFO and COO or CCO). The company can more or less determine what officers it needs to best run their company, and with a large creative staff in the biggest money-making division of your business, there's quite a bit of sense in having an officer specifically handling issues related to that staff.
Hell, Bill Gates is a "Chief Software Architect", which is really nothing more than saying Chief Development Officer, but makes him sound like he's really got his hands in the mix (and maybe he does, every CXX has a different level of involvement they're willing and able to handle).
Sony just happens to have a CEO, COO, Chief Strategy Officer, Chief Production Officer, and several other positions of that nature (not to mention CEOs and other officers at lower levels, and CEOs of other companies on their board).
Here in south-eastern VA there don't seem to be any arcades by themselves, but there are still plenty of arcades in movie theaters and malls (most of the malls also having movie theaters, but those being the theaters that don't usually have arcades). Most of them seem to be moving towards having a handful of the bigger cabinets rather than having more of the smaller cabinets, and it seems that every one of them has at least one 2-player DDR cabinet (at $1 per play).
The only place I really see the standard-sized cabinets any more is the laundrimat, each of which has at least 2 cabinets, and the one I regularly go to also has 2 pinball games. That being said, they're not exactly the latest greatest games, I saw Zero Gunner and Tekken Tag Tournament when I was at the laundrimat on Sunday, and both of these were put in recently, as they weren't there the previous time I was there.
When it comes down to it, though, it seems the only arcades out here are in areas where you wouldn't have anything better to do, especially areas where teenagers and kids are regularly dropped off and have to wait for someone to pick them up, or, like I said, at the laundrimat where you really don't have much else to do, and probably already have a stack of quarters. I usually just end up bringing my GBA to the laundrimat, and the arcades in malls and theaters are too centered on gimmicky games rather than good gameplay for me to care when I can just get in my car and go home.
--- there is a list of licenses on the FSF website called "GPL compatible licenses." Code under these licenses can be incorporated into GPL'ed code and linked against GPL'ed code
vs. what's written on the GNU site: Whether it is compatible with the GNU GPL. (This means you can combine a module which was released under that license with a GPL-covered module to make one larger program.)
Note that it does not say you can include the code in GPLd code. Modules are seperate pieces of code which can be covered under different licenses. You can link against it, but in cases where you can't change the license of the original code, you can't include it in GPLd code.
In summary, if I give my software to you: BSD - You have almost the same freedoms I do. People you give it to have only the freedoms you give them. GPL - You have less freedom, but the people you give it to have the same freedoms you do.
In summary, if I give my source code to you under: GPL: you are free to do whatever you want with it if you don't distribute it, but if you distribute it, changed or not, you are restricted to distributing it under the GPL
revised BSD license (no advertising clause): you can do whatever you want to with it
We all know there's BSD code in Windows, OS X, and Linux. It's not a big secret. If we want the original code, we can find it. Code doesn't disappear just because someone decides not to release the source of their changes, and even the original developer can't make the code disappear (unless distribution of the code was non-existant in the first place).
Somehow I doubt that a kid who can, and does, put in 10 hours straight playing videogames is the "fittest and healthiest of children." My guess is that the 10-hours type of kid is something less than fit and healthy.
It did state that it was a rainy day. Once the kid is stuck indoors, he's much more likely to do something that involves little or no movement, especially after his parents have yelled at him a couple of times for running around in the house. He could've just as easily been working on a puzzle, playing card games, or reading a book.
Slashdot Mirror
After some brief googling, it would seem that 15-20hz is the key danger frequency for triggering photosensitive epilepsy, as well has high contrast patterns in a cycle of 1-4hz per degree. So having guidelines that would make games safe most photosensitive people seems to be a possability, but I think it would be rather difficult to make all developers aware of this.
Guidelines of this nature would simply cause publishers to up the system requirements on games (which may actually be a good thing, because I think the minimum tends to be unreasonably low most of the time). Even then, you can't guarantee that someone's system isn't going to crawl at 15-20 fps when a strobe hits the screen. There are too many factors that the developers and publishers have no control over, which is generally why not only the developers and publishers disclaim against this sort of thing, but also the video card and monitor manufacturers (I find it interesting that game consoles carry this warning but neither video cards nor monitors do, at least in the few manuals I checked online).
The reality is that almost any game can do this, which is why the warning is often included with console hardware as well as the games themselves.
If it's "virtually" impossible, how does that differ from "really" impossible?
Or even, "simply" impossible?
A simply lookup of the word "virtually" would answer this question for you. The word means "practically", or "almost but not quite". In other words, it's completely possible in the realm of reality, but the IP problems and costs are extremely likely to prevent it from happening.
In other words, to say something is "virtually impossible" is to say that it is possible, but it is not going to happen.
I have a PS2, I don't have a PS1, and I don't have any PS1 games. Anyone who has a library of PS1 games presumably already has a PS1 to play them on. Wasn't the PS2's backward-compatibility more for people like me, who want to play the occasional classic PS1 game we come across without having to buy a PS1? And just how many people like me are there?
I've purchased more PS1 games after I sold my PS1 than I did when I had it. If the PS2 didn't have backwards compatability, I would've waited a little longer (I didn't buy it at launch, though) to buy it, and would've kept my PS1. At this point, though, I've got enough consoles in my living room that I'd be a bit irritated to have to increase the number of boxes sitting next to the TV.
I don't know if "shooting themselves in the foot" is accurate, but I do believe it could make a very big difference in early sales if one of the three consoles has it and the other two don't.
Backwards compatability isn't just about getting people that already own your system to upgrade early. It's also about expanding your launch library to include all of your previous titles. What Sony proved with the PS2 was that the people that never owned a PS1 and bought a PS2 early would buy a couple of PS1 titles at some point in the system's life. Additionally, it allowed developers to continue putting out PS1 titles knowing that the market wouldn't disappear when the PS2 came out (Square probably took more advantage of this than anyone else, releasing FFIX as a PS1 title near the launch of the PS2 and porting several older FF titles to the PS1 near and after the PS2's launch).
Get a grip, people. Backward compatibility means nothing except to the dozen morons here who are so stupid they have shitty jobs and can't afford a place to live that is big enough for two game consoles.
Try someone that already has 5 consoles (would've been 6 if the PS2 wasn't backwards compatable, 7 if I hadn't accidentally left the TG-16 in San Diego). If I can get an XBox 2 that plays XBox 1 games and a PS3 that plays PS2 and PS1 games, the number doesn't have to go up, and I can trade in the older consoles to knock a little off the price (most likely to buy another game).
Besides, who even plays old games once the new console has been out a while?
Given that I have 1 PS1 title that was released in the past year (making it newer than about 2/3 of my PS2 titles), I'd say backwards compatability is more than just old titles. That being said, why toss your old games just because a new system is out? The old games aren't worse just because there's another system out there, and not every game gets a sequel worthwhile on the new system (or a sequel that's a real replacement of the older game).
What's better? Buying a port of an old game for your new system or being able to simply play that old game on your new system? If all there is to a game is flashy graphics and good sound, then I can see the point of not playing old games when a new system comes out, but realistically, I try not to waste too much of my time with games like that.
When the PS2 was released, the PS1 titles dropped in price dramatically. A lot of people that never owned a PS1 have picked up at least a couple of PS1 titles since buying a PS2, either because they purchased the console early (which was rare among people that did not own a PS1), or because the capability was there and the number of launch titles was somewhat low.
Backwards compatability also had a great deal to do with the PS2's win over the DreamCast, even before the PS2 launched.
As for a 'layer of old code', that's hardly needed. The PS2 used a chip that combined the functionality of the I/O and the PS1. The only code needed was to determine whether the disc was a PS1 or PS2 disc and start the system appropriately. Once the disc was detected as a PS2 disc, the PS1 functionality wasn't in the picture (the I/O portion of the chip was all that was used). On the other hand, if the PS3 doesn't support PS1 games, I'll simply play them on my PS2. Either way, even with the next XBox, I'll hold off on purchasing a new console until there are enough titles that I want to justify the purchase, just as I did with this generation. If the PS3 doesn't have a strong launch lineup, full backwards compatability can make or break early sales, and the same can be said for the next MS and Nintendo consoles. In the long term, it only makes a difference on software sales, and I'm sure most of the PS1 titles sold today (though not in the early PS2 days) are used (besides the FF games released since the PS2 was released).
I haven't checked current numbers but XBox sales haven't shot up recently due to XBox Live getting better market penetration. If anything, I would say that XBox Live offers a nice service but Halo was what made XBox the console it is today.
I would agree that Live didn't make the XBox what it is today. On the other hand, Live is really impressive with current games, especially Crimson Skies and PGR2 (with the latter really showing why consoles should be online). Still, with the subscription model and the lack of Live enabled titles until very recently, Live was almost holding the XBox back. Now, it looks to be a model of what the next generation of consoles could bring, and, at the very least, where the XBox will be pulling ahead until that next generation is on the shelves.
Do you need the term real-time explained to you?
Apparently the AC that posted this comment does, because Myth was very much a real-time title. The major difference is that Myth wasn't a resource-gathering/unit-building title, but instead involved tactical and strategy elements as the most important part of the game, probably making it more of an RTS than most of the titles normally given that genre label.
Dominion was one of the first Ion Storm titles released, and was almost universally panned.
Tiberian Sun was the sequel to Tiberian Dawn, but, imo, wasn't a very good game. You can probably pick it up for next to nothing now, and iirc they're selling it in a 4-pack with RA2 and the expansions.
If they had decided to do a Tiberian Twilight, it probably got shelved for Generals, and may be something they'll work on in a few years. Last I heard, they're working on a LotR RTS with the movie license and a massively upgraded Generals engine.
Of course, there's also a possibility that we'll see a 3rd Red Alert before we see Tiberian Twilight, given that RA2 and the expansion seemed to do better than Tiberian Sun and that expansion.
Don't you love it when people don't understand what the RT in RTS stands for?
In case the original poster didn't get the hint, Advance Wars is turn-based, RTS games are (R)eal (T)ime.
While I enjoy Advance Wars and a number of S/TRPGs, they don't belong in a list of RTS games, unless, at the very least, they're actually real time rather than turn based games.
The Joy of Coffee [amazon.ca] recommends this process over normal drip coffeemakers in any case, as there is no boiler apparatus to get gummed up and fill your coffee-water with smelly scum. The only things in actual contact with your coffee are an easily cleanable cone, a disposable filter, and your kettle.
Something else to recommend for people that don't really care about all of the extras, or for people that simply want a better coffe maker: either filter your water before you use it or get a coffee maker with a built-in water filter (and make sure to replace whatever part of the filter is supposed to be replaced when it's supposed to be replaced, whether it's the whole filter, a cartridge, or whatever). Filtered water makes all the difference in the world in the taste of the coffee and in the lifetime of a coffee maker (or that maker's ability to continue putting out good coffee).
I think he was probably pointing out the absurdity of the person's place of work having a microwave but not a kettle...
hmm where I work we have 2 microwaves and 4 or 5 coffee pots, but no kettle. I'm not sure why this is, but I assume that if it had been an issue for anyone a kettle would've appeared eventually.
Starbucks in the store goes for around $8 for a 12oz bag. Go to Costco and get 3lb for $8.
Unfortunately, I usually buy Sumatra, which Costco (at least around here) doesn't sell, so I'm stuck buying a bag a week at Starbucks.
On the bright side, a 3lb. bag would probably start to go stale before I finished it.
My best advice for someone looking to get through the day in an office that won't allow you to go out and get coffee during the day is to bring a large caraffe that'll keep the coffee at a good temperature throughout the day. I make a pot every morning and take most of it with me (if I don't leave some behind for the girlfriend, I have a problem on my hands that could've been avoided).
UbiSoft are the same bunch of worthless publishers that released Pool of Radiance 2 with the infamous "erase your hard drive if you uninstall it" bug, along with a host of other less publicized crapfests.
That's the same bug that was in Half-Life's original release, and, amazingly enough, it didn't effect me in either game. Then again, I bought PoR almost a year after it was released (and multiple patches were available, including a patch for that bug), and still haven't uninstalled Half-Life.
Yes, but if a game continues to sell well (and this goes for all 3 platforms) it rarely goes into the Platinum Hits (or Greatest Hits, or Player's Choice) listing until Microsoft (or Sony or Nintendo) decides that they won't lose significant profits by dropping the price. Halo's a good example, as it was one of the first titles to pass the sales marks usually required for this status, but was still selling full price 2 years after release.
You can see the same thing with the Final Fantasy series on the Greatest Hits lines and Zelda on the Player's Choice side. Mario Kart easily broke the sales points usually set for the Player's Choice line in less than 7 weeks, so it's almost guaranteed not to see Player's Choice status for another year.
All Sony games are eligable for rerelease as a greatest hit at $20, wheras Nintendo's "Player's Choice" system is almost completly first person titles (mentioned in the article) and usually priced closer to $30.
Nintendo's Player's Choice titles tend to be 1st party titles simply because those are the titles that sell best on the platform. You could just as easily say that Sony's 1st party titles rarely make it to "Greatest Hit" status.
As for the price, I usually find that by the time Nintendo comes around to re-releasing it as a Player's Choice title, it's already available at or below the $30 range, especially for used copies. In fact, since I bought my Cube most of the titles I've paid more than $30 for were recently released titles (F-Zero and Mario Kart, though Zelda would count if I didn't get it with my Cube). Pikmin, Metroid Prime, Super Monkey Ball 2, Rogue Squadron 2, Super Smash Bros Melee, and Mario Party 4 each cost me $20, and are on that list (additionally, most of the Resident Evil titles are in the $15-25 range, and Eternal Darkness is in the $12-18 range). Part of it may also be store pricing policies coming into effect, they may not realize that Player's Choice titles are any different than Greatest Hits titles (or individual stores may feel that people will pay the higher price for Cube titles). Animal Crossing wasn't a Player's Choice title when I bought it, and was still around $30-40, and as far as I can remember was the only older title that cost me more than $30 on the Cube.
I think the price is the major reason I have managed to purchase so many titles for my Cube in such a short time frame. I have nearly the same number of Cube titles as PS2 titles. Considering that I bought my PS2 primarily for GT3, GTA3, Tekken Tag Tournament, and the Final Fantasy titles, I wasn't going to wait for those games to hit "Greatest Hits" status. On the other hand, I didn't buy the Cube until most of the titles I wanted had already dropped in price. My GBA library is also doing fairly well because even the most expensive games are in the $30-35 range rather than the $50 release price of most home console games.
I rather have a short, immersive extremely well done game (PoP:SoT, Elite Force (the first one) or Max Payne 2), then to have a game that can give lots of gameplay time but with poor mechanics/plot/whatever that make it a grueling experience (Super Mario Sunshine for example).
If I had to choose between the two, I'd wait until the first was $20.
Fortunately, I don't have to make that choice, because there are plenty of longer games without the problems you mention. Unfortunately, I did buy Super Mario Sunshine at slightly more than half price and probably have spent less time on it than it would take to play through PoP. I bought the first Max Payne for $20, played through it in one sitting (something I wouldn't have done if i hadn't known the length of the game), and never touched it again, but was perfectly happy with that (though I would've liked something more from the game).
From Gamespot's review of BG&E:
Nonlethal stealth is quickly becoming one of those "love it or hate it" gameplay elements, and while the stealth in BG&E is handled well, there's enough of it to turn off people who don't care for it.
Running around dark corridors isn't the only thing you'll do in Beyond Good & Evil. The game's 10- to 15-hour quest [...]
Personally, it takes a lot to make me go out and buy a game that's only 10-15 hours in length. Additionally, I'm in the latter crowd on stealth gameplay. While PoP's ads were decent, BG&E had some of the worst video game ads I've ever seen (ok, FF:TA was worse, by far, only showing that ads won't deter me from a game I really want).
Prince of Persia is also noted as being a short game, but I've still considered picking it up.
A typical single player game has 20-40 hours of content.
In MMORPGs players average 18-20 hours per week. A player may stay for 6 months or more. So for even an average player, that's around 500 hours of content. How much are you willing to pay for this?
What you're missing, though, is that in a typical single player RPG the amount of content you experience in 18-20 hours (I also can't see that being an average player, though it may be an average for players that play 5+ days a week) is significantly more than you experience in an MMO game. 18-20 hours into the average single player RPG you're a fairly high level character either at the mid-point or near the end of the game. In an MMO game you've achieved very little in terms of character level and probably not experienced much outside the initial starting point (assuming you're not power-levelling with friends and getting high-end equipment from them for your low-level character).
Of course, the slower level of progression is justified by a necessity to keep players coming back, keep them subscribed to your game, paying the fees. What it misses out on is the wish by players to experience a game, to explore a new world, without spending 90+% of their time on a treadmill. Diablo 2, for instance, is a fairly small game content-wise, but people keep playing despite a somewhat tedious mid- to end-game and a high amount of repetition beyond the first 5 hours of play. The content in your average MMO game is far beyond that of Diablo 2, yet you experience more of Diablo 2's content in a short timeframe than many players experience in the average MMO game over the same time period.
People usually play games to feel empowered, to get away from reality for a while, and to be entertained. MMO games, for the most part, instead make people feel their characters are weak, need to be built up, and require work from the player. People find it entertaining for a while, and some people get sucked into it for various reasons, but in the end people don't want their wookie running away from a crab or to spend 30 hours killing bats to gain 1 level simply because they die in 2 minutes if they venture beyond the bats. Furthermore, they want to know why they're killing bats, why they're gaining levels, and so on. Many of these games just don't give you that feeling of an overall purpose, and you end up with short term goals that are replaced with new short term goals as you accomplish them, and even the most long-term of goals is only made long-term by the grossly inflated times it takes to acheive anything of merit.
As for player-created content, there are 2 major drives behind players wanting that capability:
1) a lack of decent developer-created content
2) a wish for the ability to actually have an effect on the world around them and to personalize their part of that world
If players feel the game has engrossing content provided by the developers and the game gives them a feeling of being able to change the world around them, the need for player-created content would diminish dramatically.
Really, they can have as many types of chief whatever officers as they want.
Exactly. 15 years ago you really didn't hear about Chief Financial Officers or Chief Operating Officers, either. It was the CEO and that's about it (Chairman of the Board, maybe, but most of the Board of Directors didn't have additional titles like CFO and COO or CCO). The company can more or less determine what officers it needs to best run their company, and with a large creative staff in the biggest money-making division of your business, there's quite a bit of sense in having an officer specifically handling issues related to that staff.
Hell, Bill Gates is a "Chief Software Architect", which is really nothing more than saying Chief Development Officer, but makes him sound like he's really got his hands in the mix (and maybe he does, every CXX has a different level of involvement they're willing and able to handle).
Sony just happens to have a CEO, COO, Chief Strategy Officer, Chief Production Officer, and several other positions of that nature (not to mention CEOs and other officers at lower levels, and CEOs of other companies on their board).
Here in south-eastern VA there don't seem to be any arcades by themselves, but there are still plenty of arcades in movie theaters and malls (most of the malls also having movie theaters, but those being the theaters that don't usually have arcades). Most of them seem to be moving towards having a handful of the bigger cabinets rather than having more of the smaller cabinets, and it seems that every one of them has at least one 2-player DDR cabinet (at $1 per play).
The only place I really see the standard-sized cabinets any more is the laundrimat, each of which has at least 2 cabinets, and the one I regularly go to also has 2 pinball games. That being said, they're not exactly the latest greatest games, I saw Zero Gunner and Tekken Tag Tournament when I was at the laundrimat on Sunday, and both of these were put in recently, as they weren't there the previous time I was there.
When it comes down to it, though, it seems the only arcades out here are in areas where you wouldn't have anything better to do, especially areas where teenagers and kids are regularly dropped off and have to wait for someone to pick them up, or, like I said, at the laundrimat where you really don't have much else to do, and probably already have a stack of quarters. I usually just end up bringing my GBA to the laundrimat, and the arcades in malls and theaters are too centered on gimmicky games rather than good gameplay for me to care when I can just get in my car and go home.
--- there is a list of licenses on the FSF website called "GPL compatible licenses." Code under these licenses can be incorporated into GPL'ed code and linked against GPL'ed code
vs. what's written on the GNU site:
Whether it is compatible with the GNU GPL. (This means you can combine a module which was released under that license with a GPL-covered module to make one larger program.)
Note that it does not say you can include the code in GPLd code. Modules are seperate pieces of code which can be covered under different licenses. You can link against it, but in cases where you can't change the license of the original code, you can't include it in GPLd code.
In summary, if I give my software to you:
BSD - You have almost the same freedoms I do. People you give it to have only the freedoms you give them.
GPL - You have less freedom, but the people you give it to have the same freedoms you do.
In summary, if I give my source code to you under:
GPL: you are free to do whatever you want with it if you don't distribute it, but if you distribute it, changed or not, you are restricted to distributing it under the GPL
revised BSD license (no advertising clause): you can do whatever you want to with it
We all know there's BSD code in Windows, OS X, and Linux. It's not a big secret. If we want the original code, we can find it. Code doesn't disappear just because someone decides not to release the source of their changes, and even the original developer can't make the code disappear (unless distribution of the code was non-existant in the first place).
Somehow I doubt that a kid who can, and does, put in 10 hours straight playing videogames is the "fittest and healthiest of children." My guess is that the 10-hours type of kid is something less than fit and healthy.
It did state that it was a rainy day. Once the kid is stuck indoors, he's much more likely to do something that involves little or no movement, especially after his parents have yelled at him a couple of times for running around in the house. He could've just as easily been working on a puzzle, playing card games, or reading a book.