OH I definitely understand cell phone contracts. I know WHY they do them.
However, I'd like to be able to BUY the phone I want, and then simply sign up for Verizon's cell service. I can't. I have to sign some sort of contract with them, even if I don't want one of their phones. I don't care about having a fantastic cell phone with tons of wacky features. I just want a plan that lets me talk to who I want, when I want, in the locations that I travel to. Verizon happens to have the best coverage for me on that front.
If you want to sue someone for terrible customer service practices, I can add a few more necks to the gallows.
How about...
COMCAST - Customer service is non-existent. Advertised cable-internet speeds are excessively exaggerated. Bills constantly increase, yet service level goes down. They even have the balls to ADVERTISE on their own guide system. If they're making advertising money by putting ads on my screen while I'm browsing channels, that should be money OFF my bill, not added to it.
VERIZON - Customer service is horrible. Expect to talk to at least 3 or 4 people to solve any problem more complex than simply paying the balance on your bill. Also, ANY CHANGE that you make to your Verizon account somehow ends up adding a year to your contract with them. I don't understand how this is possibly legal.
While we're at it, let's just completely ditch cell-phone contracts. I should be able to get a decent phone service plan without signing my life away. Predatory lenders have less complex contracts.
I love watching LOST, but I am awful about actually sitting down and watching it when it is on TV. I always miss it.
Back during Season 2, I was still catching up. I really wanted to watch the episodes that I missed. I had missed a lot of them. So, I figured $2 is worth the price of an episode. I went to iTunes, and I bought about 12 episodes of Season 2 to catch up to where I needed to be. It was really cool, the quality was good, and I was pretty happy with it.
Fast forward to now.
I still miss LOST regularly, but I don't buy it from iTunes anymore. I go to www.abc.com, and I watch it online. I can watch it in full screen, and I just have to sit through a 30 second commercial a few times per episode. I consider that a free trade, considering that if I was watching it on TV, I'd have to sit through FIVE MINUTES worth of commercials several times per episode.
The only issue I have with the ABC content is that sometimes the streaming isn't quite fast enough, and the video feed can get locked up. I don't have to deal with that on iTunes. Also, you can only go back 4 episodes. So, if I missed an entire season, I couldn't get it on ABC.com. However, I would imagine that ABC has something in the works to rectify this situation.
In summary, I'd rather watch a few commercials than pay $2 for an episode if I am given the choice.
UNLESS
I want to burn the episode to DVD to watch later. THEN I want a high quality digital copy with no commercials, and I'd pay $2 for it. Unfortunately, iTunes doesn't allow you to burn video to DVD, so I can't win on that front at all. If Apple can get rid of the DRM requirement on their downloaded videos, to let you burn them to DVD, I can see a market for them. Otherwise, eventually the free content will win.
The producers wanted more "Filler" episodes because they believed that viewers weren't tuning in because of the ongoing storyline. They demanded more "One Shot" episodes as a result.
This wasn't what Ron Moore wanted to do. Don't blame him or the writers for it. Granted some of the filler episodes were particularly bad. I suppose you can blame them for writing some bad fillers.
If I was allowed to take an online game with me...
Final Fantasy XI. I've been playing that game for going on 3 years now, and my character still has a massive amount of things that I can do.
If I'm not allowed to take any MMO game with me...
Galactic Civilizations 2 would be tempting, as would Sim City 4, The Sims 2, Baldur's Gate 2, Heroes of Might and Magic 3...
I can't decide. I think I might go with Heroes of Might and Magic 3 in the end. You can play that game forever, and it can still be very new.
I think in general an RPG would be a bad choice. As much as I love RPGs, once you know the story, it would get old after a few years.
Next time your boss says "I need a bigger desk," then tell him "OK", and proceed to help him steal someone else's desk. If he asks what the hell you're doing, then simply explain to him that stealing is apparently how your company gets what it needs to work on.
Then, offer to drive him to Office Depot, and steal boxes of pens, and new phones for everyone.
I won't be needing an Ultra anytime soon, and I can't see why others would need to either.
I built a brand new system for myself back in November '06, and I put a BFG-Tech 8800 GTX in it.
I love this card. I love it to death. I can throw anything at all at it, and it turns it into pretty rainbows. I run Oblivion and Supreme Commander at the maximum my monitor can support (1920x1200) full everything turned up to the maximum, and the 8800 doesn't even flinch.
Now, if an enthusiast like me needs to build a new system, and didn't buy a 8800 GTX when it came out, and has a lot of money to spend, then maybe that person will jump on this Ultra.
However, considering that there are no games out there right now that can really tax the GTX, why spend more money on an Ultra, when there's nothing out there to really get the extra performance from? If there was a new game out there, and the GTX struggled to give you 35 FPS on, but the Ultra could get you 45... then that might be a performance issue worth looking at. But who is going to be able to tell the difference between 50 FPS and 53 FPS? The difference will be imperceptible.
Just my 2 cents. However, I applaud NVidia for coming out with this, just to make sure they stay on top of the mountain. It shows that they are not resting on the laurels of their recent successes, and are still innovating.
Well, you're an excellent example of why PC games are selling less I suppose.
I'm a very knowledgeable PC person. I'm a geek.
I could tell you, without even KNOWING what laptop that you bought... that there is no way you will get Command and Conquer 3 to run on your laptop. I haven't even PLAYED Command and Conquer 3, but graphically, I know what it does.
You, as the typical PC consumer, don't realize this. You end up getting burned as a result.
That is kinda sad. Granted, I can think of a LOT of games that you CAN play on that laptop of yours. However, nowadays I'm sorry to say that even if you buy your laptop from Alienware, you aren't going to get a laptop that can play the "best" games. Gaming laptops are dying right now, until video card technology miniaturizes some more. Right now, your average laptop just has no hope of competing with what the latest desktop is capable of.
Play console games and be happy my friend... or buy games for that laptop that have been out for 2-3 years already, and you should be happy as well.
Sony and Nintendo don't have any leverage over the PC, Windows, or PC Games.
I suppose Sony and Nintendo could make products for the PC that make use of things like the "Miis" for the Wii, and the "Second Life" type clone that Sony is creating for the PS3 (what is it called? "Home"? I forget, sorry)
However, since there are no Nintendo or Sony games on the PC, I don't really see the point. In order to compete with MS on this front, Sony and Nintendo would need to start making PC games. They COULD do this, but it's not really practical for them. To me, that makes them incapable of competing.
Re:"Games for Windows" = MS Monopoly push
on
PC Games On the Rebound
·
· Score: 2, Informative
You'll have to describe to me how my premise that MS has dominance over the PC game market is false.
Walk into a game store, and find for me the PC games that are made for other operating systems besides Windows. If you go into an Apple store, you'll find a few Mac versions of some games, but not much. Besides some educational titles, you won't find many Mac titles that aren't also on Windows.
It is not COMPLETE. You can find scattered games that are made for Mac. You can find scattered games for Linux. However, I'd say well over 95% of the PC games that are made (I'm talking about retail games here, not browser games) are for Windows. Some of these games are made with a second version for a Mac. Some make a Linux version.
If that's not dominating the market, you'll have to explain to me what is. You seem confident in your assertion that I'm wrong... but you don't really explain why. I'm interested to know.
I'm very upset over the MS "Games for Windows" initiative.
"Games for Windows" is a wolf in sheep's clothing.
What it pretends to be is Microsoft trying to improve the PC gaming scene. Make game system requirements more legible to the non-geek, increase compatibility, better market PC games, etc.
However, what it REALLY is, is Microsoft using their complete dominance of the PC game market to extend that dominance to the console. They're using their PC Monopoly to leverage the X-Box, and X-Box Live. The end result will be to get PC Gamers to pay extra for content they get for free now, just like console players are doing on X-Box Live.
A requirement for a game to be branded a "Game for Windows" is that it is compatible with an X-Box 360 Controller. Need I say more? They're pushing for all PC games to also be X-Box 360 Games. If the PC Game is also an X-Box game, then it can use X-Box Live. If it can use X-Box Live, they can figure out a way to release content for it in micro-payments, and nickel and dime us to death on games that we used to get updated content for free on.
Considering the fact that Sony and Nintendo are incapable of competing with Microsoft on this initiative... I'm really surprised no one at the Justice Department has taken notice. It's blatant leveraging of a monopoly if you ask me. I don't see how it's legal.
And I don't see PC games as dying. They're not going anywhere. There might be a little less of them than there used to be... but 50% of the console games that come out nowadays are complete crap. I'd say only about 20% of the PC games that come out nowadays are crap. Those numbers come right out of my butt, of course. I'm willing to deal with better quality and less quantity on the PC.
I never subscribed to Dungeon or Dragon... although I was always intrigued by it because I'd read on the internet about how this or that Adventure, item, Prestige Class, or feat was originally published in "Dragon" and was wondering what I was missing out on.
What brands you as a bigger geek? Having a stack of "Dragon" or "Dungeon" magazines on your bookshelf, or having several folders of bookmarks in Firefox devoted to roleplaying (you have to sort them by which pages are strictly for news, which are for content, ordering books and miniatures, and finally blogs and forums)
Personally... I think finding someone with a stack of "Dragon" would be a bigger geek. You know that sitting right next to those Dragon magazines is going to be every Forgotten Realms and Dragonlance novel ever written.
I fall into the latter category though... 4 folders of firefox bookmarks:)
RIP Dragon and Dungeon. I never read you... but the geek in me is still sorry to see you go.
You're correct, I'm being a bit contradictory here.
The originality of the game for me stems from the A.I., which is very unpredictable. It's refreshing to transverse areas of the game and run into a fire-fight between different factions that you can either take part in, or avoid. You will see creatures grabbing corpses and dragging them away. Random patrols. An outpost might be captured by the enemy, but then the next time you visit, it's been re-taken by your allies. The game has a fluid nature to it which I can appreciate.
I also think the game premise, some of the sub-plots, the idea of the anomalies, the gun realism, the sounds, and other aspects of the game were well done as well.
The nostalgia feel that makes me remember Fallout is mostly a result of how WONDERFUL a job they did on the environment, in terms of constructing bombed out and ruined cities, outposts made out of rusting cars, junk piles, radioactive pools, etc. I haven't seen a game get its environment so SPOT ON in a long time. I don't think Half Life 2 did as good a job on environment as STALKER did. That's saying a lot. Granted, Half Life 2 is a very linear game compared to STALKER, and it's not really possible to make a city in a linear level feel like a real city. STALKER has open levels, which adds a lot to the immersion.
Just my opinion. STALKER isn't the best game ever by a long shot... but I'm going to keep an eye on this game developer and see what else they come up with down the line. I'm hoping maybe we'll see a European incarnation of Bioware or Black Isle or Looking Glass.
The game IS buggy. And it does have its flaws. And the plot isn't as coherent as I would like. However, it is the FEEL of the game that keeps me playing it. That, and it is also refreshingly challenging. I'm hoping the developer keeps improving. Hopefully they've learned from making S.T.A.L.K.E.R., and we'll get a well-polished, bug free, and more coherent sequel.
The game is very original, and I see a lot of promise in this game in the way of mods, expansions, and sequels. This game is so good it made me feel like I was playing a first-person-shooter version of Fallout. In fact, I recently reinstalled Fallout, and am beating it again. If S.T.A.L.K.E.R. is good enough to remind me of such a golden age game, they must have touched on the right nerves.
Hopefully any previously mentioned projects will take less time to develop than the game itself did!:)
I sort of doubted the original allegations were true, and figured that some kind of licensed or public domain material must have been involved in this. Glad to hear that is in fact true.
This developer shows promise, and it would be unfortunate if its reputation were inappropriately tarnished.
Oblivion was "re-rated" M retroactively because you could mod the game to include topless females. It wasn't because of the violence.
You make fun of me and call me an "idiotic Fallout cultist" because I love the game mechanics, and then tell me that I shouldn't be in love with them.
I'm sorry, but the game mechanics are part of the reason that the Fallout games were so excellent. It's wrong of me to love it for that reason? My desire to see the game mechanics I love continued in sequels is somehow wrong? If Bethesda re-made "Street Fighter 2" and turned it into a Final Fantasy type game, I would be equally upset, and I would say the same thing. "This is not a sequel to a Street Fighter game. It is a Street Fighter spin-off game."
You say "co-developing" Oblivion for the PC and for consoles. I say that when you look at the PC version of Oblivion, it is obvious that they designed the game for the console, plain and simple, and did very little to scale the game upwards to the PC. The simple fact that you cannot map any keyboard commands beyond what a game controller can handle makes this self-evident. I love Oblivion, but only after I've installed 3 mods that "fix" the PC version. I am glad they made a PC version of the game. However, they did a poor job of it.
This is basically the death certificate for Fallout. We'll never see a Fallout 3 which the fans have been screaming for.
Bethesda has a wonderful track record when it comes to their own Elder Scrolls game.
They have a horrible track record for everything else.
Their games are now (and will probably remain as such) X-Box 360 Games which are poorly ported to the PC. They have shown no desire for turn-based strategy games. They have so far refused to say whether or not Fallout 3 will be turn based or not, or whether or not it will use the S.P.E.C.I.A.L. system that Fallout fans have grown to love.
Star Trek: Legacy was a pathetic failure. They did a great job getting the voice-acting together, but then they threw half of the plot out the window. Just read some of the blogs of the writers for that game, and they've clearly said as much.
The gameplay, the actual GAME that Star Trek fans had such high hopes for... was awful.
Bethesda is going to give us Fallout 3... but it won't be the same game that we know and love. They'll convert it and change the gameplay so that they can mass produce it. They'll want to have it on the PC and all the consoles. They'll make it for the X-Box 360, and then do a terrible port of it to make a PC version. They won't make combat turn-based, because in spite of legions of screaming fans, turn based combat is too "niche" and won't appeal to the masses enough. Gone will be Fallout's mature content. Drugs, hookers, swearing? Gone. We'll get a watered down Fallout universe which is nice and PG-13 friendly. Remember, this was the company that took all the blood out of their own game, Oblivion, because they didn't want an M rating.
Bethesda is going to give us a game. MAYBE it will be a good game. But it won't be Fallout 3.
Unless they come out and say that they are making a turn-based combat role-playing game, it won't be Fallout 3.
At best, it will be a bad spin-off, like the other forgotten Fallout titles that have emerged since Fallout 2. Actually, I thought that Fallout: Tactics was a pretty good game.
If they drop the ball on this, they fully have the capacity to KILL the Fallout franchise once and for all.
I'm still praying though. I really really really am. I hope everything I just said is completely false (Except for what I said about Star Trek Legacy, and Bethesda's habit of making awful PC ports. That's all true.)
I ran into the situation where I asked for the game, and the person behind the counter grabbed a box, got the game from a paper sleeve, and put it in the box for me. I was a bit dismayed, but figured it was just something to prevent shoplifting.
When I got home, I noticed that all he gave me was the game DVD. No manual, no anything else.
If this had been a game that required a CD-Key to play, I would have been completely out of luck.
However, after a couple of days of playing, I really wanted the manual to the game. I wanted a list of units, their stats, etc. None of this was on the CD, there wasn't a PDF manual included or anything.
I called the game store and told them, and brought it back. They didn't have anything. I had to go to a neighboring EBGames, and exchange it with a fresh, sealed copy. I got my nice big, fat game manual.
I don't buy ANYTHING from EBGamestop anymore unless it is sealed in the original plastic.
I still do buy from them, however, because they're the only stores that get the games on the day of release.
Am I the only one who sees this as an inappropriate attempt by Microsoft to extend their OS monopoly into the gaming market?
Microsoft is already flexing this muscle by requiring that all games published under the "Games for Windows" brand are compatible with the X-Box 360 Controller. This seems to me like an attempt to force all PC Game publishers to make their games not only for Windows, but for the X-Box too. If you don't make your game X-Box compatible, well, you lose out on all that free "Games for Windows" marketing that Microsoft is paying for.
I seem to remember Microsoft doing something similar with Internet Explorer a few years back that got them into a tad of legal trouble.
Now, not only does Microsoft want all games to be X-Box compatible, but now they want all games to use their matchmaking service.
It won't be long before Microsoft will be pushing for all PC Games to be compatible with X-Box live.
I'm sure you X-Box fans would like this, but personally, I don't want Microsoft to be sticking their thumb into every single PC game that I play. It's bad enough that I have to play almost everything on Windows to begin with.
If I were an anti-trust lawyer, I would have already sent Microsoft several warnings about where they're going with this. I think they're violating the spirit of their anti-trust settlement.
If I were Harrison, I'd want Han Solo to go out the way he is now as well.
Han Solo is an iconic character. If you try and revisit that character, it's highly unlikely that the revisited version will be anywhere near as well done as the original, especially 30 years later. I don't think Harrison wants to portray a "washed up" version of Han Solo. It would tarnish the work he'd done on the original character.
Indiana Jones, by contrast, is a character that would age well.
I applaud Harrison for his decision, and I'm looking forward to Indiana Jones 4!
iTunes movies are DRM crippled, but I still found season 2 of LOST to be worth the paltry $2.00 per episode fee when I got behind on the show and wanted to catch up. I'd like it if Apple would allow me to at least burn the episodes to a DVD so I could watch them on my DVD player, but alas I can't. The solution is simply to hook my PC up to the TV, which is a fairly simple process.
If this service let's me download episodes of Red Dwarf for a similar or a smaller fee... I would be intrigued. I wouldn't really care if they have DRM or not, but it'd be nice to at least be able to burn a DVD for myself.
It all depends on the pricing model, whether or not it'll be worth it to download the episodes, or just go out and buy the DVDs.
Either way, more legal content available is a good thing.
This article is just plain paranoia.
IT people don't CARE about your personal emails, and we don't read them. If we DO read them, we selectively block it from memory and simply move ON.
The same thing goes for user passwords we know, personal information we find out, etc.
Everytime I run into a user who is embarrassed because I caught him browsing ebay at work, or everytime someone hesitates at telling me his system password so that I can login to a system as him to better assist him I have to go through this a tiny bit. However, MOST users don't care, and they trust IT. About 5% of people don't. About 1% trust us so little that they will refuse help if it involves something so little as me looking over their shoulder to see what the problem is.
There is no public outcry over the access IT Admins have except these paranoid few. When was the last time you heard about a major scandal at a company caused by an IT admin abusing his authority? I can't think of one.
HP has showed us that IT admins are the LAST people we have to be worried about. The ones we need to be worried about are the over-controlling bosses and board members who believe they are entitled to pry into the lives of anyone they perceive as "below" them.
Shiny is not the perfect developer, no.
Earthworm Jim was their biggest and best hit. They proved that really creative ideas can really take off and become popular. They have had some stumbling blocks, and they might not have the best business sense sometimes, but the talent and the creativity are there.
I was actually disappointed when I found out they were doing the Matrix games, because I honestly don't think that making movie-tie in games is their strength.
But you're right, unfortunately developers like Shiny don't survive. Bioware is one of the only remaining game developers that I believe has a wealth of creativity and has still managed to be independent.
I popped it back in my drive just a few months ago and beat it again. It's in there with my top 5 favorite games of all time.
I love Shiny with all my heart. I fell in love with them and all the work they've done since I first played Earthworm Jim. I'm not a fan of their Matrix games, but Shiny's strength has always been in their insane degree of creativity.
Earthworm Jim Messiah MDK Wild 9 Sacrifice
All these games are incredibly original and a pleasure to play. We need more game companies like Shiny
Slashdot Mirror
OH I definitely understand cell phone contracts. I know WHY they do them. However, I'd like to be able to BUY the phone I want, and then simply sign up for Verizon's cell service. I can't. I have to sign some sort of contract with them, even if I don't want one of their phones. I don't care about having a fantastic cell phone with tons of wacky features. I just want a plan that lets me talk to who I want, when I want, in the locations that I travel to. Verizon happens to have the best coverage for me on that front.
If you want to sue someone for terrible customer service practices, I can add a few more necks to the gallows.
How about...
COMCAST - Customer service is non-existent. Advertised cable-internet speeds are excessively exaggerated. Bills constantly increase, yet service level goes down. They even have the balls to ADVERTISE on their own guide system. If they're making advertising money by putting ads on my screen while I'm browsing channels, that should be money OFF my bill, not added to it.
VERIZON - Customer service is horrible. Expect to talk to at least 3 or 4 people to solve any problem more complex than simply paying the balance on your bill. Also, ANY CHANGE that you make to your Verizon account somehow ends up adding a year to your contract with them. I don't understand how this is possibly legal.
While we're at it, let's just completely ditch cell-phone contracts. I should be able to get a decent phone service plan without signing my life away. Predatory lenders have less complex contracts.
As an example on this, let's take myself.
I love watching LOST, but I am awful about actually sitting down and watching it when it is on TV. I always miss it.
Back during Season 2, I was still catching up. I really wanted to watch the episodes that I missed. I had missed a lot of them. So, I figured $2 is worth the price of an episode. I went to iTunes, and I bought about 12 episodes of Season 2 to catch up to where I needed to be. It was really cool, the quality was good, and I was pretty happy with it.
Fast forward to now.
I still miss LOST regularly, but I don't buy it from iTunes anymore. I go to www.abc.com, and I watch it online. I can watch it in full screen, and I just have to sit through a 30 second commercial a few times per episode. I consider that a free trade, considering that if I was watching it on TV, I'd have to sit through FIVE MINUTES worth of commercials several times per episode.
The only issue I have with the ABC content is that sometimes the streaming isn't quite fast enough, and the video feed can get locked up. I don't have to deal with that on iTunes. Also, you can only go back 4 episodes. So, if I missed an entire season, I couldn't get it on ABC.com. However, I would imagine that ABC has something in the works to rectify this situation.
In summary, I'd rather watch a few commercials than pay $2 for an episode if I am given the choice.
UNLESS
I want to burn the episode to DVD to watch later. THEN I want a high quality digital copy with no commercials, and I'd pay $2 for it. Unfortunately, iTunes doesn't allow you to burn video to DVD, so I can't win on that front at all. If Apple can get rid of the DRM requirement on their downloaded videos, to let you burn them to DVD, I can see a market for them. Otherwise, eventually the free content will win.
This just in! In other related news, Microsoft has been found to have more than 235 invalid patents.
Blame the producers.
The producers wanted more "Filler" episodes because they believed that viewers weren't tuning in because of the ongoing storyline. They demanded more "One Shot" episodes as a result.
This wasn't what Ron Moore wanted to do. Don't blame him or the writers for it. Granted some of the filler episodes were particularly bad. I suppose you can blame them for writing some bad fillers.
If I was allowed to take an online game with me... Final Fantasy XI. I've been playing that game for going on 3 years now, and my character still has a massive amount of things that I can do. If I'm not allowed to take any MMO game with me... Galactic Civilizations 2 would be tempting, as would Sim City 4, The Sims 2, Baldur's Gate 2, Heroes of Might and Magic 3... I can't decide. I think I might go with Heroes of Might and Magic 3 in the end. You can play that game forever, and it can still be very new. I think in general an RPG would be a bad choice. As much as I love RPGs, once you know the story, it would get old after a few years.
Next time your boss says "I need a bigger desk," then tell him "OK", and proceed to help him steal someone else's desk. If he asks what the hell you're doing, then simply explain to him that stealing is apparently how your company gets what it needs to work on.
Then, offer to drive him to Office Depot, and steal boxes of pens, and new phones for everyone.
I won't be needing an Ultra anytime soon, and I can't see why others would need to either.
I built a brand new system for myself back in November '06, and I put a BFG-Tech 8800 GTX in it.
I love this card. I love it to death. I can throw anything at all at it, and it turns it into pretty rainbows. I run Oblivion and Supreme Commander at the maximum my monitor can support (1920x1200) full everything turned up to the maximum, and the 8800 doesn't even flinch.
Now, if an enthusiast like me needs to build a new system, and didn't buy a 8800 GTX when it came out, and has a lot of money to spend, then maybe that person will jump on this Ultra.
However, considering that there are no games out there right now that can really tax the GTX, why spend more money on an Ultra, when there's nothing out there to really get the extra performance from? If there was a new game out there, and the GTX struggled to give you 35 FPS on, but the Ultra could get you 45... then that might be a performance issue worth looking at. But who is going to be able to tell the difference between 50 FPS and 53 FPS? The difference will be imperceptible.
Just my 2 cents. However, I applaud NVidia for coming out with this, just to make sure they stay on top of the mountain. It shows that they are not resting on the laurels of their recent successes, and are still innovating.
Well, you're an excellent example of why PC games are selling less I suppose.
I'm a very knowledgeable PC person. I'm a geek.
I could tell you, without even KNOWING what laptop that you bought... that there is no way you will get Command and Conquer 3 to run on your laptop. I haven't even PLAYED Command and Conquer 3, but graphically, I know what it does.
You, as the typical PC consumer, don't realize this. You end up getting burned as a result.
That is kinda sad. Granted, I can think of a LOT of games that you CAN play on that laptop of yours. However, nowadays I'm sorry to say that even if you buy your laptop from Alienware, you aren't going to get a laptop that can play the "best" games. Gaming laptops are dying right now, until video card technology miniaturizes some more. Right now, your average laptop just has no hope of competing with what the latest desktop is capable of.
Play console games and be happy my friend... or buy games for that laptop that have been out for 2-3 years already, and you should be happy as well.
Sony and Nintendo don't have any leverage over the PC, Windows, or PC Games.
I suppose Sony and Nintendo could make products for the PC that make use of things like the "Miis" for the Wii, and the "Second Life" type clone that Sony is creating for the PS3 (what is it called? "Home"? I forget, sorry)
However, since there are no Nintendo or Sony games on the PC, I don't really see the point. In order to compete with MS on this front, Sony and Nintendo would need to start making PC games. They COULD do this, but it's not really practical for them. To me, that makes them incapable of competing.
You'll have to describe to me how my premise that MS has dominance over the PC game market is false.
Walk into a game store, and find for me the PC games that are made for other operating systems besides Windows. If you go into an Apple store, you'll find a few Mac versions of some games, but not much. Besides some educational titles, you won't find many Mac titles that aren't also on Windows.
It is not COMPLETE. You can find scattered games that are made for Mac. You can find scattered games for Linux. However, I'd say well over 95% of the PC games that are made (I'm talking about retail games here, not browser games) are for Windows. Some of these games are made with a second version for a Mac. Some make a Linux version.
If that's not dominating the market, you'll have to explain to me what is. You seem confident in your assertion that I'm wrong... but you don't really explain why. I'm interested to know.
I'm very upset over the MS "Games for Windows" initiative.
"Games for Windows" is a wolf in sheep's clothing.
What it pretends to be is Microsoft trying to improve the PC gaming scene. Make game system requirements more legible to the non-geek, increase compatibility, better market PC games, etc.
However, what it REALLY is, is Microsoft using their complete dominance of the PC game market to extend that dominance to the console. They're using their PC Monopoly to leverage the X-Box, and X-Box Live. The end result will be to get PC Gamers to pay extra for content they get for free now, just like console players are doing on X-Box Live.
A requirement for a game to be branded a "Game for Windows" is that it is compatible with an X-Box 360 Controller. Need I say more? They're pushing for all PC games to also be X-Box 360 Games. If the PC Game is also an X-Box game, then it can use X-Box Live. If it can use X-Box Live, they can figure out a way to release content for it in micro-payments, and nickel and dime us to death on games that we used to get updated content for free on.
Considering the fact that Sony and Nintendo are incapable of competing with Microsoft on this initiative... I'm really surprised no one at the Justice Department has taken notice. It's blatant leveraging of a monopoly if you ask me. I don't see how it's legal.
And I don't see PC games as dying. They're not going anywhere. There might be a little less of them than there used to be... but 50% of the console games that come out nowadays are complete crap. I'd say only about 20% of the PC games that come out nowadays are crap. Those numbers come right out of my butt, of course. I'm willing to deal with better quality and less quantity on the PC.
I never subscribed to Dungeon or Dragon... although I was always intrigued by it because I'd read on the internet about how this or that Adventure, item, Prestige Class, or feat was originally published in "Dragon" and was wondering what I was missing out on.
:)
What brands you as a bigger geek? Having a stack of "Dragon" or "Dungeon" magazines on your bookshelf, or having several folders of bookmarks in Firefox devoted to roleplaying (you have to sort them by which pages are strictly for news, which are for content, ordering books and miniatures, and finally blogs and forums)
Personally... I think finding someone with a stack of "Dragon" would be a bigger geek. You know that sitting right next to those Dragon magazines is going to be every Forgotten Realms and Dragonlance novel ever written.
I fall into the latter category though... 4 folders of firefox bookmarks
RIP Dragon and Dungeon. I never read you... but the geek in me is still sorry to see you go.
You're correct, I'm being a bit contradictory here. The originality of the game for me stems from the A.I., which is very unpredictable. It's refreshing to transverse areas of the game and run into a fire-fight between different factions that you can either take part in, or avoid. You will see creatures grabbing corpses and dragging them away. Random patrols. An outpost might be captured by the enemy, but then the next time you visit, it's been re-taken by your allies. The game has a fluid nature to it which I can appreciate. I also think the game premise, some of the sub-plots, the idea of the anomalies, the gun realism, the sounds, and other aspects of the game were well done as well. The nostalgia feel that makes me remember Fallout is mostly a result of how WONDERFUL a job they did on the environment, in terms of constructing bombed out and ruined cities, outposts made out of rusting cars, junk piles, radioactive pools, etc. I haven't seen a game get its environment so SPOT ON in a long time. I don't think Half Life 2 did as good a job on environment as STALKER did. That's saying a lot. Granted, Half Life 2 is a very linear game compared to STALKER, and it's not really possible to make a city in a linear level feel like a real city. STALKER has open levels, which adds a lot to the immersion. Just my opinion. STALKER isn't the best game ever by a long shot... but I'm going to keep an eye on this game developer and see what else they come up with down the line. I'm hoping maybe we'll see a European incarnation of Bioware or Black Isle or Looking Glass.
The game IS buggy. And it does have its flaws. And the plot isn't as coherent as I would like. However, it is the FEEL of the game that keeps me playing it. That, and it is also refreshingly challenging. I'm hoping the developer keeps improving. Hopefully they've learned from making S.T.A.L.K.E.R., and we'll get a well-polished, bug free, and more coherent sequel.
I'm a big fan of S.T.A.L.K.E.R.
:)
The game is very original, and I see a lot of promise in this game in the way of mods, expansions, and sequels. This game is so good it made me feel like I was playing a first-person-shooter version of Fallout. In fact, I recently reinstalled Fallout, and am beating it again. If S.T.A.L.K.E.R. is good enough to remind me of such a golden age game, they must have touched on the right nerves.
Hopefully any previously mentioned projects will take less time to develop than the game itself did!
I sort of doubted the original allegations were true, and figured that some kind of licensed or public domain material must have been involved in this. Glad to hear that is in fact true.
This developer shows promise, and it would be unfortunate if its reputation were inappropriately tarnished.
Oblivion was "re-rated" M retroactively because you could mod the game to include topless females. It wasn't because of the violence.
You make fun of me and call me an "idiotic Fallout cultist" because I love the game mechanics, and then tell me that I shouldn't be in love with them.
I'm sorry, but the game mechanics are part of the reason that the Fallout games were so excellent. It's wrong of me to love it for that reason? My desire to see the game mechanics I love continued in sequels is somehow wrong? If Bethesda re-made "Street Fighter 2" and turned it into a Final Fantasy type game, I would be equally upset, and I would say the same thing. "This is not a sequel to a Street Fighter game. It is a Street Fighter spin-off game."
You say "co-developing" Oblivion for the PC and for consoles. I say that when you look at the PC version of Oblivion, it is obvious that they designed the game for the console, plain and simple, and did very little to scale the game upwards to the PC. The simple fact that you cannot map any keyboard commands beyond what a game controller can handle makes this self-evident. I love Oblivion, but only after I've installed 3 mods that "fix" the PC version. I am glad they made a PC version of the game. However, they did a poor job of it.
This is basically the death certificate for Fallout. We'll never see a Fallout 3 which the fans have been screaming for. Bethesda has a wonderful track record when it comes to their own Elder Scrolls game. They have a horrible track record for everything else. Their games are now (and will probably remain as such) X-Box 360 Games which are poorly ported to the PC. They have shown no desire for turn-based strategy games. They have so far refused to say whether or not Fallout 3 will be turn based or not, or whether or not it will use the S.P.E.C.I.A.L. system that Fallout fans have grown to love. Star Trek: Legacy was a pathetic failure. They did a great job getting the voice-acting together, but then they threw half of the plot out the window. Just read some of the blogs of the writers for that game, and they've clearly said as much. The gameplay, the actual GAME that Star Trek fans had such high hopes for... was awful. Bethesda is going to give us Fallout 3... but it won't be the same game that we know and love. They'll convert it and change the gameplay so that they can mass produce it. They'll want to have it on the PC and all the consoles. They'll make it for the X-Box 360, and then do a terrible port of it to make a PC version. They won't make combat turn-based, because in spite of legions of screaming fans, turn based combat is too "niche" and won't appeal to the masses enough. Gone will be Fallout's mature content. Drugs, hookers, swearing? Gone. We'll get a watered down Fallout universe which is nice and PG-13 friendly. Remember, this was the company that took all the blood out of their own game, Oblivion, because they didn't want an M rating. Bethesda is going to give us a game. MAYBE it will be a good game. But it won't be Fallout 3. Unless they come out and say that they are making a turn-based combat role-playing game, it won't be Fallout 3. At best, it will be a bad spin-off, like the other forgotten Fallout titles that have emerged since Fallout 2. Actually, I thought that Fallout: Tactics was a pretty good game. If they drop the ball on this, they fully have the capacity to KILL the Fallout franchise once and for all. I'm still praying though. I really really really am. I hope everything I just said is completely false (Except for what I said about Star Trek Legacy, and Bethesda's habit of making awful PC ports. That's all true.)
Recently, I purchased a game at a local Gamestop.
I ran into the situation where I asked for the game, and the person behind the counter grabbed a box, got the game from a paper sleeve, and put it in the box for me. I was a bit dismayed, but figured it was just something to prevent shoplifting.
When I got home, I noticed that all he gave me was the game DVD. No manual, no anything else.
If this had been a game that required a CD-Key to play, I would have been completely out of luck.
However, after a couple of days of playing, I really wanted the manual to the game. I wanted a list of units, their stats, etc. None of this was on the CD, there wasn't a PDF manual included or anything.
I called the game store and told them, and brought it back. They didn't have anything. I had to go to a neighboring EBGames, and exchange it with a fresh, sealed copy. I got my nice big, fat game manual.
I don't buy ANYTHING from EBGamestop anymore unless it is sealed in the original plastic.
I still do buy from them, however, because they're the only stores that get the games on the day of release.
Am I the only one who sees this as an inappropriate attempt by Microsoft to extend their OS monopoly into the gaming market? Microsoft is already flexing this muscle by requiring that all games published under the "Games for Windows" brand are compatible with the X-Box 360 Controller. This seems to me like an attempt to force all PC Game publishers to make their games not only for Windows, but for the X-Box too. If you don't make your game X-Box compatible, well, you lose out on all that free "Games for Windows" marketing that Microsoft is paying for. I seem to remember Microsoft doing something similar with Internet Explorer a few years back that got them into a tad of legal trouble. Now, not only does Microsoft want all games to be X-Box compatible, but now they want all games to use their matchmaking service. It won't be long before Microsoft will be pushing for all PC Games to be compatible with X-Box live. I'm sure you X-Box fans would like this, but personally, I don't want Microsoft to be sticking their thumb into every single PC game that I play. It's bad enough that I have to play almost everything on Windows to begin with. If I were an anti-trust lawyer, I would have already sent Microsoft several warnings about where they're going with this. I think they're violating the spirit of their anti-trust settlement.
If I were Harrison, I'd want Han Solo to go out the way he is now as well. Han Solo is an iconic character. If you try and revisit that character, it's highly unlikely that the revisited version will be anywhere near as well done as the original, especially 30 years later. I don't think Harrison wants to portray a "washed up" version of Han Solo. It would tarnish the work he'd done on the original character. Indiana Jones, by contrast, is a character that would age well. I applaud Harrison for his decision, and I'm looking forward to Indiana Jones 4!
iTunes movies are DRM crippled, but I still found season 2 of LOST to be worth the paltry $2.00 per episode fee when I got behind on the show and wanted to catch up. I'd like it if Apple would allow me to at least burn the episodes to a DVD so I could watch them on my DVD player, but alas I can't. The solution is simply to hook my PC up to the TV, which is a fairly simple process.
If this service let's me download episodes of Red Dwarf for a similar or a smaller fee... I would be intrigued. I wouldn't really care if they have DRM or not, but it'd be nice to at least be able to burn a DVD for myself.
It all depends on the pricing model, whether or not it'll be worth it to download the episodes, or just go out and buy the DVDs.
Either way, more legal content available is a good thing.
This article is just plain paranoia. IT people don't CARE about your personal emails, and we don't read them. If we DO read them, we selectively block it from memory and simply move ON. The same thing goes for user passwords we know, personal information we find out, etc. Everytime I run into a user who is embarrassed because I caught him browsing ebay at work, or everytime someone hesitates at telling me his system password so that I can login to a system as him to better assist him I have to go through this a tiny bit. However, MOST users don't care, and they trust IT. About 5% of people don't. About 1% trust us so little that they will refuse help if it involves something so little as me looking over their shoulder to see what the problem is. There is no public outcry over the access IT Admins have except these paranoid few. When was the last time you heard about a major scandal at a company caused by an IT admin abusing his authority? I can't think of one. HP has showed us that IT admins are the LAST people we have to be worried about. The ones we need to be worried about are the over-controlling bosses and board members who believe they are entitled to pry into the lives of anyone they perceive as "below" them.
Shiny is not the perfect developer, no. Earthworm Jim was their biggest and best hit. They proved that really creative ideas can really take off and become popular. They have had some stumbling blocks, and they might not have the best business sense sometimes, but the talent and the creativity are there. I was actually disappointed when I found out they were doing the Matrix games, because I honestly don't think that making movie-tie in games is their strength. But you're right, unfortunately developers like Shiny don't survive. Bioware is one of the only remaining game developers that I believe has a wealth of creativity and has still managed to be independent.
You're not the only one who played Sacrifice.
I popped it back in my drive just a few months ago and beat it again. It's in there with my top 5 favorite games of all time.
I love Shiny with all my heart. I fell in love with them and all the work they've done since I first played Earthworm Jim. I'm not a fan of their Matrix games, but Shiny's strength has always been in their insane degree of creativity.
Earthworm Jim
Messiah
MDK
Wild 9
Sacrifice
All these games are incredibly original and a pleasure to play. We need more game companies like Shiny