Sorry George. I bought bootleg copies (very nice bootlegs) a half a decade ago when you stated publicly that you would NEVER release these.
Now that you've changed your mind, I'm not just going to run out and buy them. Why should I? I already have them. Sure, they may have a bit better video quality, but I'm refusing to give you my $ just because you realized you needed the cash and it meant more than your supposed "artistic integrity".
Too little, too late. You had a good 15 years of me buying everything you put out (FS VHS, Widescreen VHS box set, Definitive Collection LD's, "face" CLV LD's)....but your attitude towards fans, in spite of this 11th hour reversal, just make me not care.
I have no problem paying good money for great product, but conversely when someone like Lucas dicks fans over and over I have no problem going the bootleg/download route. I bet the BitTorrent sites will have it before it even comes out.:) And it's all Lucasfilms fault that I'm not giving them any more of my cash. I didn't buy the 2004 editions (raping the memory of dead actors by replacing them digitally was the limit for me), and I won't buy these.
Ask anyone who works in ANY support industry, and they'll tell you they are underpaid.
You know those people that dress up as characters at Disney World, standing in 50-60 LB furry costumes in 100-degree heat? They make about $7 an hour too.
Wages in the U.S. are chronically low for a large portion of hourly workers. Tech Support is no different.
Just like the marketing guy who coined the "Touching is good..." slogan for the NDS, the guy who came up with this and thought it was clever needs to be a bit more in-touch (pun intended) with American culture.
Just like parents thought twice about buying a product for their child that kept telling you how good it was to "touch", it's going to be hard for self-respecting gamers to ask for a "Wii". And God-help us when the 16-year-old behind the counter at Wal-Mart explains to the nervous parents how the NDS will interface with the Wii, so the product with the catch-phrase "Touching is good" can be used to interface with your..."Wii."
I love Nintendo, and I think the new console is going to rock - but naming it "Wii" is like naming your kid Richard when your last name is Head; you're just gimping them unnecessarily from the start.
I think you WAY overestimate the need for people to "keep up with the Joneses" with this new format war. There will be no demand for the volume. If people like myself don't care, then Joe-Blow who bought his HD-TV at Wal-Mart and doesn't know an HDMI cable from a spark plug on his car sure as hell doesn't care.
The truth is, this isn't that great of a technological leap. It will be a niche product. And in this case, they have virtually ensured that because no one in their right mind (outside of early-adopter number and statistic-philes) is going to buy two different machines so they can play Spiderman on one and every other studio's pics on another.
They are shooting themselves in the foot, and people who didn't care before REALLY don't care now.
I've said it before, I'll say it again : it's the new Laserdisc. I loved LD, but it never caught on with the masses because in spite of the far superior picture quality and special features, most people were just happy with VHS. LD's had the cumbersome factor which didn't help, but for people who cared about quality that much (like myself) put up with it. The average person didn't care, and they aren't going to care now.
At best, I see myself picking up an HD-DVD player (the "winner" if there will be one, IMO) maybe Christmas 07 or 08, and only then for films like "LOTR" or "The Matrix", or the few films I'll actually care about visual quailty to that level. I'll still keep my 100's of SD DVDs and they'll continue to look great, especially the anamphoric ones (the majority of my collection). I can never see myself buying "Legally Blonde" or even "St. Elmo's Fire" ever again in some new-fangled format - the quality simply is good enough.
And if it's good enough for me, a somewhat-videophile, I'm guessing that the rest of America who's had DVD players less than 4 or 5 years isn't going to even consider a new format for some time to come. Again, people are acting like we've been watching bad video dubs of kinescope broadcasts...the current quality far suprasses what the average consumer wants, and in most cases they aren't even exploiting their current capabilities (i.e. using composite or S-video instead of a progressive-scan component video set-up).
Very few people care in the first place, and unification was their only hope of taking on the masses. A very small percentage of people are interested as it is, and the prospect of slightly better picture quality is not going to be enough for the average person to want to invest thousands of bucks into this technology and new discs for a long time to come.
I'm a mid-early adopter; that means I don't buy new tech day-and-date when it comes out, but usually 3-9 months later when the market begins to stabalize and the initial kinks are worked out. With this HD/Blu-Ray stuff I can tell you, it will be years before even I invest in it.
There is this core group of home theater junkies that have been programmed to believe that they are somehow ruining their lives by not watching HD-native content, that somehow they have been missing out on watching the same movies with slightly clearer picture and it's just like the stone-age. If you listen to them, we've been watching hand-puppets through a white sheet lit by candles.
The truth is, almost no one gives a crap about either format. The reasons the general public caught on to DVD were diverse yet simple : durability, availability, price (remember, most VHS tapes were not sell-through at release and cost $100 if you wanted to legally purchase them), and, probably least important to those people, quality. The leap from VHS to DVD was absolutely staggering, and at the same time brought widescreen home entertainment to the masses.
DVD to HD-DVD or Blu-Ray? Not so much. Yes, the picture is a bit clearer. So? That's the big advantage that people are going to invest thousands of dollars for?
It's just not going to happen any time soon. Most people have their DVD players hooked up with composite cables or S-Video at best, on SD displays. A properly callibrated DVD player, using component inputs, 16x9 mode, and an anamaphoric enhanced DVD (virtually all theatrical films released in the last 6-7 years) on an HD-TV monitor is gorgeous. Will an HD-DVD or Blu-Ray version be even better? Sure, but not enough to convince even someone like me to buy it - so good luck with the Wal-Mart crowd.
The simple truth is VHS was good enough for most customers - and there will be a new format (holographic media, etc.) before the majority of customers even care. The HD-DVD/Blu-Ray fight (they lost in the begining by not joining forces) is going to be for a tiny percentage of consumers, and everyone else is just going to watch our beautiful SD DVD's and continue to enjoy them as we have.
Just because a company tells you that you "need" the next best thing, doesn't mean you do; the transparent reasons for the studios to push this unwanted format on us are clear (DRM, increasing file size to decrease sharing, the box they put themselves in with DVD sell-through pricing [DVD was never meant to be this cheap, it was an accident]), and the only people that give a shit are those that only enjoy their movies if they have a piece of paper telling them it's got a higher resolution and is "better". If you are sitting there watching "The Godfather" and spend your time distracted by the background details because of the higher resolution, you are missing the entire point.
That will be so handy the next time I take a brillo pad or a screwdriver and start attacking my home theater collection; however it will have to wait until I'm done taking a match to my book library.;)
I'm a mid-early adopter; that means I don't buy it day-and-date when it comes out, but usually 3-9 months later when the market begins to stabalize and the initial kinks are worked out. With this HD/Blu-Ray stuff I can tell you, it will be years before I invest in it.
There is this core group of home theater junkies that have been programmed to believe that they are somehow ruining their lives by not watching HD-native content, that somehow they have been missing out on watching the same movies with slightly clearer picture and it's just like the stone-age. If you listen to them, we've been watching hand-puppets through a white sheet lit by candles.
The truth is, almost no one gives a crap about either format. The reasons the general public caught on to DVD were diverse yet simple : durability, availability, price (remember, most VHS tapes were not sell-through at release and cost $100 if you wanted to legally purchase them), and, probably least important to those people, quality. The leap from VHS to DVD was absolutely staggering, and at the same time brought widescreen home entertainment to the masses.
DVD to HD-DVD or Blu-Ray? Not so much. Yes, the picture is a bit clearer. So? That's the big advantage that people are going to invest thousands of dollars for?
It's just not going to happen any time soon. Most people have their DVD players hooked up with composite cables or S-Video at best, on SD displays. A properly callibrated DVD player, using component inputs, 16x9 mode, and an anamaphoric enhanced DVD (virtually all theatrical films released in the last 6-7 years) on an HD-TV monitor is gorgeous. Will an HD-DVD or Blu-Ray version be even better? Sure, but not enough to convince even someone like me to buy it - so good luck with the Wal-Mart crowd.
The simple truth is VHS was good enough for most customers - and there will be a new format (holographic media, etc.) before the majority of customers even care. The HD-DVD/Blu-Ray fight (they lost in the begining by not joining forces) is going to be for a tiny percentage of consumers, and everyone else is just going to watch our beautiful SD DVD's and continue to enjoy them as we have.
Just because a company tells you that you "need" the next best thing, doesn't mean you do; the transparent reasons for the studios to push this unwanted format on us are clear (DRM, increasing file size to decrease sharing, the box they put themselves in with DVD sell-through pricing [DVD was never meant to be this cheap, it was an accident]), and the only people that give a shit are those that only enjoy their movies if they have a piece of paper telling them it's got a higher resolution and is "better". If you are sitting there watching "The Godfather" and spend your time distracted by the background details because of the higher resolution, you are missing the entire point.
#1. The controller everyone is talking about is the base unit. Not every game will be played with the remote control style. There will be shells that fit around it that haven't even been thought of yet - Nintendo certainly doesn't have all their eggs in that basket.
#2. Just who the hell is this guy anyway, and why do I care what he's excited about? Never heard of his game, so I looked at some screenies - looks like dererative shit to me. It's cool though that the hype around Revo is so good that every time some dumb-shit designer burps the name Nintendo.
I know there is more content out there, but as I said, most people don't care if they watch CSI in HD or SD. It's sports lovers that are driving the HD content market at the moment.
I was unaware of the audio improvements, but again, it's not something that's going to sell it to the masses. Most people don't have dolby digital set-ups, and I'd be willing to be the vast majority of consumers are watching on plain old stereo or surround.
It's not that it's not a bit better, but it's just that most people aren't going to care.
I guess I don't get this podcast craze to begin with. I've heard a few here and there, and listing to some guy and his friends prattling along in the basement in front of the PC about any topic just doesn't fit into my life.
Now, don't get me wrong, I'm sure there are some neat, informative podcasts out there. But the format just turns me off. Now, a blog I can scan, pick out relevant information, and it doesn't require me to read every word to find something interesting. But audio is a different beast, and I just don't have an hour to listen to some fan pontificate about anything (even subjects I care about).
I think that's the core of what this article is talking about. I'm sure videogame podcasts magnify the problem, just like videogame "journalism" does. Let's face it, as much as I like reading reviews and news postings, most gaming sites are run by young men and women as hobbies. They are not professionals in the industry at all, and while they may have opinions (however well-formed), it's still just a bunch of guys sitting around a PC talking about how wicked hard beating that palladin or whatever in WOW is, and his strategy for beating it.
I think that is the crux for me though, the audio part - if I played WOW I might be interested in a technique to kill a certain MOB, but having to listen to a podcast to do it is silly when I could just read the text in five seconds if he wrote it.
But that's just my opinion.
AE
There are a few home theatre junkies who have their undies in a wad over anything that some company tells them is "NEW!" - these are the people that spent $5-10K years ago for HD-TV before there was even content to be had (not that there really is now, as aside from sports freaks most people don't care). Those families picking up HD-TV's in Wal-Mart today? They don't give a fig about a new format. They just want a new, big TV to watch, again, the only HD-content they are likely to see for quite some time (or even care to) is going to be for sports.
It's hilarious to listen to HD-philes talk about "SD DVDs" like they are some horrible burden we've been carrying on our shoulders, praying for something more. The fact of the matter is, most consumers have never even seen how good DVD can look - a progressive scan player hooked up to an HD-TV with component inputs, properly callibrated, looks stunning. Most of them are still watching them on old composite video, or S-Video, if they are lucky. And DVD looks just fine to them.
The VHS market's body isn't even cold in the ground yet. You can still purchase VHS at Wal-Mart, but it has disapeared out of most other retailers. Do you know why it took so long to die? Because the quality of VHS was good enough for the vast majority of the public. Most people only switched to DVD because a) of necessity, and b) price. When a DVD player is $30, no reason not to buy one. When you can buy your favorite film at $15 the week it comes out at Wal-Mart, you're going to switch. Let's remember, that VHS sell-through was rare, only for certain family-friendly (usually) releases. VHS tapes of new theatrical hits were "rental priced" at anywhere between $70-100 each if one wanted to buy one retail.
Sure, HD looks real nice. Nicer than DVD. But there is this small group of people who seem to act like we've been watching black and white screens through wax paper lit by candle power. They are delusional.
What I think people are missing is the REAL reason these companies are making this attempt at foisting this on a public that doesn't want it : DRM and downloading. DeCSS has unlocked every DVD ever created (or software programs that use it do, for those silly newer "reigon enhancements" LOL), and it's no longer unreasonable for your above-average broadband user to download 4 or 5GB films. They want to up the stakes in a losing battle for them; it will be a few more years before we're downloading 15-20GB films.
Then, there is the draconian DRM. They want a tight control on us. They aren't going to get it. They fail to see downloading for what it is : something that people do when something isn't available to buy, or for things they wouldn't buy anyway. No, Sharon Stone does not loose any money when you download Basic Instinct 2 just long enough to look at the nudie parts, if you weren't going to go see it anyway. The vast majority of people WANT to buy offical DVDs, and those that download as routine instead of buying are in the minority. Ask someone who has to watch Veronica Mars on download because they don't get UPN - they'd MUCH rather watch it on TV, trust me.
DVD was a huge leap from VHS - in picture, sound, widescreen availability, format (no more tape breaking), features, and collectability. HD-DVD and Blu-Ray are not. They are improvements only in picture quality, and not that great of a leap at that. It isn't going to sell to the mass market, and will be a small niche of home theater, for some time to come. It's the new laserdisc - and don't get me wrong, I loved laserdisc. But it was never mainstream, and neither is this. The same fate will fall to these formats - just like DVD came along and killed laserdisc, a new, superior format will come along in the next 10 years that will actually be what replaces DVD - and this whole HD/Blu-ray BS will become a home theater legend like the VHS/Beta wars.
I'm not sure, as sarcasm doesn't always travel well across the pond, but I think you are trying to say that we pay more for CDs because they have a higher quality than vinyl.
The comment I made about the pricing structure is based on what the record companies told us 20+ years ago when CD launched as a music format. People balked at the prices, and having to replace their entire music collections. "Buy it, and it will get cheaper!" they told us. "Within a few years, CD's will cost less than cassettes and vinyl do now!"
The truth is, it costs them much less to produce and package a CD than it ever did to press vinyl or reproduce cassettes. Their profit margins have skyrocketed. We're told it's because they put millions of dollars into other acts who's CD's never sell...well, it's not our fault they suck at filtering talent from shit and their business has become a bloated corporation with thousands of useless VP's in charge of bathroom key's and not much else.
CD's are just too expensive for what they are. Through price fixing they have become the equivalent of corporate welfare. We pay for those limos and business expense accounts and hookers for the loser A&R guys...some estimates say as little as 1/3 of the cost of an average CD actually goes into the production and distribution - the rest is all bloat and B.S. from an antiquated business model that old foggies and the status quo refuse to let go of.
Unless you were actually saying you believe LP's are of better quality...in that case, you can disregard this (though the points are still valid);).
No one is ever going to win. Governments and private corporations are going to spend billions. The only people who are going to get hurt are those who missed last week's episode of "Vernoica Mars" and downloads it instead so they don't get behind.
If the assholes would just realize the problem is them charging $20 for a CD that 20 years ago they promised would eventually be cheaper than cassettes and vinyl ever were. If CD's cost something more commesurate with their value and production cost downloading wouldn't be an issue beyond the fringe.
I knew the end was near when I saw "Memoirs of a Geisha" on UMD.
Any format that is that out of touch with it's userbase as to put such a title on a game system targeted to 14-year old boys isn't going to last.
Besides, my sub-$100, 7" widescreen portable DVD player looks better and plays the same old DVDs I already have. I can even hook up the cheap portable to a TV and watch DVDs on the big screen while on the road. Heck, the thing also plays MP3's, so I can get a thousand or so songs on a DVD and have many more hours of listening pleasure than I'll need in a week of Sunday's.
I also don't think it's going to be a mystery to anyone that a format that put 2 episodes of a TV show ("Lost") on a proprietary disc, and tries to sell it for 2/3 the price of an entire 24-episode season on DVD, isn't going to take off. Besides, how many films do you have occasion to watch very often, let alone on a portable; even a good film, like "Kill Bill", I can only see myself watching in a train station or on a plane so many times. The value just isn't there, and neither is the collectability factor in a proprietary format with such limited ability to view it. (Yes, I am aware they discussed a way to watch them on a regular TV, but that's like selling a man with a wooden leg more comfortable shoes - not to mention way too little way too late.)
Even for those that play the system to begin with, it just was a losing proposition from the begining. Why spend $20 for a movie you can only watch on a tiny screen when you can just buy a DVD, rip it to a memory stick, and then have the original DVD itself to play on any of the hundreds of millions of DVD players world-wide?
Weird this showing up now...very old news, it was announced months ago. In any case...
The browser has not been announced for the US yet, but when it is released in Japan this summer it will be sold alongside other DS software. Inside the box will be a standard DS cart with the browser, and a memory cart to go in the GBA slot to cache pages.
It's going to be a great little device for checking e-mail and such (so long as you have webmail, as the browser will not support POP or other email protocols). I can see myself using it, say, in the living room while watching a movie to briefly look up an actor's name in the IMDB. Or while on a road trip - would make every McDonalds (or other wi-fi hotspot) a place where you can check mail, check the balance on your gas card, or to get travel info from MapQuest.
The possibilities are endless, really. I don't think it's going to be a long-term browsing solution, but I can definately see it being very useful. Yes, a Sidekick or other smart phone will do the same for you (and more), but they are just too expensive for casual use. This will be FREE once you buy the initial software - no monthly fees, no requirements other than being in a wi-fi area.
SOE has lied so many times you can't believe anything they say. They said the "NGE" itself was a rumor, and so was the "Starter Kit"; they hide things and lie and do whatever they can do to keep you from cancelling; well, except for actually fixing and delivering the game they have promised for almost three years.
Today there are dozens of Dev and producer posts that are out to counter the new wave of horrible press their lack of work and attention has created. It's all a joke so they can say, "Look how much we communicate!" when in fact it's their last ditch. The producer tripling his post count in one day impresses the small minded idiots, who get star-struck when a "red-name" (Dev) makes a post, but everyone else sees it for what it is : a glass of water thrown on a rampant house fire they created themselves because they simply didn't do what they promised. Again.
They are crooks (taking money for expansions one day before telling us the original game was getting shut down and they were putting a new one in, the NGE), liars (so many lies...some posts deleted later when they didn't think anyone was looking, but many remain), and don't understand the concept of setting a schedule/goal and getting it accomplished. Whatever dickhead is really in charge (Smed says it's not him today...then who the hell is it if not the producer?) needs to find employees who a) know their job, b) know how to do it efficently, and c) keep to some semblance of a schedule. They cry that it takes months of man hours to make a simple change - well, in that case, it's shoddy code to blame.
I wish Lucasarts would dump SOE - put the damn game out of it's misery. It's a complete boil on the arse of the Star Wars franchise, and the suits at SOE have spent three years telling people they were going to deliver a game that has never materialized. I've finally cancelled myself, and the only regret is that I spent any time at all playing a game where I was constantly told the "next big thing" was coming that would make the game an actual Star Wars experience; if the smug jack-offs like Smedley spent 1/10 of the energy they spend spinning shit, telling blatant lies about the game to trick people into playing/staying, into actually fixing the game, you'd have the biggest/best MMO in the Galaxy.
Unfortunately, that won't happen - SOE has ridden this pony as far as it can, and only the hardest-core-take-it-up-the-arse from the DEV fanbois (yes, I'm talking to you PsychoPyro, who kisses so much arse *I* get the bad taste in my mouth) are still there. I used to hope for the best, but they always deliver the worst. Eventually, even the most ardent supporter (except for the crazies, who are usually 16-year old bois who think when they get all growed up they could work for SOE so they start corporate kiss arse now) must realize that the game they say it will be never will be, any more than you should believe a leopard who tells you he's going to rearrange his spots. It's just not going to happen.
Exactly.
It's the charge of the companies that make the devices to access, not the websites themselves.
To further your analogy, this is like some company selling you a hearing aid, you take it to a Greatful Dead concert, but you still can't make out the words clearly...so you sue the band instead of the people who made the poorly performing product.
I stand by my statement; the ADA does not apply to websites and videogames. Government agencies are different, as all of their services must be accessable, which makes it their responsibility only by proxy. There is absolutely nothing in the ADA about electronic access as it would apply here.
I was involved in a battle over video game accessability, and the ADA does not cover electronic accessability in any way, shape, or form when it comes to things like this. For instance, someone who only has the use of one hand cannot sue Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo because it is impossible to use one of their controllers without the use of both hands, therefore blocking you from using their product.
It's the same here, and the simple fact is the ADA doesn't apply.
It's that simple. They are under no legal obligation to do so. If you read the article, this isn't specificly about Target, this group is trying to make some broader point and is using the legal system to do so and they picked Target because of it's popularity. There are better ways to go about this than a nusaince lawsuit.
SO what? Only a tiny percentage of customers ever used lifetime anyway. Buying a lifetime today would be silly anyway, as the lifetime fee is the same as about three years paying monthly - that's a long time to recop an investment in a consumer electronics product at this juncture in TV history.
TiVo is actually very smart to offer the new "no money down" plans - that's the #1 complaint I hear from people as to why they don't buy a TiVo; many people do not like buying a product and THEN paying a monthly fee. Conversely, most people thought the idea of paying an additional $300 for something, even if it meant no monthly fees ever, was ridiculous as well - they just couldn't wrap their heads around it.
TiVo does exactly what I need it to do, which is why I have one. PC-based soloutions are at best clunky, and I have an elegant little box in my living room that does it all for me. I transfer shows back and forth from my TiVo to my PC when I want to archive them, and burn them to DVD when I wish.
The biggest complaint about SD TiVo's is that you can't record two programs at once; that's why many people have two TiVo's. Personally, I live very well with that limitation - there is only so much TV one can watch in a day, week, or lifetime and having to make some choices keeps me from getting OD'd on too much unlimited choice. Sure, choice is almost 100% better in any instance, but here I actually like that I personally have to make a choice between some programs (and the DVD recorder is always there if I really, really have a conflict).
DVR's so completely change how you think about your time, especially in relation to TV (obviously) - but I've used some of the "other" ones and nothing does it for me like a TiVo. Simple, elegant, and it does everything I want. I'm also a monthly subscriber, like the vast majority of TiVo owners, so the removal of the program isn't even going to be a blip on most of our radars.
As a long-time (since beta) SWG player, I welcome the rumored change in the timeline. It's not going to erase anything to advance the story by adding content. While the NGE was unaccaptable in many ways, mostly due to it's slimy surprise to the community one day after they charged credit cards for expansion pre-orders, in other ways it was necessary. Did they trunicate too much? Yes, but some of the changes were for the better. Many were not.
As Smed and others have said since in so many words (which is, again, why this outdated letter is pretty useless to discuss in and of itself at this point), they simply aren't concerned about current players because we simply weren't enough to keep it going. It was get a bigger audience that dwarfs the current one, or it was going to end period. Was it right? No, but I don't think they had a great deal of choice in the matter.
That's why I support a time period change whole-heartedly; it's now or never, and it's either gonna be great or the game is gonna fold. Either they will capture the period of ESB (which is where we would be going, as SWG currently takes place between ANH and ESB), the Star Wars era that many consider the best of the classic trilogy, or they will fail. If they fail, at least it's better than stagnant and stale.
The absolute #1 error SWG has made from the begining is ignoring what people really want from a Star Wars game - to experience the enviornments and scenarios that were in the films. Take Jabba's Palace, for example. It's one of the most iconic Star Wars locations, and it does it exist in SWG (one of the only true locations that appears in one of the films). However, it's a place where newbies run through doing bugged missions until you get to speak to Jabba (actually, his Protocol droid), get full access to the Palace...and are done. No reason to return. It's a ghost-world.
That's why I'm hoping this new combat system will truly fufill the promise of being able to beef up this kind of content instead of constantly reworking three dozen professions. I'm hoping they put the content in that makes it worth it. I'm not holding my breath, but for now they still get my $14.99 a month. A major content addition like changing the timeline may just be what the game needs to give it a boost. Lord knows it can't get much worse...
It's not just that it's not current, it's not even accurate as to the current state of the game. I don't disagree with your statements about discussing issues; the point is, this "state of the game" is by it's very nature timely, and in this case it's two months of discussions and 100's if not 1000's of Dev posts and tens of thousands of user posts on those message boards disecting every word in that statement than anyone can peruse at the SWG message boards.
Personally, I hate this "I'm going to use someone else's comment to set off a rant about a personal pet peeve and totally derail the topic" crap. I guess we all have to learn to live with things we don't like on the internet.;)
Trying to keep a system totally secure from these threats is usless the moment you connect your machine to a high speed connection. That's why I just reinstall the OS every three months or so. I keep the original installation files to all important software on a spare stand-alone hard drive and backups on DVD.
It takes about two hours and since I use a decent software firewall I know my information isn't being transmitted, and other than that I could care if anyone check up on my habits. If they know I visit both/. and britneyspears.org, well, I can live with that. By reinstalling every few months, the build-up never happens and my computer is always running briskly.
When I use friends machines that don't even have NAV yet have superior system specs to mine and the machine chugs along likes it's on dial-up on a 486, it's an easy sell the first time you suggest gutting the OS to them. That first time is rough, but if it's part of your routine it can save you much more time and effort in prevention instead of always trying to track down that one ellusive bit of shit-ware that exists soley to keep corporate IT departments in business.
AudioEfex
Slashdot Mirror
Sorry George. I bought bootleg copies (very nice bootlegs) a half a decade ago when you stated publicly that you would NEVER release these.
:) And it's all Lucasfilms fault that I'm not giving them any more of my cash. I didn't buy the 2004 editions (raping the memory of dead actors by replacing them digitally was the limit for me), and I won't buy these.
Now that you've changed your mind, I'm not just going to run out and buy them. Why should I? I already have them. Sure, they may have a bit better video quality, but I'm refusing to give you my $ just because you realized you needed the cash and it meant more than your supposed "artistic integrity".
Too little, too late. You had a good 15 years of me buying everything you put out (FS VHS, Widescreen VHS box set, Definitive Collection LD's, "face" CLV LD's)....but your attitude towards fans, in spite of this 11th hour reversal, just make me not care.
I have no problem paying good money for great product, but conversely when someone like Lucas dicks fans over and over I have no problem going the bootleg/download route. I bet the BitTorrent sites will have it before it even comes out.
AE
Ask anyone who works in ANY support industry, and they'll tell you they are underpaid.
You know those people that dress up as characters at Disney World, standing in 50-60 LB furry costumes in 100-degree heat? They make about $7 an hour too.
Wages in the U.S. are chronically low for a large portion of hourly workers. Tech Support is no different.
AE
If you read the article, they state one of the reasons for chosing it is that it is multi-lingual. It will be the world-wide brand.
AE
Just like the marketing guy who coined the "Touching is good..." slogan for the NDS, the guy who came up with this and thought it was clever needs to be a bit more in-touch (pun intended) with American culture.
Just like parents thought twice about buying a product for their child that kept telling you how good it was to "touch", it's going to be hard for self-respecting gamers to ask for a "Wii". And God-help us when the 16-year-old behind the counter at Wal-Mart explains to the nervous parents how the NDS will interface with the Wii, so the product with the catch-phrase "Touching is good" can be used to interface with your..."Wii."
I love Nintendo, and I think the new console is going to rock - but naming it "Wii" is like naming your kid Richard when your last name is Head; you're just gimping them unnecessarily from the start.
AE
I think you WAY overestimate the need for people to "keep up with the Joneses" with this new format war. There will be no demand for the volume. If people like myself don't care, then Joe-Blow who bought his HD-TV at Wal-Mart and doesn't know an HDMI cable from a spark plug on his car sure as hell doesn't care.
The truth is, this isn't that great of a technological leap. It will be a niche product. And in this case, they have virtually ensured that because no one in their right mind (outside of early-adopter number and statistic-philes) is going to buy two different machines so they can play Spiderman on one and every other studio's pics on another.
They are shooting themselves in the foot, and people who didn't care before REALLY don't care now.
I've said it before, I'll say it again : it's the new Laserdisc. I loved LD, but it never caught on with the masses because in spite of the far superior picture quality and special features, most people were just happy with VHS. LD's had the cumbersome factor which didn't help, but for people who cared about quality that much (like myself) put up with it. The average person didn't care, and they aren't going to care now.
At best, I see myself picking up an HD-DVD player (the "winner" if there will be one, IMO) maybe Christmas 07 or 08, and only then for films like "LOTR" or "The Matrix", or the few films I'll actually care about visual quailty to that level. I'll still keep my 100's of SD DVDs and they'll continue to look great, especially the anamphoric ones (the majority of my collection). I can never see myself buying "Legally Blonde" or even "St. Elmo's Fire" ever again in some new-fangled format - the quality simply is good enough.
And if it's good enough for me, a somewhat-videophile, I'm guessing that the rest of America who's had DVD players less than 4 or 5 years isn't going to even consider a new format for some time to come. Again, people are acting like we've been watching bad video dubs of kinescope broadcasts...the current quality far suprasses what the average consumer wants, and in most cases they aren't even exploiting their current capabilities (i.e. using composite or S-video instead of a progressive-scan component video set-up).
AEfx
Very few people care in the first place, and unification was their only hope of taking on the masses. A very small percentage of people are interested as it is, and the prospect of slightly better picture quality is not going to be enough for the average person to want to invest thousands of bucks into this technology and new discs for a long time to come.
I'm a mid-early adopter; that means I don't buy new tech day-and-date when it comes out, but usually 3-9 months later when the market begins to stabalize and the initial kinks are worked out. With this HD/Blu-Ray stuff I can tell you, it will be years before even I invest in it.
There is this core group of home theater junkies that have been programmed to believe that they are somehow ruining their lives by not watching HD-native content, that somehow they have been missing out on watching the same movies with slightly clearer picture and it's just like the stone-age. If you listen to them, we've been watching hand-puppets through a white sheet lit by candles.
The truth is, almost no one gives a crap about either format. The reasons the general public caught on to DVD were diverse yet simple : durability, availability, price (remember, most VHS tapes were not sell-through at release and cost $100 if you wanted to legally purchase them), and, probably least important to those people, quality. The leap from VHS to DVD was absolutely staggering, and at the same time brought widescreen home entertainment to the masses.
DVD to HD-DVD or Blu-Ray? Not so much. Yes, the picture is a bit clearer. So? That's the big advantage that people are going to invest thousands of dollars for?
It's just not going to happen any time soon. Most people have their DVD players hooked up with composite cables or S-Video at best, on SD displays. A properly callibrated DVD player, using component inputs, 16x9 mode, and an anamaphoric enhanced DVD (virtually all theatrical films released in the last 6-7 years) on an HD-TV monitor is gorgeous. Will an HD-DVD or Blu-Ray version be even better? Sure, but not enough to convince even someone like me to buy it - so good luck with the Wal-Mart crowd.
The simple truth is VHS was good enough for most customers - and there will be a new format (holographic media, etc.) before the majority of customers even care. The HD-DVD/Blu-Ray fight (they lost in the begining by not joining forces) is going to be for a tiny percentage of consumers, and everyone else is just going to watch our beautiful SD DVD's and continue to enjoy them as we have.
Just because a company tells you that you "need" the next best thing, doesn't mean you do; the transparent reasons for the studios to push this unwanted format on us are clear (DRM, increasing file size to decrease sharing, the box they put themselves in with DVD sell-through pricing [DVD was never meant to be this cheap, it was an accident]), and the only people that give a shit are those that only enjoy their movies if they have a piece of paper telling them it's got a higher resolution and is "better". If you are sitting there watching "The Godfather" and spend your time distracted by the background details because of the higher resolution, you are missing the entire point.
AEfx
That will be so handy the next time I take a brillo pad or a screwdriver and start attacking my home theater collection; however it will have to wait until I'm done taking a match to my book library. ;)
AEfx
You are absolutely correct.
I'm a mid-early adopter; that means I don't buy it day-and-date when it comes out, but usually 3-9 months later when the market begins to stabalize and the initial kinks are worked out. With this HD/Blu-Ray stuff I can tell you, it will be years before I invest in it.
There is this core group of home theater junkies that have been programmed to believe that they are somehow ruining their lives by not watching HD-native content, that somehow they have been missing out on watching the same movies with slightly clearer picture and it's just like the stone-age. If you listen to them, we've been watching hand-puppets through a white sheet lit by candles.
The truth is, almost no one gives a crap about either format. The reasons the general public caught on to DVD were diverse yet simple : durability, availability, price (remember, most VHS tapes were not sell-through at release and cost $100 if you wanted to legally purchase them), and, probably least important to those people, quality. The leap from VHS to DVD was absolutely staggering, and at the same time brought widescreen home entertainment to the masses.
DVD to HD-DVD or Blu-Ray? Not so much. Yes, the picture is a bit clearer. So? That's the big advantage that people are going to invest thousands of dollars for?
It's just not going to happen any time soon. Most people have their DVD players hooked up with composite cables or S-Video at best, on SD displays. A properly callibrated DVD player, using component inputs, 16x9 mode, and an anamaphoric enhanced DVD (virtually all theatrical films released in the last 6-7 years) on an HD-TV monitor is gorgeous. Will an HD-DVD or Blu-Ray version be even better? Sure, but not enough to convince even someone like me to buy it - so good luck with the Wal-Mart crowd.
The simple truth is VHS was good enough for most customers - and there will be a new format (holographic media, etc.) before the majority of customers even care. The HD-DVD/Blu-Ray fight (they lost in the begining by not joining forces) is going to be for a tiny percentage of consumers, and everyone else is just going to watch our beautiful SD DVD's and continue to enjoy them as we have.
Just because a company tells you that you "need" the next best thing, doesn't mean you do; the transparent reasons for the studios to push this unwanted format on us are clear (DRM, increasing file size to decrease sharing, the box they put themselves in with DVD sell-through pricing [DVD was never meant to be this cheap, it was an accident]), and the only people that give a shit are those that only enjoy their movies if they have a piece of paper telling them it's got a higher resolution and is "better". If you are sitting there watching "The Godfather" and spend your time distracted by the background details because of the higher resolution, you are missing the entire point.
AEfx
#1. The controller everyone is talking about is the base unit. Not every game will be played with the remote control style. There will be shells that fit around it that haven't even been thought of yet - Nintendo certainly doesn't have all their eggs in that basket.
#2. Just who the hell is this guy anyway, and why do I care what he's excited about? Never heard of his game, so I looked at some screenies - looks like dererative shit to me. It's cool though that the hype around Revo is so good that every time some dumb-shit designer burps the name Nintendo.
AE
LOL it certainly is. I actually was afraid to say I did appriciate your insight as most times on ./ that would be construed as sarcasm. ;)
AE
Thanks for your respectful reply. :)
I know there is more content out there, but as I said, most people don't care if they watch CSI in HD or SD. It's sports lovers that are driving the HD content market at the moment.
I was unaware of the audio improvements, but again, it's not something that's going to sell it to the masses. Most people don't have dolby digital set-ups, and I'd be willing to be the vast majority of consumers are watching on plain old stereo or surround.
It's not that it's not a bit better, but it's just that most people aren't going to care.
Great insight, though.
AE
I guess I don't get this podcast craze to begin with. I've heard a few here and there, and listing to some guy and his friends prattling along in the basement in front of the PC about any topic just doesn't fit into my life. Now, don't get me wrong, I'm sure there are some neat, informative podcasts out there. But the format just turns me off. Now, a blog I can scan, pick out relevant information, and it doesn't require me to read every word to find something interesting. But audio is a different beast, and I just don't have an hour to listen to some fan pontificate about anything (even subjects I care about). I think that's the core of what this article is talking about. I'm sure videogame podcasts magnify the problem, just like videogame "journalism" does. Let's face it, as much as I like reading reviews and news postings, most gaming sites are run by young men and women as hobbies. They are not professionals in the industry at all, and while they may have opinions (however well-formed), it's still just a bunch of guys sitting around a PC talking about how wicked hard beating that palladin or whatever in WOW is, and his strategy for beating it. I think that is the crux for me though, the audio part - if I played WOW I might be interested in a technique to kill a certain MOB, but having to listen to a podcast to do it is silly when I could just read the text in five seconds if he wrote it. But that's just my opinion. AE
You're absolutely correct.
There are a few home theatre junkies who have their undies in a wad over anything that some company tells them is "NEW!" - these are the people that spent $5-10K years ago for HD-TV before there was even content to be had (not that there really is now, as aside from sports freaks most people don't care). Those families picking up HD-TV's in Wal-Mart today? They don't give a fig about a new format. They just want a new, big TV to watch, again, the only HD-content they are likely to see for quite some time (or even care to) is going to be for sports.
It's hilarious to listen to HD-philes talk about "SD DVDs" like they are some horrible burden we've been carrying on our shoulders, praying for something more. The fact of the matter is, most consumers have never even seen how good DVD can look - a progressive scan player hooked up to an HD-TV with component inputs, properly callibrated, looks stunning. Most of them are still watching them on old composite video, or S-Video, if they are lucky. And DVD looks just fine to them.
The VHS market's body isn't even cold in the ground yet. You can still purchase VHS at Wal-Mart, but it has disapeared out of most other retailers. Do you know why it took so long to die? Because the quality of VHS was good enough for the vast majority of the public. Most people only switched to DVD because a) of necessity, and b) price. When a DVD player is $30, no reason not to buy one. When you can buy your favorite film at $15 the week it comes out at Wal-Mart, you're going to switch. Let's remember, that VHS sell-through was rare, only for certain family-friendly (usually) releases. VHS tapes of new theatrical hits were "rental priced" at anywhere between $70-100 each if one wanted to buy one retail.
Sure, HD looks real nice. Nicer than DVD. But there is this small group of people who seem to act like we've been watching black and white screens through wax paper lit by candle power. They are delusional.
What I think people are missing is the REAL reason these companies are making this attempt at foisting this on a public that doesn't want it : DRM and downloading. DeCSS has unlocked every DVD ever created (or software programs that use it do, for those silly newer "reigon enhancements" LOL), and it's no longer unreasonable for your above-average broadband user to download 4 or 5GB films. They want to up the stakes in a losing battle for them; it will be a few more years before we're downloading 15-20GB films.
Then, there is the draconian DRM. They want a tight control on us. They aren't going to get it. They fail to see downloading for what it is : something that people do when something isn't available to buy, or for things they wouldn't buy anyway. No, Sharon Stone does not loose any money when you download Basic Instinct 2 just long enough to look at the nudie parts, if you weren't going to go see it anyway. The vast majority of people WANT to buy offical DVDs, and those that download as routine instead of buying are in the minority. Ask someone who has to watch Veronica Mars on download because they don't get UPN - they'd MUCH rather watch it on TV, trust me.
DVD was a huge leap from VHS - in picture, sound, widescreen availability, format (no more tape breaking), features, and collectability. HD-DVD and Blu-Ray are not. They are improvements only in picture quality, and not that great of a leap at that. It isn't going to sell to the mass market, and will be a small niche of home theater, for some time to come. It's the new laserdisc - and don't get me wrong, I loved laserdisc. But it was never mainstream, and neither is this. The same fate will fall to these formats - just like DVD came along and killed laserdisc, a new, superior format will come along in the next 10 years that will actually be what replaces DVD - and this whole HD/Blu-ray BS will become a home theater legend like the VHS/Beta wars.
AE
The comment I made about the pricing structure is based on what the record companies told us 20+ years ago when CD launched as a music format. People balked at the prices, and having to replace their entire music collections. "Buy it, and it will get cheaper!" they told us. "Within a few years, CD's will cost less than cassettes and vinyl do now!"
The truth is, it costs them much less to produce and package a CD than it ever did to press vinyl or reproduce cassettes. Their profit margins have skyrocketed. We're told it's because they put millions of dollars into other acts who's CD's never sell...well, it's not our fault they suck at filtering talent from shit and their business has become a bloated corporation with thousands of useless VP's in charge of bathroom key's and not much else.
CD's are just too expensive for what they are. Through price fixing they have become the equivalent of corporate welfare. We pay for those limos and business expense accounts and hookers for the loser A&R guys...some estimates say as little as 1/3 of the cost of an average CD actually goes into the production and distribution - the rest is all bloat and B.S. from an antiquated business model that old foggies and the status quo refuse to let go of.
Unless you were actually saying you believe LP's are of better quality...in that case, you can disregard this (though the points are still valid) ;).
AE
If the assholes would just realize the problem is them charging $20 for a CD that 20 years ago they promised would eventually be cheaper than cassettes and vinyl ever were. If CD's cost something more commesurate with their value and production cost downloading wouldn't be an issue beyond the fringe.
AE
Any format that is that out of touch with it's userbase as to put such a title on a game system targeted to 14-year old boys isn't going to last.
Besides, my sub-$100, 7" widescreen portable DVD player looks better and plays the same old DVDs I already have. I can even hook up the cheap portable to a TV and watch DVDs on the big screen while on the road. Heck, the thing also plays MP3's, so I can get a thousand or so songs on a DVD and have many more hours of listening pleasure than I'll need in a week of Sunday's.
I also don't think it's going to be a mystery to anyone that a format that put 2 episodes of a TV show ("Lost") on a proprietary disc, and tries to sell it for 2/3 the price of an entire 24-episode season on DVD, isn't going to take off. Besides, how many films do you have occasion to watch very often, let alone on a portable; even a good film, like "Kill Bill", I can only see myself watching in a train station or on a plane so many times. The value just isn't there, and neither is the collectability factor in a proprietary format with such limited ability to view it. (Yes, I am aware they discussed a way to watch them on a regular TV, but that's like selling a man with a wooden leg more comfortable shoes - not to mention way too little way too late.)
Even for those that play the system to begin with, it just was a losing proposition from the begining. Why spend $20 for a movie you can only watch on a tiny screen when you can just buy a DVD, rip it to a memory stick, and then have the original DVD itself to play on any of the hundreds of millions of DVD players world-wide?
AE
The browser has not been announced for the US yet, but when it is released in Japan this summer it will be sold alongside other DS software. Inside the box will be a standard DS cart with the browser, and a memory cart to go in the GBA slot to cache pages.
It's going to be a great little device for checking e-mail and such (so long as you have webmail, as the browser will not support POP or other email protocols). I can see myself using it, say, in the living room while watching a movie to briefly look up an actor's name in the IMDB. Or while on a road trip - would make every McDonalds (or other wi-fi hotspot) a place where you can check mail, check the balance on your gas card, or to get travel info from MapQuest.
The possibilities are endless, really. I don't think it's going to be a long-term browsing solution, but I can definately see it being very useful. Yes, a Sidekick or other smart phone will do the same for you (and more), but they are just too expensive for casual use. This will be FREE once you buy the initial software - no monthly fees, no requirements other than being in a wi-fi area.
AE
Today there are dozens of Dev and producer posts that are out to counter the new wave of horrible press their lack of work and attention has created. It's all a joke so they can say, "Look how much we communicate!" when in fact it's their last ditch. The producer tripling his post count in one day impresses the small minded idiots, who get star-struck when a "red-name" (Dev) makes a post, but everyone else sees it for what it is : a glass of water thrown on a rampant house fire they created themselves because they simply didn't do what they promised. Again.
They are crooks (taking money for expansions one day before telling us the original game was getting shut down and they were putting a new one in, the NGE), liars (so many lies...some posts deleted later when they didn't think anyone was looking, but many remain), and don't understand the concept of setting a schedule/goal and getting it accomplished. Whatever dickhead is really in charge (Smed says it's not him today...then who the hell is it if not the producer?) needs to find employees who a) know their job, b) know how to do it efficently, and c) keep to some semblance of a schedule. They cry that it takes months of man hours to make a simple change - well, in that case, it's shoddy code to blame.
I wish Lucasarts would dump SOE - put the damn game out of it's misery. It's a complete boil on the arse of the Star Wars franchise, and the suits at SOE have spent three years telling people they were going to deliver a game that has never materialized. I've finally cancelled myself, and the only regret is that I spent any time at all playing a game where I was constantly told the "next big thing" was coming that would make the game an actual Star Wars experience; if the smug jack-offs like Smedley spent 1/10 of the energy they spend spinning shit, telling blatant lies about the game to trick people into playing/staying, into actually fixing the game, you'd have the biggest/best MMO in the Galaxy.
Unfortunately, that won't happen - SOE has ridden this pony as far as it can, and only the hardest-core-take-it-up-the-arse from the DEV fanbois (yes, I'm talking to you PsychoPyro, who kisses so much arse *I* get the bad taste in my mouth) are still there. I used to hope for the best, but they always deliver the worst. Eventually, even the most ardent supporter (except for the crazies, who are usually 16-year old bois who think when they get all growed up they could work for SOE so they start corporate kiss arse now) must realize that the game they say it will be never will be, any more than you should believe a leopard who tells you he's going to rearrange his spots. It's just not going to happen.
Exactly. It's the charge of the companies that make the devices to access, not the websites themselves. To further your analogy, this is like some company selling you a hearing aid, you take it to a Greatful Dead concert, but you still can't make out the words clearly...so you sue the band instead of the people who made the poorly performing product.
I stand by my statement; the ADA does not apply to websites and videogames. Government agencies are different, as all of their services must be accessable, which makes it their responsibility only by proxy. There is absolutely nothing in the ADA about electronic access as it would apply here. I was involved in a battle over video game accessability, and the ADA does not cover electronic accessability in any way, shape, or form when it comes to things like this. For instance, someone who only has the use of one hand cannot sue Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo because it is impossible to use one of their controllers without the use of both hands, therefore blocking you from using their product. It's the same here, and the simple fact is the ADA doesn't apply.
It's that simple. They are under no legal obligation to do so. If you read the article, this isn't specificly about Target, this group is trying to make some broader point and is using the legal system to do so and they picked Target because of it's popularity. There are better ways to go about this than a nusaince lawsuit.
TiVo is actually very smart to offer the new "no money down" plans - that's the #1 complaint I hear from people as to why they don't buy a TiVo; many people do not like buying a product and THEN paying a monthly fee. Conversely, most people thought the idea of paying an additional $300 for something, even if it meant no monthly fees ever, was ridiculous as well - they just couldn't wrap their heads around it.
TiVo does exactly what I need it to do, which is why I have one. PC-based soloutions are at best clunky, and I have an elegant little box in my living room that does it all for me. I transfer shows back and forth from my TiVo to my PC when I want to archive them, and burn them to DVD when I wish.
The biggest complaint about SD TiVo's is that you can't record two programs at once; that's why many people have two TiVo's. Personally, I live very well with that limitation - there is only so much TV one can watch in a day, week, or lifetime and having to make some choices keeps me from getting OD'd on too much unlimited choice. Sure, choice is almost 100% better in any instance, but here I actually like that I personally have to make a choice between some programs (and the DVD recorder is always there if I really, really have a conflict).
DVR's so completely change how you think about your time, especially in relation to TV (obviously) - but I've used some of the "other" ones and nothing does it for me like a TiVo. Simple, elegant, and it does everything I want. I'm also a monthly subscriber, like the vast majority of TiVo owners, so the removal of the program isn't even going to be a blip on most of our radars.
As Smed and others have said since in so many words (which is, again, why this outdated letter is pretty useless to discuss in and of itself at this point), they simply aren't concerned about current players because we simply weren't enough to keep it going. It was get a bigger audience that dwarfs the current one, or it was going to end period. Was it right? No, but I don't think they had a great deal of choice in the matter.
That's why I support a time period change whole-heartedly; it's now or never, and it's either gonna be great or the game is gonna fold. Either they will capture the period of ESB (which is where we would be going, as SWG currently takes place between ANH and ESB), the Star Wars era that many consider the best of the classic trilogy, or they will fail. If they fail, at least it's better than stagnant and stale.
The absolute #1 error SWG has made from the begining is ignoring what people really want from a Star Wars game - to experience the enviornments and scenarios that were in the films. Take Jabba's Palace, for example. It's one of the most iconic Star Wars locations, and it does it exist in SWG (one of the only true locations that appears in one of the films). However, it's a place where newbies run through doing bugged missions until you get to speak to Jabba (actually, his Protocol droid), get full access to the Palace...and are done. No reason to return. It's a ghost-world.
That's why I'm hoping this new combat system will truly fufill the promise of being able to beef up this kind of content instead of constantly reworking three dozen professions. I'm hoping they put the content in that makes it worth it. I'm not holding my breath, but for now they still get my $14.99 a month. A major content addition like changing the timeline may just be what the game needs to give it a boost. Lord knows it can't get much worse...
AudioEfex
Personally, I hate this "I'm going to use someone else's comment to set off a rant about a personal pet peeve and totally derail the topic" crap. I guess we all have to learn to live with things we don't like on the internet. ;)
AudioEfex
It takes about two hours and since I use a decent software firewall I know my information isn't being transmitted, and other than that I could care if anyone check up on my habits. If they know I visit both /. and britneyspears.org, well, I can live with that. By reinstalling every few months, the build-up never happens and my computer is always running briskly.
When I use friends machines that don't even have NAV yet have superior system specs to mine and the machine chugs along likes it's on dial-up on a 486, it's an easy sell the first time you suggest gutting the OS to them. That first time is rough, but if it's part of your routine it can save you much more time and effort in prevention instead of always trying to track down that one ellusive bit of shit-ware that exists soley to keep corporate IT departments in business. AudioEfex