This would make sense if this legislation was for Adults Only rated games. It's not. It's for M rated games, the equivalent of R rated movies. I don't know about where you're at, but I work for the Wal-Mart electronics department and our R rated movies are listed in alphabetically. This would be like saying Scarface and Pulp Fiction need to be cordoned off from the rest of the movies. Movie buyers would never stand for that, so why should gamers stand for it. If the cashier does their job, GTA3 and other mature games don't get sold to kids. I can't count the number of times I've gone through this scenario:
"Mom, that's the one I want!" A twelve year old's pointing at Vice City.
The mother turns to me, "Can you get that out for us?"
Me: "Sure, but do you know that it's rated M for sexual content and extreme violence."
Mother: "Really? No, I didn't."
Kid gets whacked for trying to sneak one past her.
And I will not sell M rated games, or R rated movies, to children without their parent's knowledge first. Besides that, the ratings are starting to work. More and more I have customers that won't buy T rated games even because their child is only 12. M rated is right out.
This will fail. I have no doubt of that. It's started by some no name legislator looking to get headlines. The game industry is huge, and in a few years, the ESRB ratings will be as ubiquitous as the MPAA ratings.
Actually, Bilbo gave the ring up. If the ring had had its way, it would have gone off with Bilbo. Gandalf at the time didn't know what the ring was, and the dwarves that accompanied Bilbo in the book wouldn't have known to protect the ring, should their party come under seige. The ring would have had a far easier time getting back to Sauron by sticking with Bilbo. Recall, the ring's wasn't the only will at work.
Impaled on some rocks? Oh, I hope not. The thing I liked most about the fate of Saruman was that in the end, he, the greatest of all the wizards, ended up the lowest person on Middle-Earth, except for Wormtongue.
Much as I love my country, I refuse to allow myself to be lumped in with "us Americans" and "the public". I work for Wal-Mart (don't start, it pays the bills) and I see a pretty good cross-section of the country, and it sometimes worries me just how many idiots are populating the nation at the moment.
...if not for the fact that it's probably just a PR move. It seems like every time the U.S. has something to do with China, human rights becomes the issue of the day. By releasing a couple of dissidents, China can say "Look, we respect human rights." It rings very hollow.
What else will it take for you to see that the potential target audience for gaming is much much smaller and justifies the higher cost?
The gaming industry at the moment is in a self-created Catch 22.... The higher cost restricts the size of the target audience, thereby "justifying" the higher cost. If Grand Theft Auto 4 comes out at $20, I would bet cash-money that nearly every single person with a PS2 would own it. There is a perception that only substandard games get released at the $20 price point, and until some company takes a chance and actually allows high quality games to come out at that price, the market will remain well below its potential. Sony has started to figure this out, I think, with their decision to release their first-party games at $40, but it's going to take something more major than that for the game industry to see its true potential.
Try writing a 3D game, which has to run on EVERYBODY'S PC and compare to doing some animations in Maya, which just have to look good from one angle and get rendered once. Not dissing on the Matrix or other heavy-FX movies, but it's really a hell of a lot of work to support and distribute a modern 3D PC game.
This, of course, is why nobody really wants to develop for the flooded PC market and why the console market exists, if you are well capitalized and can afford to hire the right people, get all the SDKs and negotiate good terms.
Your own reasoning is flawed here. Perhaps I live in a bubble market, but brand new PC games around here come out at ten to twenty dollars cheaper than the exact same game on the consoles. By your reasoning, PC games are harder to make, harder to support, and consequently requiring more time and more money. Arguably, this should make PC games cost more than console games, but they don't. Besides, even with development costs, game budgets are only now even coming close to movie budgets. They've cost $50 for a long time.
I think what it comes down to is, gamers are still willing to pay fifty bucks for a game. Gaming is still considered to be a niche market, despite the fact that it was a multi-billion dollar industry last year. Consumers are charged more for niche markets. I think things are starting to change, though. The more money the industry takes in, the more consoles that get sold, the bigger the game sales, eventually, someone is going to notice.
Hypothetical. I believe that if video games cost the same as movies, games would be a bigger industry than Hollywood could ever be. People would pay $200 for a console, if they could get new, big releases for $15 to $20. Sales would sky rocket because more people would be willing to get their feet wet. $50 is a huge investment for a game that might not be worth anything, but $20 is low enough that people are willing to give it a shot. I can't count the number of times I've lost console sales because I get asked "And how much are games?" I honestly believe that if one of the big three decides to release their next console at $150 and price point all games at $25 or less, they will not be able to keep up with demand.
Now somebody please shoot me down, so I can quit dreaming.
The fun ones to trouble shoot, though, are those that need to be taught how to double-click. A rarer breed of computer user to be sure, but one that provides much more frivolity.
That's all right. There was supposed to be a paragraph break inbetween the Mac comment and the question, I just failed to format it correctly. I still, though, appreciate your answer. Nice to hear the occasional reasonable voice.
Okay, once and for all, the Mac comment was a joke. Honestly. I wasn't serious about that.
Thank you, however, for having a reasonable response to the serious, second part of my comment. I'm too poor to give the others a fair shake and I was honestly curious.
Note to self: no more joking about platform choices....
I should have known better than to joke about switching to Macs.....
Anyway, this is neither here nor there. Obviously for you, customization and the ability to think as little as possible when working on your computer is more important to you than innovation, stability and security.
Now, before you get angry, allow me to clarify. We'll work this backwards. Thinking as little as possible is not necessarily a bad thing. If you want your menus in your windows, then fine. I have a hard time believing you can't figure out how the menu bar on a Mac works, though. In OSX the name of the application the menu bar is related to is right there next to the file menu. Easy access, easy to see. Plus, if you're in the wrong app, all it takes is switching to an app window or selecting it on the dock.
As far as customization goes, personally, I could take it or leave it. I can put a desktop picture, I can even change various graphics and animations, I, however, don't really feel the need to, though.
A big part of why Apple doesn't have a wide range of customization is because you have one operating system for every level of user. My mother doesn't want to have to dig through seventy different control panels to fix something simple. She wants it right there in front of her, and she could care less about what her windows look like. The "candy-colored crap" (which I'll address in a minute) is directed at her. It looks "cool." To her anyway.
Yes, we "power users" have to work at our customization, but that's the point of being a power user, right?
As far as "forcing candy-colored crap and brushed metal down your throat," this comes to innovation. I take it you haven't looked at Microsoft's next OS, and you must have also missed the glut of PC manufacturers that jumped on the colored case band-wagon. The colors, though, are a moot point, since it's been a year or two since they sold colored iMacs, anyway. And "Longhorn," the next-gen OS that's three years away, has basically ripped off the brushed metal look, only minus the brushing.
I've tried to put my bias aside, but on that last note, I've gotta say this. It's becoming more and more apparent that Apple is the one that sets the bar, for software and style anyway, and MS and its PC clone followers just keep straining to touch that bar. I'd honestly be willing to bet that if Apple, in 2005, released an OSX update that changed the brushed-metal to a purple-with-pink-polka-dots format, MS would revamp their whole UI to violet-blue-with-Barbie-pink-squares.
Come now.... I've had that "pleasure"..... It's an experience I'd rather not relive....
Of course, this is just another example of the "Ship it anyway!" mentality that's running rampant among developers and publishers. "Why bother making it work to begin with? Market it to the moon, make it sell well and we can just PATCH it later!"
Is there any way to revolt against an industry...?
You'll be wanting to get a Mac, then.
In all seriousness, you honestly believe that Windows serves you better? That not having to update your OS's security holes five times a week and constantly sorting out what e-mails are good and what are viruses doesn't count as a beneficial "thing"?
What beneficial "thing" do you need?
Slashdot Mirror
"Mom, that's the one I want!" A twelve year old's pointing at Vice City.
The mother turns to me, "Can you get that out for us?"
Me: "Sure, but do you know that it's rated M for sexual content and extreme violence."
Mother: "Really? No, I didn't."
Kid gets whacked for trying to sneak one past her.
And I will not sell M rated games, or R rated movies, to children without their parent's knowledge first. Besides that, the ratings are starting to work. More and more I have customers that won't buy T rated games even because their child is only 12. M rated is right out.
This will fail. I have no doubt of that. It's started by some no name legislator looking to get headlines. The game industry is huge, and in a few years, the ESRB ratings will be as ubiquitous as the MPAA ratings.
(joke)
Actually, Bilbo gave the ring up. If the ring had had its way, it would have gone off with Bilbo. Gandalf at the time didn't know what the ring was, and the dwarves that accompanied Bilbo in the book wouldn't have known to protect the ring, should their party come under seige. The ring would have had a far easier time getting back to Sauron by sticking with Bilbo. Recall, the ring's wasn't the only will at work.
And a couple of beginnings, too.
Impaled on some rocks? Oh, I hope not. The thing I liked most about the fate of Saruman was that in the end, he, the greatest of all the wizards, ended up the lowest person on Middle-Earth, except for Wormtongue.
Much as I love my country, I refuse to allow myself to be lumped in with "us Americans" and "the public". I work for Wal-Mart (don't start, it pays the bills) and I see a pretty good cross-section of the country, and it sometimes worries me just how many idiots are populating the nation at the moment.
...if not for the fact that it's probably just a PR move. It seems like every time the U.S. has something to do with China, human rights becomes the issue of the day. By releasing a couple of dissidents, China can say "Look, we respect human rights." It rings very hollow.
The gaming industry at the moment is in a self-created Catch 22.... The higher cost restricts the size of the target audience, thereby "justifying" the higher cost. If Grand Theft Auto 4 comes out at $20, I would bet cash-money that nearly every single person with a PS2 would own it. There is a perception that only substandard games get released at the $20 price point, and until some company takes a chance and actually allows high quality games to come out at that price, the market will remain well below its potential. Sony has started to figure this out, I think, with their decision to release their first-party games at $40, but it's going to take something more major than that for the game industry to see its true potential.
This, of course, is why nobody really wants to develop for the flooded PC market and why the console market exists, if you are well capitalized and can afford to hire the right people, get all the SDKs and negotiate good terms.
Your own reasoning is flawed here. Perhaps I live in a bubble market, but brand new PC games around here come out at ten to twenty dollars cheaper than the exact same game on the consoles. By your reasoning, PC games are harder to make, harder to support, and consequently requiring more time and more money. Arguably, this should make PC games cost more than console games, but they don't. Besides, even with development costs, game budgets are only now even coming close to movie budgets. They've cost $50 for a long time.
I think what it comes down to is, gamers are still willing to pay fifty bucks for a game. Gaming is still considered to be a niche market, despite the fact that it was a multi-billion dollar industry last year. Consumers are charged more for niche markets. I think things are starting to change, though. The more money the industry takes in, the more consoles that get sold, the bigger the game sales, eventually, someone is going to notice.
Hypothetical. I believe that if video games cost the same as movies, games would be a bigger industry than Hollywood could ever be. People would pay $200 for a console, if they could get new, big releases for $15 to $20. Sales would sky rocket because more people would be willing to get their feet wet. $50 is a huge investment for a game that might not be worth anything, but $20 is low enough that people are willing to give it a shot. I can't count the number of times I've lost console sales because I get asked "And how much are games?" I honestly believe that if one of the big three decides to release their next console at $150 and price point all games at $25 or less, they will not be able to keep up with demand.
Now somebody please shoot me down, so I can quit dreaming.
The fun ones to trouble shoot, though, are those that need to be taught how to double-click. A rarer breed of computer user to be sure, but one that provides much more frivolity.
I'll take your word on it, as the movie download is timing out at the moment. I'll also apologize. I thought you might have been serious.
That's all right. There was supposed to be a paragraph break inbetween the Mac comment and the question, I just failed to format it correctly. I still, though, appreciate your answer. Nice to hear the occasional reasonable voice.
Thank you, however, for having a reasonable response to the serious, second part of my comment. I'm too poor to give the others a fair shake and I was honestly curious.
Note to self: no more joking about platform choices....
Wow, that comment was so ridiculously out of touch with the present, that I'm not even sure what kind of dated slang I should respond with.
Anyway, this is neither here nor there. Obviously for you, customization and the ability to think as little as possible when working on your computer is more important to you than innovation, stability and security.
Now, before you get angry, allow me to clarify. We'll work this backwards. Thinking as little as possible is not necessarily a bad thing. If you want your menus in your windows, then fine. I have a hard time believing you can't figure out how the menu bar on a Mac works, though. In OSX the name of the application the menu bar is related to is right there next to the file menu. Easy access, easy to see. Plus, if you're in the wrong app, all it takes is switching to an app window or selecting it on the dock.
As far as customization goes, personally, I could take it or leave it. I can put a desktop picture, I can even change various graphics and animations, I, however, don't really feel the need to, though.
A big part of why Apple doesn't have a wide range of customization is because you have one operating system for every level of user. My mother doesn't want to have to dig through seventy different control panels to fix something simple. She wants it right there in front of her, and she could care less about what her windows look like. The "candy-colored crap" (which I'll address in a minute) is directed at her. It looks "cool." To her anyway.
Yes, we "power users" have to work at our customization, but that's the point of being a power user, right?
As far as "forcing candy-colored crap and brushed metal down your throat," this comes to innovation. I take it you haven't looked at Microsoft's next OS, and you must have also missed the glut of PC manufacturers that jumped on the colored case band-wagon. The colors, though, are a moot point, since it's been a year or two since they sold colored iMacs, anyway. And "Longhorn," the next-gen OS that's three years away, has basically ripped off the brushed metal look, only minus the brushing.
I've tried to put my bias aside, but on that last note, I've gotta say this. It's becoming more and more apparent that Apple is the one that sets the bar, for software and style anyway, and MS and its PC clone followers just keep straining to touch that bar. I'd honestly be willing to bet that if Apple, in 2005, released an OSX update that changed the brushed-metal to a purple-with-pink-polka-dots format, MS would revamp their whole UI to violet-blue-with-Barbie-pink-squares.
Of course, this is just another example of the "Ship it anyway!" mentality that's running rampant among developers and publishers. "Why bother making it work to begin with? Market it to the moon, make it sell well and we can just PATCH it later!"
Is there any way to revolt against an industry...?
You'll be wanting to get a Mac, then. In all seriousness, you honestly believe that Windows serves you better? That not having to update your OS's security holes five times a week and constantly sorting out what e-mails are good and what are viruses doesn't count as a beneficial "thing"? What beneficial "thing" do you need?
What better way to do it?