"This is not a Kennedy-type announcement. We are not going back to the Moon, we will not be going to Mars, and more than likely, we will not be replacing the space shuttles."
This is about policy? Funny, he seems to be saying that the policy is a lie and, therefore, that the man is a liar. I know that perhaps in your social circles, honesty has become devalued but in mine, calling someone a liar is a rather hateful thing to do - and has nothing to do with policy.
I did not respond to your other comments because they were phrased in a rude manner. I tried to educate you. You asked a question about why it would take 16 years. I tried to give you an answer. You responded by trying to tell me how wrong I was. Funny, you were the one asking the question and suddenly you've got all the answers. What's the point talking to you if all you do is reply with nit-picking and 'No, you're wrong.' I just don't have the patience for your bullshit.
I believe the President's name is "Bush." Perhaps, in the future, if you want to offer political insight, you will avoid childish twisting of names. It undermines any possible point you might make.
This is very similar to those who call Microsoft, M$ or refer to Linux as Lunix. Make a point, not an insult.
Why is it going to take 16 years to return? Because the original Apollo missions had much different goals than establishing a base there. Haven't you listened to anything coming out of NASA? They're talking about taking the next step in craft development and finally retiring the space shuttle, which has long been an idea whose time has come and gone.
It's great that you are you hateful towards George Bush and you couldn't agree more and everything but why don't you try to read the news. You might be surprised that NASA is pretty pleased about this announcement and many at NASA have long wanted to go in a new direction, away from the space shuttle, but since the space shuttle was seen as a very popular program to the public, it was not possible. Bush has stepped up and made the way clear for NASA scientists to do what they need to do.
And you can't understand the issue, so how can you be so sure that it is all about politics?
I thought that by making such a short reply that did not effectively communicate my actual thoughts, since I didn't back the statement up with any reasoning, that everyone would get the joke I was making - social interaction on the Internet can sometimes be more about being anti-social and rude to people than by having a real social interaction. I guess my little joke was a bit too avant garde for most though.
Thanks for the insight but I already thought that the Internet is a fine means for social interaction.
Yeah, that line about the decline of gaming seemed a little strange. The gaming industry has grown and grown and worldwide sales are at an all-time high. I don't know what he's talking about.
It's a little unfortunate that whoever conducted the interview didn't ask him what he was going for by saying that. The video game industry has expanded and expanded and expanded. I don't see a huge recession and I don't see people getting tired of video games and leaving the market entirely. In fact, more people are entering the market and getting into video games.
"but in any case it was the first FPS game on a console where the controls felt comfortable."
That statement doesn't help your argument because it's so subjective. People raved about how they enjoyed Goldeneye's controls but I found them to be quite unenjoyable. You see, one man's comfortable control settings are another man's uncomfortable control settings. You see, it seems like you're trying to push two lines - one is that Halo is the best FPS ever [which is again, a subjective opinion and for you, Halo might be the best FPS ever, and it's really a fine statement to make since it is obviously a personal opinion and one can never say that a single game is the best for everyone who plays games], the other is that Halo is a revolutionary game that has done more to advance FPS gaming on consoles than any other. That's less of an opinion and more grounded in fact. I would say choose the second and back it up with facts, not opinions on the comfort of the control scheme.
"and most people I have talked to agree."
We're proving points using statistics gathered from our peers now? Well, those are meaningful numbers...
"where an author actually admits he was initially wrong"
He didn't really apologize though. Sure, he said it was an apology but look at what he said: "Certainly many gamers read my column as a statement that I believe that they are bad people. For that impression I am sorry. I did not and do not believe that." The only thing he is sorry about is that people missed his point. His point wasn't that video game players were bad people but that there was a link between video games and violent behavior and that someone playing a violent video game would have his mind warped to the point where violence seemed like a good idea. It was a nothing apology with no credibility. Every "apology" issued in the media these days is rarely a real apology. "I'm sorry. I was wrong." is an apology. "I'm sorry if you were offended." or "I'm sorry if you thought I said something other than what I said." places the problem squarely on the reader/viewer/whatever, not with the asshole that made the ignorant comment to begin with. Bill France knows nothing about video games and continues to deserve nothing but disrespect.
Look at what you originally posted. It was all about how you were upset. You've only as of late latched onto this economic stance. Why can't you just admit that you were talking out of your ass?
I mean, you brought up the term monopoly. Why did you even say monopoly? Who is a monopoly again? You still haven't answered that one tough guy.
Yup, just below your post, the problem surfaces. There is a world of possible reasons why this guy left that don't involve the actual company itself. Of course, on Slashdot - it's got to be because the downfall of MS is right around the corner.
Wrong, your whole argument seems to focus on the way you are upset by not being able to play Nintendo games on your PC. Can't you read your post? You have posted about how this affects you personally and not how Nintendo's bottom line would be affected.
And you were calling what company a monopoly with your little comment? You never cleared that up.
Sony doesn't sell at a loss. The only console companies that have ever sold at a loss [and were not just clearing inventory at the end of a product's lifetime] are Sega and Microsoft.
Nintendo's business model relies on not porting their games to anything other than their platforms. Why can't you understand this? The amount of sales that they would get from the PS2, XBox, and PC would be weighed against the value-loss the Gamecube would feel and the fewer licensing dollars that would be coming in when everyone decided there was no need to own a Gamecube anymore.
First off, who ever told you that you had a right not to be frustrated as a consumer?
Your idea of what a monopoly is also needs some work. You want the government step in and tell Nintendo that they have to port Metroid Prime to the PC? And you're not eliminating any competition by doing both hardware and software. Companies are still entitled to develop their own hardware and software combination and beat you in the free market. I don't understand how you believe competition is being driven out.
If you don't like Nintendo's way of doing things, don't buy their products. But you certainly have no constitutional right to be able to play console games on any system. A monopoly huh? Check the market. Is Nintendo, Microsoft, or Sony a monopoly in the video game hardware business? Gee, since I asked about three different companies, that should make that question fairly easy to answer for you.
I don't understand what's technologically infeasible about your idea. In fact, I don't think you've really explained your idea too well. Please expand.
Latency issues are becoming less and less important in game development these days with more processing power and more in-home broadband.
For that matter, why won't Nintendo make Metroid Prime for the PS2? Or perhaps the XBox?
I mean, come on. Nintendo is in the hardware business to make money off of licenses that companies pay to release games for their hardware. The more attractive they can make their hardware, [i.e. exclusive games that you can't get anywhere else] the more money they make.
Wait, did you understand all this and just expect Nintendo to ignore their business model so that you'd be happy?
I don't think that you're ever going to see the mouse as a standard part of a console. But a company that releases a line of RPGs or strategy games or first person shooters might be wise to develop, brand, and package a mouse that can come with their line of games. It's a great advertising mechanism. I know a lot of people who now know the company Logitech because of the USB headsets that are sold for the PS2. And from what I've seen, Logitech doesn't have any competition on this front.
I think a company would drop a little money into the market and push the mouse for the masses. Just think about it, you might be playing the latest RPG from Company_B but you're still using Company_A's mouse, which keeps that company at the forefront of your mind. And companies are always looking to win mindspace.
Big deal - there's been a Doom 3 box at EB for awhile now. Just because a retail outlet says a product is going to be out on a date, doesn't mean much of anything - especially when it comes to a video game.
This is completely meaningless. Stores put release dates out that are wrong quite often. Move on, move on.
"as indicated by your bio on your/. hope page ("let's get more freaks and foes! let's see how many people can hate me!")"
Is that my what bio reads? I think not. My bio references fans and freaks. Typical liberal disinformation.
Take your smear campaign elsewhere. I would respond to your other allegations but I would first like an apology since you just made a false statement about me.
Don't worry about it; I'm crafty - it's going to be $39.99
Oh, and my signature states that you should not reply. It doesn't say to reply with a snide comment but simply to not reply at all. Please don't waste my time in the future! Have a good day!
Slashdot Mirror
I did not respond to your other comments because they were phrased in a rude manner. I tried to educate you. You asked a question about why it would take 16 years. I tried to give you an answer. You responded by trying to tell me how wrong I was. Funny, you were the one asking the question and suddenly you've got all the answers. What's the point talking to you if all you do is reply with nit-picking and 'No, you're wrong.' I just don't have the patience for your bullshit.
This is very similar to those who call Microsoft, M$ or refer to Linux as Lunix. Make a point, not an insult.
It's great that you are you hateful towards George Bush and you couldn't agree more and everything but why don't you try to read the news. You might be surprised that NASA is pretty pleased about this announcement and many at NASA have long wanted to go in a new direction, away from the space shuttle, but since the space shuttle was seen as a very popular program to the public, it was not possible. Bush has stepped up and made the way clear for NASA scientists to do what they need to do.
And you can't understand the issue, so how can you be so sure that it is all about politics?
Whoa, money shots in zero gravity? That's troubling...
Thanks for the insight but I already thought that the Internet is a fine means for social interaction.
It's a little unfortunate that whoever conducted the interview didn't ask him what he was going for by saying that. The video game industry has expanded and expanded and expanded. I don't see a huge recession and I don't see people getting tired of video games and leaving the market entirely. In fact, more people are entering the market and getting into video games.
note sarcasm
I mean, you brought up the term monopoly. Why did you even say monopoly? Who is a monopoly again? You still haven't answered that one tough guy.
Do you know what a will is?
Yup, just below your post, the problem surfaces. There is a world of possible reasons why this guy left that don't involve the actual company itself. Of course, on Slashdot - it's got to be because the downfall of MS is right around the corner.
And you were calling what company a monopoly with your little comment? You never cleared that up.
Sony doesn't sell at a loss. The only console companies that have ever sold at a loss [and were not just clearing inventory at the end of a product's lifetime] are Sega and Microsoft.
Nintendo's business model relies on not porting their games to anything other than their platforms. Why can't you understand this? The amount of sales that they would get from the PS2, XBox, and PC would be weighed against the value-loss the Gamecube would feel and the fewer licensing dollars that would be coming in when everyone decided there was no need to own a Gamecube anymore.
Your idea of what a monopoly is also needs some work. You want the government step in and tell Nintendo that they have to port Metroid Prime to the PC? And you're not eliminating any competition by doing both hardware and software. Companies are still entitled to develop their own hardware and software combination and beat you in the free market. I don't understand how you believe competition is being driven out.
If you don't like Nintendo's way of doing things, don't buy their products. But you certainly have no constitutional right to be able to play console games on any system. A monopoly huh? Check the market. Is Nintendo, Microsoft, or Sony a monopoly in the video game hardware business? Gee, since I asked about three different companies, that should make that question fairly easy to answer for you.
Latency issues are becoming less and less important in game development these days with more processing power and more in-home broadband.
I mean, come on. Nintendo is in the hardware business to make money off of licenses that companies pay to release games for their hardware. The more attractive they can make their hardware, [i.e. exclusive games that you can't get anywhere else] the more money they make.
Wait, did you understand all this and just expect Nintendo to ignore their business model so that you'd be happy?
I think a company would drop a little money into the market and push the mouse for the masses. Just think about it, you might be playing the latest RPG from Company_B but you're still using Company_A's mouse, which keeps that company at the forefront of your mind. And companies are always looking to win mindspace.
Somehow, I'm not sure that helps us to determine anything substantial about the system.
This is completely meaningless. Stores put release dates out that are wrong quite often. Move on, move on.
The premise of my argument still holds.
Take your smear campaign elsewhere. I would respond to your other allegations but I would first like an apology since you just made a false statement about me.
Oh, and my signature states that you should not reply. It doesn't say to reply with a snide comment but simply to not reply at all. Please don't waste my time in the future! Have a good day!