Btw, gimme some numbers on the GC selling 1.5 million more than the Xbox. I'll believe it when I see some credible stats...
I wouldn't go so far to say 1.5 million more than the Xbox, but the Xbox *IS* in third place, worldwide (No matter what Microsoft tries to spin by completely ignoring Japanese numbers when they speak of how they are 'in a definite second place').
Right before the GC price drop, the Xbox had around a 1.4 million unit lead in North America, a few hundred thousand unit lead in Europe/Australia, but was behind the GC by over 2.5 million units in Japan.
Even if we say the combined North American and European/Australian lead made it a 2 million unit lead between these territories, the GC was still ahead by over half a million units with their Japanese lead.
After November, though, it seems the GC has slashed the Xbox's 1.4 million lead down to under 1 million units (slightly over 900k unit lead for the Xbox in North America as of the end of November). This signifigantly cuts down the Xbox's lead in North America, and we don't know European/Australian numbers right now. And if the GC continues to outsell the Xbox like it has since its price drop, the GC will quickly eliminate any Xbox lead in North America (it slashed over 500k of the lead in 2 months).
But, this still puts the GC at slightly over a 1 million unit lead, worldwide, at the end of November.
I would say it is statistically insignifigant, when you look at the number of online console players vs. total consoles sold. It's under 2% of all the GC/Xbox/PS2 owners combined going online with their consoles right now (with under 1% of GC users, 1.5% of PS2 users, and 5.5% of Xbox users, but add in all the numbers which comes to over 80 million users/units, and around 1.5 million of them going online, and it's under 2% of all console users going online).
But, as a perception it isn't insignifigant. That's more why Nintendo has said why they will have some sort of online support ready for the next console. The perception. The current perception is that Nintendo is 'uncool' because they don't go online, except for 1 title.
So, even if Nintendo doen's really do much, themselves, with the online capabilities, they are able to stop people from saying the console can't do it and such. It's more PR than what they will or won't actually do with it.
Ruling against the use of the name Lindows is right, although not necessarily for (all) the reasons that Microsoft would cite.
Actually, for trademark infringment, it should not go in Microsoft's favor, because Microsoft never should have been given a trademark on the word Windows, let alone a registered trademark. The term has been in generic use since the 1970's, long before Microsoft decided to come out with Windows, to describe the areas in a GUI where programs would open and run.
Windows should not have its own trademark, which it does. The term Microsoft Windows could have a trademark, but Windows by itself should not. And, as of right now, it does.
The following are all taken from Microsoft's tradmark page concnering the Windows registered trademark liked above, not just the Microsoft Windows registered trademark.
Windows(R) 95 operating system
Windows(R) 98 operating system
Windows(R) 2000 operating system
Windows(R) CE operating system
Windows(R) Me operating system
Windows(R) XP operating system
Correct: After you install the Windows(R) operating system...
Incorrect: After installing Windows programs you can...
"Windows is a registered trademark of Microsoft Corporation in the United States and other countries."
The term "window" has been used to describe different areas and applications open in a GUI at least since Xerox first tested the GUI. This was well before Windows was ever started.
It is, indeed, a generic term in the computing world.
Technically, the trademarked names here are "Microsoft Windows" and "LindowsOS". So, um, yeah...not really the same at all.
Not according to Microsoft.(Google Cache) According to Microsoft, Windows is its own seperate registered tradmark. "Windows is a registered trademark of Microsoft Corporation in the United States and other countries."
Why would Rockstar help out a company that keeps trying to publicly cut it down?
Yeah, they'd never release a GTA game to any Nintendo platform... er wait, it's coming to the GBA.
It seems more likely that Take Two/Rockstar are figuring that the GC is the 'kiddy' console, and thus wouldn't see very healthy sales on it. Which may or may not be correct in the sale part, since games like Eternal Darkness sold horridly, even though they were critically acclaimed.
The Resident Evil remake and 0 sold over a million units each on the GC, though.
But, we also have to remember that this is the same company that said Max Payne simply couldn't be done on the GC; yet it, and Max Payne 2, can be somehow magically done on the technically (read: specs) inferiror PS2. Oh, and Max Payne is coming to the GBA as well...
It seems just as likely, if not moreso, that Rockstar wants to continue to portray the GC in the 'kiddy' image by not bringing out the high sellers on the other consoles. Yet they know they can potentially make a profit on the GBA, so they'll go there, even though it is far less powerful than the GC or even the N64.
It should be obvious that the Gamecube would not support DirectX anything.
And the PS2 does? I somehow doubt the PS2's OS and Graphics Sythesizer are DirectX compliant.
Besides, the GC utilizes mostly OpenGL, which is a hell of a lot less bloated than DirectX. Most DirectX comands and code are 3x the size of the same OpenGL code.
PS2 to XBOX is less of a problem because no "optimizing" needs to take place just to make it run.
Proof? The PS2 uses prorietary graphics programs and OpenGL, not DirectX (which they would have to license from Microsoft to run, and I doubt MS would be licesnsig this to Sony). The only reason your statement is half true is because nVidia kept OpenGL drivers on the Xbox GPU, because nVidia is a supporter of both OpenGL and DirectX... but Microsoft does not make the OpenGL code easily accessible with SDKs. They want the games to run DirectX, you know, because the Xbox was originally called the DirectXbox...
Of course, truth be told, its still all just about cash.
Panasonic's parent company, Matsushita, worked with Nintendo to design the GC disk drives and the mini-DVD disks that the GC uses.
They are a partner with Nintendo on the GameCube, bust like IBM, ATi, and MoSys are.
Really, all they did was take the GC drive, make it bigger and able to read both GC disks and DVDs (and CDs) and market it. This was done with Nintendo's blessing, as Nintendo only wanted to market the game-machine-only GC, while Panasonic could market the multi-function Q.
As for the "no way in hell" argument, that is my personal belief that MS, as an industry leader, would not risk embarassing itself by intentionally putting gpl code into windows.
I beleive Microsoft has even mandated that no GPLed code may be incorporated into ANY Microsoft release. Maybe they fear the prospect that they'd have to release more than just the GPLed code if they did so.
(IIRC Star Wars is D6 only, WhiteWolf is D10 only)
You are correct about White Wolf's sytem being D10 only. The Star Wars RPG, however, is no longer the D6 method. LucasFilm and Wizards of the Coast now put out the new Star Wars RPG, and it is D20 (full D&D 3rd Ed rules with slight modifications). The old West End Games version was D6, however.
In some ways, you are very correct, in others, the White Wolf system shines above D&D and other systems.
Combat, for example, is a bitch and a half in the Storyteller System (White Wolf), while it is very simple and efficient in D&D.
However, the role playing parts are more important in the White Wolf system. Or, at least they're supposed to be. It doesn't always happen, and min-maxers/twinks are abundant in the White Wolf games.
I agree that you sometimes find people 'playing Vampire' but not always playing Vampire: the Masquerade. To some it's a difference they may not see, but it seems you do understand the difference, even though you do not really like/get into the White Wolf games.
White Wolf already uses a much more skill based system than D&D.
You could say there are different 'classes' within the White Wolf games, as they do have different calns/tribes/kiths/traditions/etc. in all their games, but these 'classes' only affect certain aspects of the characters, while (most of) the rest of the skills and such used are not dependednt upon what type of character 'class' is chosen.
Granted, White Wolf is a far cry from the sales of D&D, but they are number two in the pen and paper RPG world, IIRC. Plus, they have their Swords and Sorcery line which is d20 (and sells very well from all accounts), plus they are the publishers of Ravenloft now as well.
Oddly enough, though, White Wolf is publishing the EverQuest pen and paper RPG as well under the OGL (not the d20 license). Or, at least they were as of this past August, I don't know if that has chenged.
I'm not going to get into the big parts of this argument....but you did say:
Hell the quality is so damned high they can -charge- for it. and it keeps growing.
Um, how is not being able to mention signifigantly higher subscriber numbers since late APRIL able to be said as "keeps growing?"
Microsoft's last numbers were ~500k worldwide. Those numbers were mentioned in late April 2003, and in the 8 months since then, it hasn't seemed to grow. MS hasn't released new numbers, and just maintains the ~500k worldwide number.
We all know when something MS does isn't doing as well as they hope, they don't talk about it. They aren't talking about Live subscriptions at all. They were all press releases and comments when it was going strong... but sales do seem to have flatlined on Xbox Live over the past 8 months. They're giving away 2 free months with every Xbox now, in the hopes of getting more subscribers.
If they can't even say ~600k worldwide, in total, in 8 months since the last numbers were given, well, it just looks like it certainly isn't growing.
Either way, I was fairly shocked by the content, and I consider myself pretty unshockable.
I wasn't shocked, really. Some of the violent kills made me go 'ew' for half a second, but not shocking.
I think I played through the first three levels or so then got bored with it. Shocking only goes so far, and I thought that the controls made executions overly difficult.
100% agree. In fact, we made it to around the same area, it sounds, before we both got bored of it.
I would disagree with this part. Your character is, after all, a convicted multi-murderer and was sentenced to death by lethal injection. And he seems to be able to kill in the most grisly ways without a second thought in the game as well.
Hardly innocent by any stretch of the imagination.
The kill or be killed motto only goes so far. I would assume that put in the same situation, most normal people would throw their guts up after the first kill (and they certainly wouldn't be going for eye gouges with a shard of glass, or crowbars through the back of the skull), if not just totally screw up and get themselves killed real quick.
Still, I didn't finish the game, either. But it was so boring, I couldn't play more than 2 hours before being thankful I only rented it and returned it to the video store.
I haven't played Manhunt so I don't know if the ESRB should have rated it Adults Only. I'm sure it deserved the Mature label at least, which it got.
I have played it. AO or M is a tough call. The ESRB said M, others say AO should have been given. But due to some of the violence, I say it really is tough to call.
The thing is, it all depends on how you kill the people that determines how graphic the scene is. The longer you hold the button, the more graphic the scene (a target indicator goes from gray, to green, to yellow, to red; with each successive color more violent and graphic than the last). Using a glass shard, for example, and going all the way to red has you stab the guy in the throat, then gauge out his eyes with the piece of glass, which is pretty violent and graphic in my book.
All in all, though, Manhunt just isn't a fun game. The game gets repetetive early on (and stays that way), has in incredibly boring pace, and has some major issues when it comes to collision detection, the use of sound as something that gives you away (press the attack button before your stance changes, and your fist(?!?)/weapon makes a really loud whoosh which alerts enemies to your presence), and AI intelligence. Honestly, the only two reasons it will sell are because Rockstar made it, and it is incredibly violent. Although I hear it does some neat things with the USB headsets, such as allowing you to scream into it and scare the 'hunters' if they're near you.
It is pretty obvious that Lindows intentionally named their product for just this sort of attention.
You may be right, but Lindows is using a tactic in their US court case that may work. May.
They're saying that "Windows" is a generic computing term, especially in GUIs (which it is). You are not supposed to be allowed to trademark generic terms.
If that part works, then Microsoft will lose their trademark on "Windows" by itself. They could still have thier trademark on the phrase "Microsoft Windows", but they would no longer be allowed to have the word "Windows" itself trademarked, like it is now.
They're also going after the fact that Microsoft has failed to try and protect their trademark in the past, and that the only reason they are doing so now is because the Lindows.com "LindowsOS" is a competitor. (Trademark laws state you can and will lose your trademark if it is not actively defended.)
So far, it seems US courts seem to be agreeing with Lindows.com on the issue.
because there is NO SUCH thing for the Xbox. Downloadable content only adds to the experience, it doesn't fix it if it's broken. Otherwise we'd have seen a patch for KOTOR months ago, since it is LIVE enabled.
Please see Unreal Championship, Capcom Vs. SNK 2 EO, NFL 2K3, Crimsons Skies, and a host of other Live games that have been patched. UC and CvSNK were the only two games that were publically announced as having patches (tarnishing MS' promise of no patches on XBL); but Microsoft does mandate that all XBL games have the ability to be patched.
Instead of announcing a patch, publically, what will happen when you try to connect to XBL when a patch is available is that you will get is a screen that says "Xbox Live has an update available, you will not be able to connect to Xbox Live until this update is installed." Yet, if you pop in another XBL game, you can connect fine. That's how they're hiding the patches now.
XBL has patches. You just didn't realize you were seeing them.
More complex? Consider narcotics. Let's say you and I are driving around one day in my car and you inadvertently forget and leave your stash in my glovebox. The next day I lend my car to my sister, who gets pulled over (or tries to cross the border) and the car gets searched. The authorities find the drugs. Who is guilty of possession? Is it (a) the vehicle owner, (b) the owner of the substances, or (c) your sister?
Whoever is driving the car at the time is responsible, according to the law.
A friend of mine was thrown in jail while visiting Floriday because he had given a ride to a friend, and she had weed in her purse. They were pulled over, out of state car (NJ) so searched, found the drugs in her purse...and my friend who was driving went to jail. Even though the girl admitted the stuff was hers, my friend went to jail because he was operating the vehicle at the time and is responsible for any and everything within it.
A while back MS fired a bunch of Japanese employees by escorting them one-by-one into an office, telling them they were fired, and having armed security make sure they got out quickly. This kind of action is not taken well in Japan, where employers often enough try to do as much as possible to assist those they have to let go in respect.
Um, the Xbox had been tanking in Japan for over a year, already, when MS did this. While it certainly didn't help Xbox sales, it couldn't have made them much worse, since the PSOne and Wonderswan Crystal consitently outselll the Xbox in Japan. (In fact, this happened a few months back, and the Xbox just had it's best week EVER in Japan, selling aroun 7k units in one week; which shows this didn't affect the Japanese market too much, and, in fact, Xbox sales increased by a few dozen units right after they fired the people.)
While this did happen, it has had positively no bearing on why the Xbox is an absolute failure in the Japanese market. It certainly doesn't explain why they could barely move units each week for a year or so before the firing of the people in the Japanese Xbox Division.
I think that is mostly attributed to the fact that they'd sound pretty damn stupid announcing a milestone like "550K"
Yes. You're right. But as of now, MS looks like it's sold all the Xbox Live kits it's going to, since in nearly 8 months the number hasn't grown to 600k or more. Remember, it's all in perception. With 8 months at the same number, the perception is Xbox Live is simply not selling.
But the point I was making is to make that 1 million number by June, they damn well need to show it is selling already. If the market thinks it isn't selling, then it won't sell.
If you look at the math, they had a good Christmas for XBL last year. Nearly 250k subscribers, including myself, to a pretty much big unkown. Then sales dropped after Christmas, as expected. Then Japan launches, with little fanfare. Then Europe launches, to the tune of 80K units over the fist month or so. Then we get to May.
If we say they had 250k by January, then by May had another 250k, that means that they should have been selling an average of 50k XBL subpscriptions a month. Which means by now, if they kept that rate, they would be close to the 1 million goal already with around 900k subscribers.
But they aren't. At least not vocally. And we all know MS isn't not vocal about things they expect to be a huge success unless they aren't being as big a success as they thought. We have to face facts. XBL has flatlined as far as new subscriptions go (raising the price to $70 for the starter kit certainly didn't help). They need each and every Xbox sold over this Christmas to activate an Xbox Live account and stay past the free two months if they even have a prayer of reaching 1 million XBL subscribers by June. And with no word as to the real release date of Halo 2, that isn't likely to happen.
Since the number of online capable GC games is practically null compared the number Xbox has (approaching 100 by the end of this year I believe and will probably double that next year since every game is practically getting it now whether or not it needs it), you can safely remove GC from your calculation.
While it's true that there is but 1 GC online game right now (soon to be 2 with PSO Ep III C.A.R.D. Battle), we can't take it out of the equation. It has online capabilities, and it has at least 1 online game. Therefore it has to be included in the equation.
But, again, the point of the equation is to show that, yes, online console gaming is a niche market right now. When less than 2% of all the consoles in this gen sold are going online, no matter how many titles are available for each system, it is definitely a niche market right now.
You may feel it isn't a niche market, but the numbers don't lie. The vast majority of console players are not going online for any number of reasons. When a small minority are doing something in a market, then it is a niche. Online console gaming falls into the very small minority area, thus niche.
[... T]here will not be a next generation console WITHOUT online support. Period. It is guaranteed.
You are most likely correct. It doesn't mean online console gaming will suddenly explode into the 'next big thing', but you are most likely correct that no console will be released in the future without some form of online ability built in.
Therefore, as I already said, Nintendo needs to get its ass in gear so that it doesn't easily lose due to inexperience in the area.
You do know that Nintendo had a modem for the Famicom (NES in America) in Japan, right? That was years before Microsoft even cared about the Internet. I think they'll have something set up, but I don't think they want to tip their hats as to what it is right now.
They'll say what they've got planned when they're ready. It may not be the smartest decision they could make, holding back info that is, but it is how Nintendo does their thing.
Slashdot Mirror
I wouldn't go so far to say 1.5 million more than the Xbox, but the Xbox *IS* in third place, worldwide (No matter what Microsoft tries to spin by completely ignoring Japanese numbers when they speak of how they are 'in a definite second place').
Right before the GC price drop, the Xbox had around a 1.4 million unit lead in North America, a few hundred thousand unit lead in Europe/Australia, but was behind the GC by over 2.5 million units in Japan.
Even if we say the combined North American and European/Australian lead made it a 2 million unit lead between these territories, the GC was still ahead by over half a million units with their Japanese lead.
After November, though, it seems the GC has slashed the Xbox's 1.4 million lead down to under 1 million units (slightly over 900k unit lead for the Xbox in North America as of the end of November). This signifigantly cuts down the Xbox's lead in North America, and we don't know European/Australian numbers right now. And if the GC continues to outsell the Xbox like it has since its price drop, the GC will quickly eliminate any Xbox lead in North America (it slashed over 500k of the lead in 2 months).
But, this still puts the GC at slightly over a 1 million unit lead, worldwide, at the end of November.
But, as a perception it isn't insignifigant. That's more why Nintendo has said why they will have some sort of online support ready for the next console. The perception. The current perception is that Nintendo is 'uncool' because they don't go online, except for 1 title.
So, even if Nintendo doen's really do much, themselves, with the online capabilities, they are able to stop people from saying the console can't do it and such. It's more PR than what they will or won't actually do with it.
You, and the others, would be wrong. Microsoft, Microsoft Windows, and Windows are all registered trademarks of Microsoft.
Ruling against the use of the name Lindows is right, although not necessarily for (all) the reasons that Microsoft would cite.
Actually, for trademark infringment, it should not go in Microsoft's favor, because Microsoft never should have been given a trademark on the word Windows, let alone a registered trademark. The term has been in generic use since the 1970's, long before Microsoft decided to come out with Windows, to describe the areas in a GUI where programs would open and run.
Windows should not have its own trademark, which it does. The term Microsoft Windows could have a trademark, but Windows by itself should not. And, as of right now, it does.
The following are all taken from Microsoft's tradmark page concnering the Windows registered trademark liked above, not just the Microsoft Windows registered trademark.
Windows(R) 95 operating system
Windows(R) 98 operating system
Windows(R) 2000 operating system
Windows(R) CE operating system
Windows(R) Me operating system
Windows(R) XP operating system
Correct: After you install the Windows(R) operating system...
Incorrect: After installing Windows programs you can...
"Windows is a registered trademark of Microsoft Corporation in the United States and other countries."
It is, indeed, a generic term in the computing world.
Not according to Microsoft.(Google Cache) According to Microsoft, Windows is its own seperate registered tradmark. "Windows is a registered trademark of Microsoft Corporation in the United States and other countries."
Yeah, they'd never release a GTA game to any Nintendo platform... er wait, it's coming to the GBA.
It seems more likely that Take Two/Rockstar are figuring that the GC is the 'kiddy' console, and thus wouldn't see very healthy sales on it. Which may or may not be correct in the sale part, since games like Eternal Darkness sold horridly, even though they were critically acclaimed.
The Resident Evil remake and 0 sold over a million units each on the GC, though.
But, we also have to remember that this is the same company that said Max Payne simply couldn't be done on the GC; yet it, and Max Payne 2, can be somehow magically done on the technically (read: specs) inferiror PS2. Oh, and Max Payne is coming to the GBA as well...
It seems just as likely, if not moreso, that Rockstar wants to continue to portray the GC in the 'kiddy' image by not bringing out the high sellers on the other consoles. Yet they know they can potentially make a profit on the GBA, so they'll go there, even though it is far less powerful than the GC or even the N64.
And the PS2 does? I somehow doubt the PS2's OS and Graphics Sythesizer are DirectX compliant.
Besides, the GC utilizes mostly OpenGL, which is a hell of a lot less bloated than DirectX. Most DirectX comands and code are 3x the size of the same OpenGL code.
PS2 to XBOX is less of a problem because no "optimizing" needs to take place just to make it run.
Proof? The PS2 uses prorietary graphics programs and OpenGL, not DirectX (which they would have to license from Microsoft to run, and I doubt MS would be licesnsig this to Sony). The only reason your statement is half true is because nVidia kept OpenGL drivers on the Xbox GPU, because nVidia is a supporter of both OpenGL and DirectX... but Microsoft does not make the OpenGL code easily accessible with SDKs. They want the games to run DirectX, you know, because the Xbox was originally called the DirectXbox...
Of course, truth be told, its still all just about cash.
Most intelligent thing I think you've ever said.
But, it is huge compared to it's cousin.
But... it... would... look... so... good... next... to... my... HDTV... Must... resist..
They are a partner with Nintendo on the GameCube, bust like IBM, ATi, and MoSys are.
Really, all they did was take the GC drive, make it bigger and able to read both GC disks and DVDs (and CDs) and market it. This was done with Nintendo's blessing, as Nintendo only wanted to market the game-machine-only GC, while Panasonic could market the multi-function Q.
I beleive Microsoft has even mandated that no GPLed code may be incorporated into ANY Microsoft release. Maybe they fear the prospect that they'd have to release more than just the GPLed code if they did so.
You are correct about White Wolf's sytem being D10 only. The Star Wars RPG, however, is no longer the D6 method. LucasFilm and Wizards of the Coast now put out the new Star Wars RPG, and it is D20 (full D&D 3rd Ed rules with slight modifications). The old West End Games version was D6, however.
In some ways, you are very correct, in others, the White Wolf system shines above D&D and other systems.
Combat, for example, is a bitch and a half in the Storyteller System (White Wolf), while it is very simple and efficient in D&D.
However, the role playing parts are more important in the White Wolf system. Or, at least they're supposed to be. It doesn't always happen, and min-maxers/twinks are abundant in the White Wolf games.
I agree that you sometimes find people 'playing Vampire' but not always playing Vampire: the Masquerade. To some it's a difference they may not see, but it seems you do understand the difference, even though you do not really like/get into the White Wolf games.
White Wolf already uses a much more skill based system than D&D.
You could say there are different 'classes' within the White Wolf games, as they do have different calns/tribes/kiths/traditions/etc. in all their games, but these 'classes' only affect certain aspects of the characters, while (most of) the rest of the skills and such used are not dependednt upon what type of character 'class' is chosen.
Granted, White Wolf is a far cry from the sales of D&D, but they are number two in the pen and paper RPG world, IIRC. Plus, they have their Swords and Sorcery line which is d20 (and sells very well from all accounts), plus they are the publishers of Ravenloft now as well.
Oddly enough, though, White Wolf is publishing the EverQuest pen and paper RPG as well under the OGL (not the d20 license). Or, at least they were as of this past August, I don't know if that has chenged.
Hell the quality is so damned high they can -charge- for it. and it keeps growing.
Um, how is not being able to mention signifigantly higher subscriber numbers since late APRIL able to be said as "keeps growing?"
Microsoft's last numbers were ~500k worldwide. Those numbers were mentioned in late April 2003, and in the 8 months since then, it hasn't seemed to grow. MS hasn't released new numbers, and just maintains the ~500k worldwide number.
We all know when something MS does isn't doing as well as they hope, they don't talk about it. They aren't talking about Live subscriptions at all. They were all press releases and comments when it was going strong... but sales do seem to have flatlined on Xbox Live over the past 8 months. They're giving away 2 free months with every Xbox now, in the hopes of getting more subscribers.
If they can't even say ~600k worldwide, in total, in 8 months since the last numbers were given, well, it just looks like it certainly isn't growing.
I wasn't shocked, really. Some of the violent kills made me go 'ew' for half a second, but not shocking.
I think I played through the first three levels or so then got bored with it. Shocking only goes so far, and I thought that the controls made executions overly difficult.
100% agree. In fact, we made it to around the same area, it sounds, before we both got bored of it.
I would disagree with this part. Your character is, after all, a convicted multi-murderer and was sentenced to death by lethal injection. And he seems to be able to kill in the most grisly ways without a second thought in the game as well.
Hardly innocent by any stretch of the imagination.
The kill or be killed motto only goes so far. I would assume that put in the same situation, most normal people would throw their guts up after the first kill (and they certainly wouldn't be going for eye gouges with a shard of glass, or crowbars through the back of the skull), if not just totally screw up and get themselves killed real quick.
Still, I didn't finish the game, either. But it was so boring, I couldn't play more than 2 hours before being thankful I only rented it and returned it to the video store.
I have played it. AO or M is a tough call. The ESRB said M, others say AO should have been given. But due to some of the violence, I say it really is tough to call.
The thing is, it all depends on how you kill the people that determines how graphic the scene is. The longer you hold the button, the more graphic the scene (a target indicator goes from gray, to green, to yellow, to red; with each successive color more violent and graphic than the last). Using a glass shard, for example, and going all the way to red has you stab the guy in the throat, then gauge out his eyes with the piece of glass, which is pretty violent and graphic in my book.
All in all, though, Manhunt just isn't a fun game. The game gets repetetive early on (and stays that way), has in incredibly boring pace, and has some major issues when it comes to collision detection, the use of sound as something that gives you away (press the attack button before your stance changes, and your fist(?!?)/weapon makes a really loud whoosh which alerts enemies to your presence), and AI intelligence. Honestly, the only two reasons it will sell are because Rockstar made it, and it is incredibly violent. Although I hear it does some neat things with the USB headsets, such as allowing you to scream into it and scare the 'hunters' if they're near you.
You may be right, but Lindows is using a tactic in their US court case that may work. May.
They're saying that "Windows" is a generic computing term, especially in GUIs (which it is). You are not supposed to be allowed to trademark generic terms.
If that part works, then Microsoft will lose their trademark on "Windows" by itself. They could still have thier trademark on the phrase "Microsoft Windows", but they would no longer be allowed to have the word "Windows" itself trademarked, like it is now.
They're also going after the fact that Microsoft has failed to try and protect their trademark in the past, and that the only reason they are doing so now is because the Lindows.com "LindowsOS" is a competitor. (Trademark laws state you can and will lose your trademark if it is not actively defended.)
So far, it seems US courts seem to be agreeing with Lindows.com on the issue.
In fact, by E3, I beleive they had stated online was most likely not going to be there.
Please see Unreal Championship, Capcom Vs. SNK 2 EO, NFL 2K3, Crimsons Skies, and a host of other Live games that have been patched. UC and CvSNK were the only two games that were publically announced as having patches (tarnishing MS' promise of no patches on XBL); but Microsoft does mandate that all XBL games have the ability to be patched.
Instead of announcing a patch, publically, what will happen when you try to connect to XBL when a patch is available is that you will get is a screen that says "Xbox Live has an update available, you will not be able to connect to Xbox Live until this update is installed." Yet, if you pop in another XBL game, you can connect fine. That's how they're hiding the patches now.
XBL has patches. You just didn't realize you were seeing them.
They also gave Viewtiful Joe a 5.5...
Well, glad I had never heard of the site before, no I can go back to not having heard of it again.
Whoever is driving the car at the time is responsible, according to the law.
A friend of mine was thrown in jail while visiting Floriday because he had given a ride to a friend, and she had weed in her purse. They were pulled over, out of state car (NJ) so searched, found the drugs in her purse...and my friend who was driving went to jail. Even though the girl admitted the stuff was hers, my friend went to jail because he was operating the vehicle at the time and is responsible for any and everything within it.
Fun thing, eh?
Hormonal Teenage Boys.
Good job missing my point.
Really? I didn't see a valid point in that post that helped explain why the Xbox is an abject failure in Japan.
MS' western way of doing buisness may be a factor, but I doubt it's the biggest factor as to the lack of sales in Japan.
Um, the Xbox had been tanking in Japan for over a year, already, when MS did this. While it certainly didn't help Xbox sales, it couldn't have made them much worse, since the PSOne and Wonderswan Crystal consitently outselll the Xbox in Japan. (In fact, this happened a few months back, and the Xbox just had it's best week EVER in Japan, selling aroun 7k units in one week; which shows this didn't affect the Japanese market too much, and, in fact, Xbox sales increased by a few dozen units right after they fired the people.)
While this did happen, it has had positively no bearing on why the Xbox is an absolute failure in the Japanese market. It certainly doesn't explain why they could barely move units each week for a year or so before the firing of the people in the Japanese Xbox Division.
Any other reasons you'd like to hypothesise?
Yes. You're right. But as of now, MS looks like it's sold all the Xbox Live kits it's going to, since in nearly 8 months the number hasn't grown to 600k or more. Remember, it's all in perception. With 8 months at the same number, the perception is Xbox Live is simply not selling.
But the point I was making is to make that 1 million number by June, they damn well need to show it is selling already. If the market thinks it isn't selling, then it won't sell.
If you look at the math, they had a good Christmas for XBL last year. Nearly 250k subscribers, including myself, to a pretty much big unkown. Then sales dropped after Christmas, as expected. Then Japan launches, with little fanfare. Then Europe launches, to the tune of 80K units over the fist month or so. Then we get to May.
If we say they had 250k by January, then by May had another 250k, that means that they should have been selling an average of 50k XBL subpscriptions a month. Which means by now, if they kept that rate, they would be close to the 1 million goal already with around 900k subscribers.
But they aren't. At least not vocally. And we all know MS isn't not vocal about things they expect to be a huge success unless they aren't being as big a success as they thought. We have to face facts. XBL has flatlined as far as new subscriptions go (raising the price to $70 for the starter kit certainly didn't help). They need each and every Xbox sold over this Christmas to activate an Xbox Live account and stay past the free two months if they even have a prayer of reaching 1 million XBL subscribers by June. And with no word as to the real release date of Halo 2, that isn't likely to happen.
Since the number of online capable GC games is practically null compared the number Xbox has (approaching 100 by the end of this year I believe and will probably double that next year since every game is practically getting it now whether or not it needs it), you can safely remove GC from your calculation.
While it's true that there is but 1 GC online game right now (soon to be 2 with PSO Ep III C.A.R.D. Battle), we can't take it out of the equation. It has online capabilities, and it has at least 1 online game. Therefore it has to be included in the equation.
But, again, the point of the equation is to show that, yes, online console gaming is a niche market right now. When less than 2% of all the consoles in this gen sold are going online, no matter how many titles are available for each system, it is definitely a niche market right now.
You may feel it isn't a niche market, but the numbers don't lie. The vast majority of console players are not going online for any number of reasons. When a small minority are doing something in a market, then it is a niche. Online console gaming falls into the very small minority area, thus niche.
[... T]here will not be a next generation console WITHOUT online support. Period. It is guaranteed.
You are most likely correct. It doesn't mean online console gaming will suddenly explode into the 'next big thing', but you are most likely correct that no console will be released in the future without some form of online ability built in.
Therefore, as I already said, Nintendo needs to get its ass in gear so that it doesn't easily lose due to inexperience in the area.
You do know that Nintendo had a modem for the Famicom (NES in America) in Japan, right? That was years before Microsoft even cared about the Internet. I think they'll have something set up, but I don't think they want to tip their hats as to what it is right now.
They'll say what they've got planned when they're ready. It may not be the smartest decision they could make, holding back info that is, but it is how Nintendo does their thing.