I like McCloud's stuff, but after reading this I feel like he's a creepy guy in a trenchcoat following me around waiting for me drop a coin. Enough with the micropayments already!
Why? Because if I drop a quarter in an arcade cabinet, the quarter serves as physical proof that I dropped a quarter in there. Now, if I were actually in a real arcade (which is darn near impossible anyway), I can go to the arcade employee and tell him that the machine "ate my quarter," (another modern impossibility since the game would have cost no less than four quarters) but the fact remains that I've dropped a physical quarter in the machine. The machine just can't take a quarter out of my pocket without me looking.
But online payments reverse this. The power of the transaction is now firmly in the grip of the payee, not the payer. With micropayments, Scott McCloud's dream machine can take quarters from my pocket whenever it feels like making an error. I understand that there are checks and balances with the credit card companies, but what if some 10 year old kid uses his mom's debit card? How do I know that the game didn't charge me for 11 games when I only played 10? Who's going to go over their credit card statement to compare how many times they've played a certain game? Moreover, with a physical arcade, when I place the quarter into the machine it is physically me placing it a machine. Using a credit card for gaming micropayments across the internet is like giving someone all your quarters, telling him to pass to the next guy and so forth until someone is close the machine, have him to put one quarter in and then kindly hand back all the other quarters you didn't use. Repeat 5 times an hour, more if you suck at the game, each time, of course, becoming yet another opportunity for someone you don't trust to interupt that line and snag a quarter.
It should come as no surprise that McCloud pushes micropayments, and it should come as no surprise that someone at EA Redmond probably has several whiteboards full of micropayment ideas by now. They're content producers so, as I've illustrated, micropayments place power firmly in the grip of the producer.
Is it just me, or are McCloud's micropayments remeniscient of the old Office Space-a-roo, only legal?
"Is it really so hard to maintain a policy of keeping the product in similar condition to how it's traded in or maybe even stop accepting bare games altogether to give your customers more reason to take care of their games to retain value?"
Having worked at an EB for three years, I'll go ahead and state the obvious. Generally, the people who take care of games keep them. Those who don't tend to trade them in relatively early in the lifespan of the game. What happens is something of a trickle-down effect; as games drop in price, those who couldn't afford to buy them in the first place (kids, or families who don't put as much financial priority on video games) end up buying them. Lather, rinse, repeat.
With regards to game stores taking care of them, I can only speak for the store I work at. I've already mentioned that the people who take care of these games don't trade them in or already have. That means the conditions of the games these stores get is usually fairly subpar. I remember a few times when we would get an older system and games in immaculate condition. Dave isn't finding those because the game collectors, who would visit our store at least once or twice a week, bought those first. What's more is that if there are two copies of Starfox 64 on the shelf, and one is in top condition and the other is not, which is more likely to go first since they're under the same SKU?
Frankly, there's a lot of extremely obvious reasons why these games are not in the best of shape, some of which I'd provided. Why Dave didn't think this through before he wrote his article is beyond me. Maybe he thinks, quite mistakingly, that Steve Morgan of EB or some member of the gaming store echlon will read his article and suddenly agree with him. But if you're making the same amount of profit whether they are in good condition or poor condition (and these stores do), then why change the behavior? Moreover, the people who take care of games usually know they can get a heck of a lot more than $0.50 from EB for a mint condition game.
Your best bet, Dave, is to buy off of eBay and inevitably pay more for a game that is in mint condition. Surprise: you pay for what you get for. What's probably discouraging for Dave, though, is that if he hasn't thought of the obvious reasons why this has occured, he's probably not thought ahead to what's going to happen when the disc generation hits the same age that cartridges are now. Keepem while you gotem.
I wonder if Bard's Tale and Prince of Persia would have made it in their potpourri list if they had not had recent remakes. At least they spelled Broderbund right.
Who would have thunk the RIAA and their methods would be so prolific eh? Maybe this suing your customer base thing really works! Infinium is just jumping on the bandwagon next to Blizzard and Verant.
What has impressed me so far in Painkiller are the innovations in Artificial Intelligence. Half-Life 2, eat your heart out! The enemies act exactly as zombies do in real life, if zombies were in real life. Since zombies feel no pain (they're already dead!) they'll actually run straight at you while you're shooting at them. And as we know, zombies are a collective lot but aren't privy to working in teams so much. You hit one, and the other is completely oblivious that you're hitting his once former brother or wife. That is so realistic! Anyone seen 28 Days Later? Anyone? You remember thinking how great it would be to finally have realistic zombie intelligence and planning recreated in a video game experience? Well here it is!
What's even more impressive are the higher levels of AI, yes I said higher. The horny wizard dead fellows, for example, exhibit completely different AI patterns than our zombie friends. Instead of leaping at you, they'll actually walk slowly as if they're running but they're not, and if you approach they'll push you back! They know when you're close to them! Painkiller effectively integrates LBRS: Location Based Response Subroutines. Really, that's just fancy shmancy lingo for "realistic zombie shootin' fun"!
What will, unarguably, be posted in message boards across the internet in the coming weeks before the release of Painkiller are awestruck comments of its graphics, the use of the latest in crate movement technology (otherwise known as the havok physics engine), or in depth analytical discussions of its plot. However, one should not neglect the unseen "behind the zombie" technological developments exhibited in Painkiller. The AI is undoubtedly one of the most significant "zombie" leaps forward (no pun intended! or maybe it was!) in AI programming since, well, Black & White, if I may say so. And everyone remembers how much fun that game was! This is tenfold! Tenfold! Based on the demo, Painkiller is ramping up to be for zombie games what Full Spectrum Warrior is for the tactical U.S. Military command simulations, nothing short of zombie training. If anything, Painkiller might suffer from too much zombie realism. Hopefully, before the game comes out they can strike that sweet spot of balance between AI that is just too simulation-esque due to realism and AI that is still realistic and yet definitively playable. Here's hoping, zombiefied gamers!
Ok, while the posting is sparse here, allow me to save everyone some precious time. Just adjust the variables and you'll be good to post. I make no promises but I'm customized the options so as for you to, perhaps, score a nice 4 slab of that karma we're all talking about oh yeah. So here goes:
Did you see [that article, thosescreenshots]?!? Obviously Warrn Spector has lost it. I played and finished [Deus Ex, Thief 1 & 2, System Shock 1 & 2, and Ultima Underworld, all of the above] at least [seven, eight] times the day the game came out, and this is so far from his original vision that he's lost control of his own company. Ok, ok, the graphics are good, but the game runs like ice cream melting in [Alaska, Antarctica] on my [twin processor gold plated 3.2 pentiums, IBM PS/2, Dreamcast running bedian off a burned ISO, Mac]. This whole [transition to third person, revised weapons system, checkpoints, lack of a 255 key controller] just means they are sharing the [pocket protector, pants, mouth] of Bill Gates with an Xbox. Just because [there's more money to be had in consoles, consoles don't have the same customer support issues as PCs, consoles are getting the majority of creative games these days, there's more money to be had in consoles, more people play their consoles for games than PCs, there's more money to be had in consoles] doesn't emean that they should abandon the peeps who got them there.
I've had it up to [here, here, here]. At least we still have [Half-Life 2, Doom III, Team Fortress 2, Duke Nukem Forever, Tycoon games, Mythica] and they're staying true to the cause. So, screw you [Warren Spector, Ion Storm, $icro$soft]! I'm not even going to buy Thief III, I'll just [pirate it, borrow it from a friend, make my own damn Thief game]. PC [ROXOR, KIXASS] [!!!!!, !!!!, !!!!!!]
BTW, why in the hell did you beta testers lie to us normal players about how Episode 2 was "so much better" than Episode 1? Were you in the minority, or was EA putting words in your mouths, or what?
Chalk it up to groupthink, but we really did think it was better than Ep1. Another factor may have been that the episodes were not as close together for the beta testers as they were for players. I seem to clearly remember the longest gap between episode 1 and 2, almost a month if I recall, while they retooled much of the concept. Maybe we'd forgotten how close the two episodes were?
They had some pretty neat ideas in store, including live callers and even tangible shipped packages later on, so it's a shame that it never progressed that far. I'm not sure how nameless packages sent through the mail would have worked post 9-11.
Something else I've thought that may impair a company's willingness to develop episodic content is that it becomes much more of a democratic process than merely releasing a $50. What I mean is that if you're going to develop, say, 10 levels, and you have the choice of selling these at $50 for all 10, or $10 a month for each level, with the entire game each level does not have to be the absolute strongest it can possible be. If you have a subpar level, most players will be forgiving as long as you make it up eventually.
But with episodic content, that becomes problematic. You make one poor level for one month, and you may very well have lost a substantial amount of subscribers.
I beta-tested Majestic, playing the episodes usually at least a week to a month before they hit the players. As soon as it ended, I had a bad taste in my mouth. I'd keep reading, from time to time, how innovative Majestic was and just laugh.
But you know, after getting more distance from it, I actually miss it. It really only took a few hours a week, but it became something of a daily habit to get an email or fax or phone call from Majestic. I really do think they were on to something, and I think its failure - and the failure of episodic content in general (remember Wing Commander Prophecy?) is largely due to several factors. Since I didn't pay, I don't specifically remember how much Majestic cost but I want to say that it was $10. I'm not sure it was worth that. $5, maybe, but $10 is outrageous. There's the notion with episodic content that it ought to significantly cheaper than a full game.
I think the blame is often laid at the consumer's feet. But it's also an issue of pricing with the publisher. I don't think a publisher could justify charging any less than $10 a month. Why? Uf game designers can sell you a $50 game and %25-50 of those buyers will pay $30 for an expansion pack (essentially the next episode), why bother with a monthly subscription rate and risk someone dropping their account in the 8 months it takes to get the same amount of money?
...is playing with other people." - gabe, Penny Arcade
If you're wanting to avoid these crackshot players who've been playing since the day the game came out, you're going to have to start playing the day a game comes out. What's worse is that a lot of these people are just darn good at FPS anyway. A team game might be just what the doctor ordered in that case, except that it means getting into clan.
My suggestion, and one that I haven't seen mentioned, is to first find an FPS with a much smaller following. Tron 2.0, NOLF 1&2, for example, are great games with such small followings that even though they're really great, they're so desperate for other players that these guys will take you by the hand and help you get good if only to have fresh blood.
I remember then the now completely forgotten Legends of Might & Magic came out, I happened to get a free copy at work. Think Counter-Strike + Might and Magic but suckier. The thing is that there were only 5-10 servers, but everyone was really nice and a very tight group, and they were more than happy to show newbies the ropes. Even though the game design really blew, the community made it much more playable.
So, to summarize, my first suggestion would be to get in on day one on some upcoming FPS, maybe Far Cry. My second, and more realistic, is to find one of these small FPS games you like and just jump in. =)
If Mac Halo is being pirated in great numbers as a result, I don't have a lot of sympathy for Bungie/Microsoft. They broke faith with their users.
"Look, um, Macuser. I know what you and Bungie had was something special. But I think, and don't hate me for saying this, I think you just need to move on, you know. That something special. ..well, it was special for that moment. I mean calling Bungie's new girlfriend the Great Satan; that's just too far. Microsoft's not too bad of a girl, once you get to know her. I know it hurt deeply when it happened, and Bungie probably used the whole let's be friends line. But just because Bungie decided to just be friends and are hanging out all the time with Microsoft now doesn't mean that you can sneak into Bungie's house and take all his stuff. That's just too far, you know? Honestly, Macuser, I'm surprised that Bungie hasn't applied for a restraining order. Don't get me wrong, you're really good looking, I'd even say you're pretty hot. You've really got some curves on you, that's for sure. This breaking into the house thing though and taking their stuff, that's just...strange. I mean stuff like this, it's just...freaky is all. I think everyone's been trying to be real nice to you, but someone should tell you straight up. Sometimes you can act a little weird, you know? Just...off, a little. Maybe that's why Bungie left you in the first place? And you've still got Blizzard right? He's cool, right?
Just trying to talk, ok, sort things out with you? Call me later?"
I just hope they don't pull a 10ton (of Crimsonland fame) and sell out to start charging for the game.
Oh ok. So making money for something that you did well is "selling out"? Give me break. You want free stuff, go pirate. People who make good things should be paid well. The guys who made Desert Combat deserve this, and they deserve to be paid for what they've done. Your attitude is no doubt representative of a larger majority of people that will whine and bitch about how it'll cost money to play Desert Combat. If Desert Combat is "fun, REALLY fun!" then these guys deserve to be compensated for what they've provided, end of sentence, hands down, no questions asked. If you really respect what they've done in Desert Combat, you'd be more than happy that they've "sold out." I'm not aware of 10ton or Crimsonland, so maybe there's something else you're referring to. But if all they did is make something good and originally offer it for free, and then decide to make money of this; why is that bad? Would you do your job for free?
We should be thrilled that Digital Illusions picked these guys up. They're living the dream man. So suck it up, and smack down the $20-40 it'll cost for the Desert Combat expansion because you like it that much.
I tallied it up one day when I was bored. Going through EB's new release list from the start of October to the end of January, there were over a thousand dollars worth of games I wanted for the Gamecube alone.
Yeah, I'm with you on that Dan. I had to pick and choose at Christmas (I only have so many relatives), and it meant that games I otherwise would have bought (say, for example Metal Arms, or Crimson Skies; even Jak II keeled to Ratchet II - heck, I still need to get Mario Kart!). I was playing Project Gotham Racing 2 (one of the titles that made the cut) online with one of my favorite customers from when I worked at EB. Not only was he a great guy, but he spent a ton on games. We were talking about this quantity issue, and he said that in a period of three weeks he'd spent over $1500 on games.
I haven't seen him online since then, and I suspect this is largely because he's still playing those games to this day.
I'm (again) falling back on my EB experience during the PS2 launch, and while it may have been a selling factor at first, I think most people realized that it really wasn't that big of a deal.
Someone here said that their kids played PSX games on the PS2. That might be true now, what with a system costing below the $200 waterline. The early adopters (at that $300 price point) though are generally people who are not kids, and if they are kids and rich enough to buy one, already own an Xbox anyway. With the exception of some hardcore RPG fans who collected the old PSX games, I can't think of anyone who, after having bought the PS2, really used to it sufficiently enough for it to have been a selling point. Generally, a large portion of these people came back and said how they'd forgotten how crappy the PSX graphics were and moved on.
If you've got Xbox games, you have an Xbox now. What good will an Xbox2 with backwards compatibility do for you except save space and cords on the entertainment center? If you don't own an Xbox now, you're probably not going to be the one preordering it at the $300 price point. By the time the Xbox2 reaches sub-$200, Xboxes will be found for $50 at your local gamestore anyway. So what gives?
I'm not saying it's not an issue. However, if I were designing the Xbox2 and the cost of backwards compatibility was lower performance, I'd take better performance anyday.
The backwards compatibility of the PS2 was overrated and a moot selling point anyway, and the same will be said of the next gen systems (if they have this feature at all).
What I think is a much more important issue is this talk of a year before the PS3. Sounds dangerously Sega-esque to me.
I bought both the day they came out, and I couldn't have been happier. When I used to work at EB, the Wednesday before the week of Thanksgiving was absolute hell because you'd literally have over 50 games coming out. The Tuesday night before that Wednesday you always had to have the staff clear off every new release shelf to prepare. Most of this 50 new releases just got filed in with the old ones because we didn't have room. And we were a well-staffed and district flagship EB. I can't imagine what would happen to those 50 new releases per system at a out of the way Best Buy or Wal-Mart.
Moreover, when the mom comes in to buy the kid a Christmas game, or even the wife for the gameplaying husband, all she knows is that she's looking for that game that's like GTA that's been on TV, or the new Mario game (even for the PS2). When I bought them at Toys R' Us during their Buy 2 Get 1 Free, the guy behind the counter knew Prince of Persia was good but couldn't find it, and it took him a good 3 or 4 minutes to track down Beyond Good & Evil.
What Ubisoft was trying to do, at least with PoP, was create another Splinter Cell. The difference though is that last Christmas, when Splinter Cell was released for Xbox, you really didn't have much in the way of strong titles. Maybe MechAssault, and that's pushing it. In Christmas of 2003, the "new" Splinter Cell (PoP) had stuff like KOTOR and Rainbow Six (ironically, another Ubisoft title) and that was only on the Xbox. The other platforms were probably even stronger (Mario Kart, SOCOM II). The problem is that investors create such an expectation for Christmas that if Ubisoft didn't get closer to EA's numbers during Christmas, what good is the Ubisoft stock? Consider this an insder retail proverb : A dollar in profit during Christmas is worth two during third quarter.
It's a shame, because it's investors that are indirectly responsible for half-shipped games and marketing mistakes like this. If you haven't already noticed, there are these mini-huge release days (like the one before Thanksgiving) on the Wednesday at the end of every financial quarter (next one is at the end of March I think). The releases will all clump and crowd on that one day. Another proverb: a dollar made at the end of the quarter for a half-finished game is worth two dollars made for a complete game released in the middle of a quarter.
ICO is, of course, an excellent example and is probably one of the best modern exhibits of emotion in games MSNBC could have used (too bad they robbed it of that by spoiling the rather poignant ending). I like that someone mentioned KOTOR, as that probably consisted of the most cinematic emotional attachment I've ever experienced in a game (and most certainly Episode I & II).
Still, I love how these articles act as if this is something new. Likewise, the creater of Facade and Warren Spector, both of whom should have known better. In fact, as good as Deus Ex and System Shock were, all of Spector's work pales in comparison to what I experienced in Grim Fandango (and I'll save you the MSNBC treatment and not give away the ending). Facade sounds remarkably like Space Bar to me, only not in space or talking to three headed aliens, but the one-act emotional play is definitely borrowed, even if unknowingly. Of course, as always Planescape: Torment gets no love, even though it do created emotional attachments but within the context of a deceptively standard fare RPG.
More recently, interactive fiction (a fancy phrase for text adventure) has evolved to produce some amazingly emotional games as of late. After finishing the 30 minute Photopia, I sat in a daze for several minutes and then started to (I feel vulnerable here) cry. Easily the most intense emotional experience I've had playing a game, and certainly on the same level, in my opinion, as great literature.
Secondly, I think ICO represents Japan's open acceptance of emotions in games. While I rarely connect with the Japanese emotional experience as I did with ICO, this is most likely due to cultural nuances than my own fault, and there are exceptions. I hesitate to say it as it's a strong statement to use, but playing the fifth level of REZ was about as emotionally religious of an experience I think a video game could ever create. Kingdom Hearts, Final Fantasy, even Metal Gear Solid; all these are representative that while I may not necessarily "get it," the Japanese obviously do not shy away from emotion in games like Americans do. Likewise, Europeans don't seem to have a problem with emotion. The potent Beyond Good & Evil, while I have yet to finish it, is shaping up that way as well, and Prince of Persia (which might as well have been European) attempts something similar, albeit a little less concentrated. I would assert that American gameplay, in either its intentional or non-intentional attempt at open-ended gameplay (from GTA to Battlefield 1942), is generally on a steady course of avoiding emotions, or relying on violence to propogate them. Miyamoto (Mario, Zelda) has made note in multiple interviews of Americans' over-reliance on violence to create emotion. He's right. Of course, this ought not be surprising when American industry leaders like Carmack decry story in video gaming every chance they get.
Finally, as a postscript I'm not entirely sure MSNBC ought to be asking Spector anyway. Oh, yeah, I think he's a gaming god like anyone else, and that moment in System Shock 2 when you walk into the room . . . (oh wait, I'm not MSNBC). But the latest incarnation of Deus Ex was about as emotionally involving as the default Windows XP screensaver. Perhaps he'll redeem himself with Thief III?
Bachus may lend some credibility (although I'm not aware of anything CEG actually accomplished besides looking "cool"). However, the fact remains that the Phantom is targeting a mainstream audience, but it's going to require broadband, be more apprehensive to set up than a PS2, and it's going to have an indie games channel. Aren't all things generally associated with the traditionally hardcore? What's more is that Bachus can't give us a release date, but he's made his team promise to have it out by Christmas.
According to Bachus, Infinium is targeting people who are too lazy to buy a DVD, go to the movie theater, or drive to EB to buy a game (because that takes "hours"), but while CEG was in dire straits due to the "as bad an environment for investment that has ever existed in this country -- including during the depression of the 1930s," DVD and movie theaters were booming, and I worked at EB for the last three years as an assistant manager, and EB and fellow video game retailers were apparently not at all even in the same country as CEG.
Will the Phantom succeed? Sure, if we're going by Bachus' definition of success, which consists of "raising capital," "raising enthusiasm," and "releasing products." Man, he's almost done! He's even been talking to Best Buy! Talking!
And Hotels? Bachus is excited about getting the Phantom in hotels? Hotels? Last time I checked, that streaming N64 with the generic controllers wasn't exactly cutting edge stuff Bachus.
Elsewhere, 1UP are reporting that EA's first Xbox Live title could be on the way, as they relay an as yet unconfirmed rumor that "three different Battlefield titles are in the works, one each for the PlayStation 2, Xbox, and PC", each online-enabled and "built around a modern warfare setting instead of the historical settings of Battlefield 1942 and Battlefield Vietnam."
Could their decision to throw Battlefield on Xbox Live have anything to do with the fact that a competitor might do it first ?
Ok, to contextualize: I am no fan of Lieberman, nor of censorship.
Yet, I'm surprised that gamers, from fanboy populated forums to print media, generally have this completely defensive attitude to any kind of censorship or even discussion of violence in video games. It's as if we've been "Pavlovically" trained to automatically shriek "First Amendment" whenever we hear someone talking about excessive violence in games. I really have yet to see some intelligent discourse on why violence in games is acceptable. Why is that we can simulate purposeless murder on mass scale like exhibited in GTA and its ilk, but most of us would consider it abhorrent for a game to have a player able to enact even one simulated rape or pedophilic sexual encounter? What makes the simulated shooting down of 30 innocent people in a video game more socially acceptable?
Basically, what we haven't done is build up an apologetics of sorts for video games. We have no choice but to shallowly cite the First Amendment and quickly blame parents when people like Lieberman challenge us because we have yet to collectively think of anything better to say. Instead of developing a system of apologetics, our response is to release crap like Manhunt. What kind of piss-poor answer is that? It's not answering the cultural call to explain the violence, it's pushing back, but harder. That won't ever work and does nothing but to reinforce the idea that video games have "made" us violent. Sure, Lieberman and likeminded politicians would be saying the same thing even if we had an intelligent system of apologetics for video games (they are, after all, politicians), but I think it would, in general society, rob Lieberman of credibility nonetheless.
So, who's up for the challenge? Why is GTA's mass murder "better" than simulated rape?
Slashdot Mirror
I like McCloud's stuff, but after reading this I feel like he's a creepy guy in a trenchcoat following me around waiting for me drop a coin. Enough with the micropayments already!
Why? Because if I drop a quarter in an arcade cabinet, the quarter serves as physical proof that I dropped a quarter in there. Now, if I were actually in a real arcade (which is darn near impossible anyway), I can go to the arcade employee and tell him that the machine "ate my quarter," (another modern impossibility since the game would have cost no less than four quarters) but the fact remains that I've dropped a physical quarter in the machine. The machine just can't take a quarter out of my pocket without me looking.
But online payments reverse this. The power of the transaction is now firmly in the grip of the payee, not the payer. With micropayments, Scott McCloud's dream machine can take quarters from my pocket whenever it feels like making an error. I understand that there are checks and balances with the credit card companies, but what if some 10 year old kid uses his mom's debit card? How do I know that the game didn't charge me for 11 games when I only played 10? Who's going to go over their credit card statement to compare how many times they've played a certain game? Moreover, with a physical arcade, when I place the quarter into the machine it is physically me placing it a machine. Using a credit card for gaming micropayments across the internet is like giving someone all your quarters, telling him to pass to the next guy and so forth until someone is close the machine, have him to put one quarter in and then kindly hand back all the other quarters you didn't use. Repeat 5 times an hour, more if you suck at the game, each time, of course, becoming yet another opportunity for someone you don't trust to interupt that line and snag a quarter.
It should come as no surprise that McCloud pushes micropayments, and it should come as no surprise that someone at EA Redmond probably has several whiteboards full of micropayment ideas by now. They're content producers so, as I've illustrated, micropayments place power firmly in the grip of the producer.
Is it just me, or are McCloud's micropayments remeniscient of the old Office Space-a-roo, only legal?
...why not toss one ICO's way?
...Is the game good or not?
"Is it really so hard to maintain a policy of keeping the product in similar condition to how it's traded in or maybe even stop accepting bare games altogether to give your customers more reason to take care of their games to retain value?"
Having worked at an EB for three years, I'll go ahead and state the obvious. Generally, the people who take care of games keep them. Those who don't tend to trade them in relatively early in the lifespan of the game. What happens is something of a trickle-down effect; as games drop in price, those who couldn't afford to buy them in the first place (kids, or families who don't put as much financial priority on video games) end up buying them. Lather, rinse, repeat.
With regards to game stores taking care of them, I can only speak for the store I work at. I've already mentioned that the people who take care of these games don't trade them in or already have. That means the conditions of the games these stores get is usually fairly subpar. I remember a few times when we would get an older system and games in immaculate condition. Dave isn't finding those because the game collectors, who would visit our store at least once or twice a week, bought those first. What's more is that if there are two copies of Starfox 64 on the shelf, and one is in top condition and the other is not, which is more likely to go first since they're under the same SKU?
Frankly, there's a lot of extremely obvious reasons why these games are not in the best of shape, some of which I'd provided. Why Dave didn't think this through before he wrote his article is beyond me. Maybe he thinks, quite mistakingly, that Steve Morgan of EB or some member of the gaming store echlon will read his article and suddenly agree with him. But if you're making the same amount of profit whether they are in good condition or poor condition (and these stores do), then why change the behavior? Moreover, the people who take care of games usually know they can get a heck of a lot more than $0.50 from EB for a mint condition game.
Your best bet, Dave, is to buy off of eBay and inevitably pay more for a game that is in mint condition. Surprise: you pay for what you get for. What's probably discouraging for Dave, though, is that if he hasn't thought of the obvious reasons why this has occured, he's probably not thought ahead to what's going to happen when the disc generation hits the same age that cartridges are now. Keepem while you gotem.
I wonder if Bard's Tale and Prince of Persia would have made it in their potpourri list if they had not had recent remakes. At least they spelled Broderbund right.
Who would have thunk the RIAA and their methods would be so prolific eh? Maybe this suing your customer base thing really works! Infinium is just jumping on the bandwagon next to Blizzard and Verant.
What has impressed me so far in Painkiller are the innovations in Artificial Intelligence. Half-Life 2, eat your heart out! The enemies act exactly as zombies do in real life, if zombies were in real life. Since zombies feel no pain (they're already dead!) they'll actually run straight at you while you're shooting at them. And as we know, zombies are a collective lot but aren't privy to working in teams so much. You hit one, and the other is completely oblivious that you're hitting his once former brother or wife. That is so realistic! Anyone seen 28 Days Later? Anyone? You remember thinking how great it would be to finally have realistic zombie intelligence and planning recreated in a video game experience? Well here it is!
What's even more impressive are the higher levels of AI, yes I said higher. The horny wizard dead fellows, for example, exhibit completely different AI patterns than our zombie friends. Instead of leaping at you, they'll actually walk slowly as if they're running but they're not, and if you approach they'll push you back! They know when you're close to them! Painkiller effectively integrates LBRS: Location Based Response Subroutines. Really, that's just fancy shmancy lingo for "realistic zombie shootin' fun"!
What will, unarguably, be posted in message boards across the internet in the coming weeks before the release of Painkiller are awestruck comments of its graphics, the use of the latest in crate movement technology (otherwise known as the havok physics engine), or in depth analytical discussions of its plot. However, one should not neglect the unseen "behind the zombie" technological developments exhibited in Painkiller. The AI is undoubtedly one of the most significant "zombie" leaps forward (no pun intended! or maybe it was!) in AI programming since, well, Black & White, if I may say so. And everyone remembers how much fun that game was! This is tenfold! Tenfold! Based on the demo, Painkiller is ramping up to be for zombie games what Full Spectrum Warrior is for the tactical U.S. Military command simulations, nothing short of zombie training. If anything, Painkiller might suffer from too much zombie realism. Hopefully, before the game comes out they can strike that sweet spot of balance between AI that is just too simulation-esque due to realism and AI that is still realistic and yet definitively playable. Here's hoping, zombiefied gamers!
Ok, while the posting is sparse here, allow me to save everyone some precious time. Just adjust the variables and you'll be good to post. I make no promises but I'm customized the options so as for you to, perhaps, score a nice 4 slab of that karma we're all talking about oh yeah. So here goes:
Did you see [that article, thosescreenshots]?!? Obviously Warrn Spector has lost it. I played and finished [Deus Ex, Thief 1 & 2, System Shock 1 & 2, and Ultima Underworld, all of the above] at least [seven, eight] times the day the game came out, and this is so far from his original vision that he's lost control of his own company. Ok, ok, the graphics are good, but the game runs like ice cream melting in [Alaska, Antarctica] on my [twin processor gold plated 3.2 pentiums, IBM PS/2, Dreamcast running bedian off a burned ISO, Mac]. This whole [transition to third person, revised weapons system, checkpoints, lack of a 255 key controller] just means they are sharing the [pocket protector, pants, mouth] of Bill Gates with an Xbox. Just because [there's more money to be had in consoles, consoles don't have the same customer support issues as PCs, consoles are getting the majority of creative games these days, there's more money to be had in consoles, more people play their consoles for games than PCs, there's more money to be had in consoles] doesn't emean that they should abandon the peeps who got them there.
I've had it up to [here, here, here]. At least we still have [Half-Life 2, Doom III, Team Fortress 2, Duke Nukem Forever, Tycoon games, Mythica] and they're staying true to the cause. So, screw you [Warren Spector, Ion Storm, $icro$soft]! I'm not even going to buy Thief III, I'll just [pirate it, borrow it from a friend, make my own damn Thief game]. PC [ROXOR, KIXASS] [!!!!!, !!!!, !!!!!!]
BTW, why in the hell did you beta testers lie to us normal players about how Episode 2 was "so much better" than Episode 1? Were you in the minority, or was EA putting words in your mouths, or what?
Chalk it up to groupthink, but we really did think it was better than Ep1. Another factor may have been that the episodes were not as close together for the beta testers as they were for players. I seem to clearly remember the longest gap between episode 1 and 2, almost a month if I recall, while they retooled much of the concept. Maybe we'd forgotten how close the two episodes were?
They had some pretty neat ideas in store, including live callers and even tangible shipped packages later on, so it's a shame that it never progressed that far. I'm not sure how nameless packages sent through the mail would have worked post 9-11.
Something else I've thought that may impair a company's willingness to develop episodic content is that it becomes much more of a democratic process than merely releasing a $50. What I mean is that if you're going to develop, say, 10 levels, and you have the choice of selling these at $50 for all 10, or $10 a month for each level, with the entire game each level does not have to be the absolute strongest it can possible be. If you have a subpar level, most players will be forgiving as long as you make it up eventually.
But with episodic content, that becomes problematic. You make one poor level for one month, and you may very well have lost a substantial amount of subscribers.
I beta-tested Majestic, playing the episodes usually at least a week to a month before they hit the players. As soon as it ended, I had a bad taste in my mouth. I'd keep reading, from time to time, how innovative Majestic was and just laugh.
But you know, after getting more distance from it, I actually miss it. It really only took a few hours a week, but it became something of a daily habit to get an email or fax or phone call from Majestic. I really do think they were on to something, and I think its failure - and the failure of episodic content in general (remember Wing Commander Prophecy?) is largely due to several factors. Since I didn't pay, I don't specifically remember how much Majestic cost but I want to say that it was $10. I'm not sure it was worth that. $5, maybe, but $10 is outrageous. There's the notion with episodic content that it ought to significantly cheaper than a full game.
I think the blame is often laid at the consumer's feet. But it's also an issue of pricing with the publisher. I don't think a publisher could justify charging any less than $10 a month. Why? Uf game designers can sell you a $50 game and %25-50 of those buyers will pay $30 for an expansion pack (essentially the next episode), why bother with a monthly subscription rate and risk someone dropping their account in the 8 months it takes to get the same amount of money?
". . .the original version technically don't exist."
You can't blame him. I mean how many times have you clicked on "Save" in the File Menu instead of "Save As"?
...is playing with other people." - gabe, Penny Arcade
If you're wanting to avoid these crackshot players who've been playing since the day the game came out, you're going to have to start playing the day a game comes out. What's worse is that a lot of these people are just darn good at FPS anyway. A team game might be just what the doctor ordered in that case, except that it means getting into clan.
My suggestion, and one that I haven't seen mentioned, is to first find an FPS with a much smaller following. Tron 2.0, NOLF 1&2, for example, are great games with such small followings that even though they're really great, they're so desperate for other players that these guys will take you by the hand and help you get good if only to have fresh blood.
I remember then the now completely forgotten Legends of Might & Magic came out, I happened to get a free copy at work. Think Counter-Strike + Might and Magic but suckier. The thing is that there were only 5-10 servers, but everyone was really nice and a very tight group, and they were more than happy to show newbies the ropes. Even though the game design really blew, the community made it much more playable.
So, to summarize, my first suggestion would be to get in on day one on some upcoming FPS, maybe Far Cry. My second, and more realistic, is to find one of these small FPS games you like and just jump in. =)
If Mac Halo is being pirated in great numbers as a result, I don't have a lot of sympathy for Bungie/Microsoft. They broke faith with their users.
.well, it was special for that moment. I mean calling Bungie's new girlfriend the Great Satan; that's just too far. Microsoft's not too bad of a girl, once you get to know her. I know it hurt deeply when it happened, and Bungie probably used the whole let's be friends line. But just because Bungie decided to just be friends and are hanging out all the time with Microsoft now doesn't mean that you can sneak into Bungie's house and take all his stuff. That's just too far, you know? Honestly, Macuser, I'm surprised that Bungie hasn't applied for a restraining order. Don't get me wrong, you're really good looking, I'd even say you're pretty hot. You've really got some curves on you, that's for sure. This breaking into the house thing though and taking their stuff, that's just...strange. I mean stuff like this, it's just...freaky is all. I think everyone's been trying to be real nice to you, but someone should tell you straight up. Sometimes you can act a little weird, you know? Just...off, a little. Maybe that's why Bungie left you in the first place? And you've still got Blizzard right? He's cool, right?
"Look, um, Macuser. I know what you and Bungie had was something special. But I think, and don't hate me for saying this, I think you just need to move on, you know. That something special. .
Just trying to talk, ok, sort things out with you? Call me later?"
I just hope they don't pull a 10ton (of Crimsonland fame) and sell out to start charging for the game.
Oh ok. So making money for something that you did well is "selling out"? Give me break. You want free stuff, go pirate. People who make good things should be paid well. The guys who made Desert Combat deserve this, and they deserve to be paid for what they've done. Your attitude is no doubt representative of a larger majority of people that will whine and bitch about how it'll cost money to play Desert Combat. If Desert Combat is "fun, REALLY fun!" then these guys deserve to be compensated for what they've provided, end of sentence, hands down, no questions asked. If you really respect what they've done in Desert Combat, you'd be more than happy that they've "sold out." I'm not aware of 10ton or Crimsonland, so maybe there's something else you're referring to. But if all they did is make something good and originally offer it for free, and then decide to make money of this; why is that bad? Would you do your job for free?
We should be thrilled that Digital Illusions picked these guys up. They're living the dream man. So suck it up, and smack down the $20-40 it'll cost for the Desert Combat expansion because you like it that much.
I tallied it up one day when I was bored. Going through EB's new release list from the start of October to the end of January, there were over a thousand dollars worth of games I wanted for the Gamecube alone.
Yeah, I'm with you on that Dan. I had to pick and choose at Christmas (I only have so many relatives), and it meant that games I otherwise would have bought (say, for example Metal Arms, or Crimson Skies; even Jak II keeled to Ratchet II - heck, I still need to get Mario Kart!). I was playing Project Gotham Racing 2 (one of the titles that made the cut) online with one of my favorite customers from when I worked at EB. Not only was he a great guy, but he spent a ton on games. We were talking about this quantity issue, and he said that in a period of three weeks he'd spent over $1500 on games.
I haven't seen him online since then, and I suspect this is largely because he's still playing those games to this day.
I'm (again) falling back on my EB experience during the PS2 launch, and while it may have been a selling factor at first, I think most people realized that it really wasn't that big of a deal.
Someone here said that their kids played PSX games on the PS2. That might be true now, what with a system costing below the $200 waterline. The early adopters (at that $300 price point) though are generally people who are not kids, and if they are kids and rich enough to buy one, already own an Xbox anyway. With the exception of some hardcore RPG fans who collected the old PSX games, I can't think of anyone who, after having bought the PS2, really used to it sufficiently enough for it to have been a selling point. Generally, a large portion of these people came back and said how they'd forgotten how crappy the PSX graphics were and moved on.
If you've got Xbox games, you have an Xbox now. What good will an Xbox2 with backwards compatibility do for you except save space and cords on the entertainment center? If you don't own an Xbox now, you're probably not going to be the one preordering it at the $300 price point. By the time the Xbox2 reaches sub-$200, Xboxes will be found for $50 at your local gamestore anyway. So what gives?
I'm not saying it's not an issue. However, if I were designing the Xbox2 and the cost of backwards compatibility was lower performance, I'd take better performance anyday.
The backwards compatibility of the PS2 was overrated and a moot selling point anyway, and the same will be said of the next gen systems (if they have this feature at all).
What I think is a much more important issue is this talk of a year before the PS3. Sounds dangerously Sega-esque to me.
I bought both the day they came out, and I couldn't have been happier. When I used to work at EB, the Wednesday before the week of Thanksgiving was absolute hell because you'd literally have over 50 games coming out. The Tuesday night before that Wednesday you always had to have the staff clear off every new release shelf to prepare. Most of this 50 new releases just got filed in with the old ones because we didn't have room. And we were a well-staffed and district flagship EB. I can't imagine what would happen to those 50 new releases per system at a out of the way Best Buy or Wal-Mart.
Moreover, when the mom comes in to buy the kid a Christmas game, or even the wife for the gameplaying husband, all she knows is that she's looking for that game that's like GTA that's been on TV, or the new Mario game (even for the PS2). When I bought them at Toys R' Us during their Buy 2 Get 1 Free, the guy behind the counter knew Prince of Persia was good but couldn't find it, and it took him a good 3 or 4 minutes to track down Beyond Good & Evil.
What Ubisoft was trying to do, at least with PoP, was create another Splinter Cell. The difference though is that last Christmas, when Splinter Cell was released for Xbox, you really didn't have much in the way of strong titles. Maybe MechAssault, and that's pushing it. In Christmas of 2003, the "new" Splinter Cell (PoP) had stuff like KOTOR and Rainbow Six (ironically, another Ubisoft title) and that was only on the Xbox. The other platforms were probably even stronger (Mario Kart, SOCOM II). The problem is that investors create such an expectation for Christmas that if Ubisoft didn't get closer to EA's numbers during Christmas, what good is the Ubisoft stock? Consider this an insder retail proverb : A dollar in profit during Christmas is worth two during third quarter.
It's a shame, because it's investors that are indirectly responsible for half-shipped games and marketing mistakes like this. If you haven't already noticed, there are these mini-huge release days (like the one before Thanksgiving) on the Wednesday at the end of every financial quarter (next one is at the end of March I think). The releases will all clump and crowd on that one day. Another proverb: a dollar made at the end of the quarter for a half-finished game is worth two dollars made for a complete game released in the middle of a quarter.
Point taken.
Also, please excuse my now noticable rendunancy (recently...of late), which is I currently see as obvious repetition.
ICO is, of course, an excellent example and is probably one of the best modern exhibits of emotion in games MSNBC could have used (too bad they robbed it of that by spoiling the rather poignant ending). I like that someone mentioned KOTOR, as that probably consisted of the most cinematic emotional attachment I've ever experienced in a game (and most certainly Episode I & II).
Still, I love how these articles act as if this is something new. Likewise, the creater of Facade and Warren Spector, both of whom should have known better. In fact, as good as Deus Ex and System Shock were, all of Spector's work pales in comparison to what I experienced in Grim Fandango (and I'll save you the MSNBC treatment and not give away the ending). Facade sounds remarkably like Space Bar to me, only not in space or talking to three headed aliens, but the one-act emotional play is definitely borrowed, even if unknowingly. Of course, as always Planescape: Torment gets no love, even though it do created emotional attachments but within the context of a deceptively standard fare RPG.
More recently, interactive fiction (a fancy phrase for text adventure) has evolved to produce some amazingly emotional games as of late. After finishing the 30 minute Photopia, I sat in a daze for several minutes and then started to (I feel vulnerable here) cry. Easily the most intense emotional experience I've had playing a game, and certainly on the same level, in my opinion, as great literature.
Secondly, I think ICO represents Japan's open acceptance of emotions in games. While I rarely connect with the Japanese emotional experience as I did with ICO, this is most likely due to cultural nuances than my own fault, and there are exceptions. I hesitate to say it as it's a strong statement to use, but playing the fifth level of REZ was about as emotionally religious of an experience I think a video game could ever create. Kingdom Hearts, Final Fantasy, even Metal Gear Solid; all these are representative that while I may not necessarily "get it," the Japanese obviously do not shy away from emotion in games like Americans do. Likewise, Europeans don't seem to have a problem with emotion. The potent Beyond Good & Evil, while I have yet to finish it, is shaping up that way as well, and Prince of Persia (which might as well have been European) attempts something similar, albeit a little less concentrated. I would assert that American gameplay, in either its intentional or non-intentional attempt at open-ended gameplay (from GTA to Battlefield 1942), is generally on a steady course of avoiding emotions, or relying on violence to propogate them. Miyamoto (Mario, Zelda) has made note in multiple interviews of Americans' over-reliance on violence to create emotion. He's right. Of course, this ought not be surprising when American industry leaders like Carmack decry story in video gaming every chance they get.
Finally, as a postscript I'm not entirely sure MSNBC ought to be asking Spector anyway. Oh, yeah, I think he's a gaming god like anyone else, and that moment in System Shock 2 when you walk into the room . . . (oh wait, I'm not MSNBC). But the latest incarnation of Deus Ex was about as emotionally involving as the default Windows XP screensaver. Perhaps he'll redeem himself with Thief III?
Bachus may lend some credibility (although I'm not aware of anything CEG actually accomplished besides looking "cool"). However, the fact remains that the Phantom is targeting a mainstream audience, but it's going to require broadband, be more apprehensive to set up than a PS2, and it's going to have an indie games channel. Aren't all things generally associated with the traditionally hardcore? What's more is that Bachus can't give us a release date, but he's made his team promise to have it out by Christmas. According to Bachus, Infinium is targeting people who are too lazy to buy a DVD, go to the movie theater, or drive to EB to buy a game (because that takes "hours"), but while CEG was in dire straits due to the "as bad an environment for investment that has ever existed in this country -- including during the depression of the 1930s," DVD and movie theaters were booming, and I worked at EB for the last three years as an assistant manager, and EB and fellow video game retailers were apparently not at all even in the same country as CEG.
Will the Phantom succeed? Sure, if we're going by Bachus' definition of success, which consists of "raising capital," "raising enthusiasm," and "releasing products." Man, he's almost done! He's even been talking to Best Buy! Talking!
And Hotels? Bachus is excited about getting the Phantom in hotels? Hotels? Last time I checked, that streaming N64 with the generic controllers wasn't exactly cutting edge stuff Bachus.
Elsewhere, 1UP are reporting that EA's first Xbox Live title could be on the way, as they relay an as yet unconfirmed rumor that "three different Battlefield titles are in the works, one each for the PlayStation 2, Xbox, and PC", each online-enabled and "built around a modern warfare setting instead of the historical settings of Battlefield 1942 and Battlefield Vietnam."
Could their decision to throw Battlefield on Xbox Live have anything to do with the fact that a competitor might do it first ?
Apparently, full control over Thomas Kinkade online jigsaws is pretty important in reaching the true mass market.
;)
When completed do the online jigsaws seemingly change from day to night if you lower your monitor's brightness?
Ok, to contextualize: I am no fan of Lieberman, nor of censorship.
Yet, I'm surprised that gamers, from fanboy populated forums to print media, generally have this completely defensive attitude to any kind of censorship or even discussion of violence in video games. It's as if we've been "Pavlovically" trained to automatically shriek "First Amendment" whenever we hear someone talking about excessive violence in games. I really have yet to see some intelligent discourse on why violence in games is acceptable. Why is that we can simulate purposeless murder on mass scale like exhibited in GTA and its ilk, but most of us would consider it abhorrent for a game to have a player able to enact even one simulated rape or pedophilic sexual encounter? What makes the simulated shooting down of 30 innocent people in a video game more socially acceptable?
Basically, what we haven't done is build up an apologetics of sorts for video games. We have no choice but to shallowly cite the First Amendment and quickly blame parents when people like Lieberman challenge us because we have yet to collectively think of anything better to say. Instead of developing a system of apologetics, our response is to release crap like Manhunt. What kind of piss-poor answer is that? It's not answering the cultural call to explain the violence, it's pushing back, but harder. That won't ever work and does nothing but to reinforce the idea that video games have "made" us violent. Sure, Lieberman and likeminded politicians would be saying the same thing even if we had an intelligent system of apologetics for video games (they are, after all, politicians), but I think it would, in general society, rob Lieberman of credibility nonetheless.
So, who's up for the challenge? Why is GTA's mass murder "better" than simulated rape?
Good question (Ed Fries, for example), but with regards specifically to Bachus, he left MS quite some time ago (mid 2001).