After a lot of thought/research I bought a 32" 4:3 CRT HDTV mainly for gaming.
I had to go with the 32" (or smaller) to fit into a cabinet I already had. Otherwise I would have gotten some sort of projection system.
The TV is good, and it is great for gaming- but it SUCKS for 'regular' TV viewing.
The worst is when the TV show has a lot of greys, or even blacks. They come out totally pixellated, and un-even. This is coming from my Dish receiver via RCA cables.
My Xbox is hooked up via component cables, and when it is in 480p mode, it looks great. 480i still has the same problems with greys and blacks. It is very noticable when a game has cutscenes in 480i and then the game switches to 480p.
Prior to buying the TV, I thought I just *had* to have it. Now I regret it...without any HD support from anything other than my Xbox, the TV looks worse than my old one.
So the Atari 2600 eventually became obsolete- and that proves that PC gaming is better.
Are you still playing on the same circa 1981 computer?
Consoles survived too- they just moved to the next generation. Just like I'm not still using an 8088 processor, I'm not playing games on an Atari 2600.
The sad thing about this, is that I am sure they are preparing for the possibility of a terrorist attack.
Let's say there is an attack, at some stadium. Well, the whole world would be watching, and they would have exclusive rights to access the area with cameras.
Seriously, you know they thought about it, and probably put that into the contract. Exclusive rights to a track and field competition...good...but exclusive rights to the second largest terrorist event this century? Priceless.
I'm not saying it because I want it to happen, or because I am calloused. I am saying it because it makes financial sense for them. This could be the biggest scoop ever, and they want to be prepared.
I was listening to Nelly today (driving two 14 year olds in the car) and I was amazed by the different 'styles' that all of the rappers on the album have.
Murphy Lee has his drawn-out style, while someone else is all choppy, and staccato.
They definetly are artists, in their own regard.
Interestingly enough, the ONLY reason I know who 'Murphy Lee' is....I use his character all the time on NBA Street 2.
Randomness would be good, and one genre that would really benefit, would be the First Person Shooter/Sneakers.
I'm in the middle of playing through the Rainbow Six 3 campaign mode, and what I've been dealing with is the same thing that I have seen on every other FPS:
I walk into a new room, and start getting shot at. Instead of running out, I continue to move forward to draw fire from as many enemies as I can. Yes I die, but now I know where everyone is.
Reload my last save, and this time I enter the room knowing where everyone is. I 'sneak' in, kill them, and move on.
I would say that this is 'smart gameplay'. It works, but it is also 'cheating'.
But that is the only way to do it, when they hide the enemies behind boxes, tables, etc, and they are set to ambush you as you walk by.
While I do LIKE this type of gameplay (problem solving really) it would be nice to have some randomness built in, to keep me honest.
It's usually part of the player set-up...like whether or not you want the joysticks to be inverted, or not. Not something that requires a screwdriver, or something like that.
That's fine, and I'm not going to argue with you, and say you're dumb, or anything like that.
But, over the past 2 years I bought about 40 Xbox games. Most of them I've traded in, or given away after being finished with them.
The only exceptions are Xbox Live games.
Crimson Skies, Rainbow Six, Top Spin, Mechassualt...these are games that I can keep putting in to my Xbox, because there is always something new (different opponents). I'll probably hang onto these games until the next Xbox comes out, because it's just fun to play against other people.
Each of the games I mentioned (and other Live games that I can't think of right now) have had their playing hours tripled, quadrupled, or increase 10-20 times because of Live.
So is it worth $50 a year to take Crimson Skies from a 10-15 hour game, to a 150 hour game?
Yes...it is for me. And don't forget downloadable content. Splinter Cell, Armed & Dangerous, and many others have downloadable missions that make the original game much more valuable.
So, if you don't think that $4.17/month is worth it, that's okay. But for me, that $4.17 constitutes about half of my gaming (on Live). So I think it's a great value.
Simple answer- host your own games, and kick the cockmongers.
After a few rounds, the 'normal' gamers will stick with you, and all the losers will go elsewhere. Soon you'll find that you have a group of 16 fun people playing games together. Losers usually leave quick when they find out that their 'childish antics' aren't appreciated...especially if the host doesn't have a problem kicking them.
If you're only playing Rainbow 6, then how could you NOT renew your Live subscription?
Rainbow Six is one of the best, and the most popular Live games out right now. Every once in a while I try to play the single player campaign, and it usually takes 4 or 5 minutes before I quit that, and go back to some Team Survival.
Crimson Skies is just about the same thing. The game is *ok* single player- until you start playing Live- then it gets REALLY good.
Of course, maybe you are playing system link, and playing the cooperative missions. I guess that would be okay, but you are still playing against AI instead of the real thing.
While there are certainly some morons, assholes and annoyances on Live, I think the percentage is actually a lot lower than with on-line PC games.
Why?
Because your gamertag stays with you- and the gamers run the servers.
On a PC, if I want to be a jerk, I can run around like an ass, and piss people off. Tomorrow, I can come on with a different name, and attempt to be serious.
On Live, people will start to know you as an ass, and avoid you. Changing your gamertag is difficult (unless of course they ask you to change it!)
Also- most games on the PC are played on central servers. With Xbox Live, the games are hosted by one of the people playing the game. (Certain games like Rainbow Six 3 allow 'dedicated' servers, but that is a different story) So, the host has the ability to kick someone who is being a total ass.
I know that when I host a game I try to have fun, and let people play the way they want to play. But, if someone starts killing their own team-mates, or making racist remarks, or TRYING to annoy other people, they'll be gone in a second.
Hey, 9 year old kids can't help it, they're annoying- but it's not their fault, so what the hell, let them play. But some jerk out there who wants to scream into his mike the whole time, or call people stupid n&G^#r or something like that...that shit ends quick.
From your post, it seems as though you've never played on Live. It *IS* different from playing on a PC- in most ways, a lot better. Give it a try before you just assume that it sucks.
You want programming tools to be out there, but you specify no VB.
I personally think that VB.net is actually pretty darn good. You can do a lot of things, very quickly and easily. Using Visual Studio, you can probably be up and making applications in just a few weeks.
The learning curve on VB.net is much lower than most other languages out there, so using it as a starting point is a good idea. And the fact that the programs can run on things like the Pocket PC make it even more interesting. It'd difficult to come up with new ideas for desktop apps, but PDAs are still a wide-open territory, where the individual programmer can still create something useful, that hasn't been done yet.
The amount of tools built into the framework (.net) that you can take and use is great. The standard tools are there, freeing someone up to create interesting stuff. I don't need to make things like slider controls, color pickers, file I/O dialogue boxes, etc. It's all there, built in, and ready to use.
Personally, I like that simplicity. And since I'm not out to impress anyone with what languages I know, I use VB when it's appropriate. The only thing my users care about is 'does it work?'. Not 'oohhh boy, VB is so lame...re-make this app in C++, then it will be 10* better'.
Well, they DO make 2D games still- take a look at Metal Slug 3.
I was VERY interested in this before it came out- I thought it sounded like a good idea, to put a 2D shooter on more modern hardware, and see what happens.
Well, I got the demo, I found out what happens...In my opinion, it sucks.
As confused as I was the first time I played Mario 64- I realize that it was a huge step in gaming. I loved Donkey Kong Country, and I liked Donkey Kong 64 (except for chasing those damn bananas...what a pain in the ass) but so much progress has been made with 3D gaming that going back to 2D is well...quite a let-down.
Take a look at the Panzer Dragoon series of games. Play Panzer Dragoon Orta on the Xbox, then go back to the others. The previous games were good, but absolutely no match for Orta.
Nostalgia is big in America right now. A lot of people are convinced that things were so much better in the past (just watch 'I love the 80s' or 'I love the 90s', or notice how fondly people use the term 'old school'). Hopefully this will run out of steam soon, and we can get back to the business of creating a future...not looking back on our childhood with rose colored glasses.
The Graphics vs. Gameplay issue comes up on Slashdot a lot. The more vocal group (majority? dunno) seems to think that the gameplay is suffering, because the graphics are getting more attention.
My response to that is....bullshit. Games now have bigger budgets- meaning more people. They take longer to create, meaning more time. Even if graphics are 90% of that time x money formula, just 10% of the total effort that goes into most modern games is far more than what was put into the entire game 15 years ago. First comparison- the Atari 2600 had the game 'Skiing' where you move a square down a white screen with occasional green blobs that you were supposed to avoid. Consoles have games like Amped and SSX. If you can't see the improved gameplay, you are blind. And of course the graphics are like 45^99th times better too.
To me, games are a little like hairstyles. I'm sure you've seen women going around with a ridiculous 20 year old hairstyle. Well, 20 years ago was probably the best time of her life, and she is going to hang on to every part of that era that she can. A lot of gamers are the same way. 'Platformers from the 80s are the best'. Okay...chances are you are over the age of 25, and most modern games intimidate you. So, it's much easier to stick with those games essentially for the rest of your life. Oh, you'll look at them, but soon dismiss them because you understand Kaboom! so much more.
Some people think that Quake was the pinnacle of first person shooters...my guess is that they were in a college dorm (or similar situation) when Quake came out. Now, if a new game comes out, they don't have 20 guys sitting around who want to play (It's called Xbox Live..check it out) and it isn't as much fun. So therefore, the new games just aren't as good. (Even if they do have things like a real vertical plane, smarter enemies, larger/more complex maps, etc etc)
Also, as games mature, they get more complex. The computing power is available to do more, and the graphics cards can handle better/more complex graphics.
Age of Empires was a good game. Age of Empires II was a great game, and Rise of Nations was even better. I still know people who are stuck on the first AOE, and aren't willing to move on. In fact, they look at Rise of Nations, and think that all of the other stuff is un-necessary... Yet, ask someone to go backwards (somebody who played Rise of Nations first) and they will feel that the previous games were absolute crap. Well, some people have a limited capacity for learning new things (games included) and they stick with what they know.
Okay...enough rambling. Thank you for listening. (and for the record, I'm 36 years old, and I hate older games because I LIKE new games with nice graphics and more complex gameplay.)
Some of the best Japanese voice acting isn't in video games. It's on a TV show. 'MXC' is great, and I'm surprised at what a great command of English those Japanese hosts have.
Is it just me, or does Yahoo! provide a similar 'warning' on many of their game pages:
"Note: Bounce Out is not compatible with Unix or Macintosh computers." game page
Yes, possibly you can make them work, but when my wife is at her computer, and it won't work...she doesn't go looking into HOW she can make it work. She just comes over and uses my computer.
In the past 6 years I've worked on 2 projects that were halted, because the product we were creating was added in to Windows. It's hard to sell a product that duplicates what comes in the OS itself.
In both cases, our primary competitors sold out to Microsoft. Afterward we all sat around like igits, thinking "why didn't we sell out sooner?"
Microsoft's problem is not competition. In most markets, they own a huge share. So Mac's ~5% and Linux's small share are not the problem.
The problem is that innovation (?) is getting more and more expensive. And in order to keep revenues up, they need to spend huge amounts of money on advertising, etc.
The low-hanging fruit has been picked, and now they need to go after new markets, new products, and the more difficult dollars.
I think that 3rd person games work a lot better on consoles than PCs.
Also, if it is 'brought down' to the console level, it could be a great game, and sell zillions. Putting the same game on a PC would need to be re-worked (Deus Ex: Invisible War?!?) to work with a different control method.
Swingin' Ape was a little strange about their first/only game- Metal Arms. Awesome game but on the disc they had all types of 'About Swingin' Ape' stuff that made them out to be a hot-shot studio...but it was their first game, so they essentially started their own hype machine before the first game was even released.
Metal Arms was great, but if they had put multi-player on Live it would have been 10 times better.
My job doesn't provide any sort of compensation for any of my own resources I use on the job, and that's all right.
I have broadband at home that I routinely use to check/maintain/update my servers at work. My boss knows my cell phone number, and uses it whenever she needs to get in touch with me. I make work-related long-distance phone calls from home.
I don't get directly compensated for any of that, but at the same time I am treated as a professional, and I'm given the lee-way to schedule my work, and conduct myself the way I see fit.
I am expected to keep some semblance of a 8-5 workday, 5 days a week. But in reality I have an extremely flexible schedule that works to my benefit 99% of the time. Nobody checks to see when I get in the office, or when I leave. When I need to leave, I leave. And if I am completely bored, stressed, or whatever, I can just go for a walk, or whatever I want to do.
If I've got a reason to stay home (let's say waiting for a delivery, or a repairman or something) I can just sit back at home, and check on things while I'm waiting...without taking any 'time off'.
That's why I had no problem going in to work on the 4th of July to work on the database server (not my server, but I rely on it anyway) when it went down. No need to even tell the boss to try to get some Kudos. She knows that I'll do what I need to in order to keep things going the best I can, but at the same time I have a real life, that is my real priority.
She gets 24x7 support, and I get my freedom.
Now don't get me wrong- I bust my butt during the week to make sure that any evening/weekend calls are kept to a bare minimum. I've probably only had to come in 6 times over the last 3 years. So it's not like I'm tethered to my job, but I've got a great trade-off that works for me and my boss.
Remember- money isn't everything...your sanity and peace of mind are worth far more.
Good sex, comfortable shoes, and a warm place to go to the bathroom...that's all I need.
It is 16 DVD's per year that the average American home purchases. But I covered myself by stating '~15'.
I don't mind the spelling/grammar Nazis on Slashdot, but the 'please provide a link to prove every facet of your statement' people are freaking annoying.
What I should have said was..."look it up your damn self".
I'd like to say that I will be boycotting them, and not supporting their industry. But looking at the top 100 films in the past 2 years, I've seen all but two. So whether or not we like their business, we do like their product.
Slashdot Mirror
After a lot of thought/research I bought a 32" 4:3 CRT HDTV mainly for gaming.
I had to go with the 32" (or smaller) to fit into a cabinet I already had. Otherwise I would have gotten some sort of projection system.
The TV is good, and it is great for gaming- but it SUCKS for 'regular' TV viewing.
The worst is when the TV show has a lot of greys, or even blacks. They come out totally pixellated, and un-even. This is coming from my Dish receiver via RCA cables.
My Xbox is hooked up via component cables, and when it is in 480p mode, it looks great. 480i still has the same problems with greys and blacks. It is very noticable when a game has cutscenes in 480i and then the game switches to 480p.
Prior to buying the TV, I thought I just *had* to have it. Now I regret it...without any HD support from anything other than my Xbox, the TV looks worse than my old one.
Hmmm...
So the Atari 2600 eventually became obsolete- and that proves that PC gaming is better.
Are you still playing on the same circa 1981 computer?
Consoles survived too- they just moved to the next generation. Just like I'm not still using an 8088 processor, I'm not playing games on an Atari 2600.
System link gaming is not just Halo-
Crimson Skies and Rainbow Six are some of the better ones on this list.
The sad thing about this, is that I am sure they are preparing for the possibility of a terrorist attack.
Let's say there is an attack, at some stadium. Well, the whole world would be watching, and they would have exclusive rights to access the area with cameras.
Seriously, you know they thought about it, and probably put that into the contract. Exclusive rights to a track and field competition...good...but exclusive rights to the second largest terrorist event this century? Priceless.
I'm not saying it because I want it to happen, or because I am calloused. I am saying it because it makes financial sense for them. This could be the biggest scoop ever, and they want to be prepared.
It IS a sick world.
I was listening to Nelly today (driving two 14 year olds in the car) and I was amazed by the different 'styles' that all of the rappers on the album have.
Murphy Lee has his drawn-out style, while someone else is all choppy, and staccato.
They definetly are artists, in their own regard.
Interestingly enough, the ONLY reason I know who 'Murphy Lee' is....I use his character all the time on NBA Street 2.
Then again, not every version of Rainbow Six has heartbeat sensors. My sig should give you a clue on that.
Randomness would be good, and one genre that would really benefit, would be the First Person Shooter/Sneakers.
I'm in the middle of playing through the Rainbow Six 3 campaign mode, and what I've been dealing with is the same thing that I have seen on every other FPS:
I walk into a new room, and start getting shot at. Instead of running out, I continue to move forward to draw fire from as many enemies as I can. Yes I die, but now I know where everyone is.
Reload my last save, and this time I enter the room knowing where everyone is. I 'sneak' in, kill them, and move on.
I would say that this is 'smart gameplay'. It works, but it is also 'cheating'.
But that is the only way to do it, when they hide the enemies behind boxes, tables, etc, and they are set to ambush you as you walk by.
While I do LIKE this type of gameplay (problem solving really) it would be nice to have some randomness built in, to keep me honest.
It's usually part of the player set-up...like whether or not you want the joysticks to be inverted, or not. Not something that requires a screwdriver, or something like that.
That's fine, and I'm not going to argue with you, and say you're dumb, or anything like that.
But, over the past 2 years I bought about 40 Xbox games. Most of them I've traded in, or given away after being finished with them.
The only exceptions are Xbox Live games.
Crimson Skies, Rainbow Six, Top Spin, Mechassualt...these are games that I can keep putting in to my Xbox, because there is always something new (different opponents). I'll probably hang onto these games until the next Xbox comes out, because it's just fun to play against other people.
Each of the games I mentioned (and other Live games that I can't think of right now) have had their playing hours tripled, quadrupled, or increase 10-20 times because of Live.
So is it worth $50 a year to take Crimson Skies from a 10-15 hour game, to a 150 hour game?
Yes...it is for me. And don't forget downloadable content. Splinter Cell, Armed & Dangerous, and many others have downloadable missions that make the original game much more valuable.
So, if you don't think that $4.17/month is worth it, that's okay. But for me, that $4.17 constitutes about half of my gaming (on Live). So I think it's a great value.
on an xbox or PS2 you need to hold the joystick for an hour, just to turn around to shoot the guy behind you.
Try adjusting the joystick sensitivity- you're playing in 'dummy mode'.
But then again, if you didn't know that, maybe you were in the right place.
** Rainbow Six: 3 has adjustments from 1-10, with 3 being the default. Try putting it on 6 or 7 and see how much faster you aim.
Simple answer- host your own games, and kick the cockmongers.
After a few rounds, the 'normal' gamers will stick with you, and all the losers will go elsewhere. Soon you'll find that you have a group of 16 fun people playing games together. Losers usually leave quick when they find out that their 'childish antics' aren't appreciated...especially if the host doesn't have a problem kicking them.
If you're only playing Rainbow 6, then how could you NOT renew your Live subscription?
Rainbow Six is one of the best, and the most popular Live games out right now. Every once in a while I try to play the single player campaign, and it usually takes 4 or 5 minutes before I quit that, and go back to some Team Survival.
Crimson Skies is just about the same thing. The game is *ok* single player- until you start playing Live- then it gets REALLY good.
Of course, maybe you are playing system link, and playing the cooperative missions. I guess that would be okay, but you are still playing against AI instead of the real thing.
While there are certainly some morons, assholes and annoyances on Live, I think the percentage is actually a lot lower than with on-line PC games.
Why?
Because your gamertag stays with you- and the gamers run the servers.
On a PC, if I want to be a jerk, I can run around like an ass, and piss people off. Tomorrow, I can come on with a different name, and attempt to be serious.
On Live, people will start to know you as an ass, and avoid you. Changing your gamertag is difficult (unless of course they ask you to change it!)
Also- most games on the PC are played on central servers. With Xbox Live, the games are hosted by one of the people playing the game. (Certain games like Rainbow Six 3 allow 'dedicated' servers, but that is a different story) So, the host has the ability to kick someone who is being a total ass.
I know that when I host a game I try to have fun, and let people play the way they want to play. But, if someone starts killing their own team-mates, or making racist remarks, or TRYING to annoy other people, they'll be gone in a second.
Hey, 9 year old kids can't help it, they're annoying- but it's not their fault, so what the hell, let them play. But some jerk out there who wants to scream into his mike the whole time, or call people stupid n&G^#r or something like that...that shit ends quick.
From your post, it seems as though you've never played on Live. It *IS* different from playing on a PC- in most ways, a lot better. Give it a try before you just assume that it sucks.
I think you are contradicting yourself here.
You want programming tools to be out there, but you specify no VB.
I personally think that VB.net is actually pretty darn good. You can do a lot of things, very quickly and easily. Using Visual Studio, you can probably be up and making applications in just a few weeks.
The learning curve on VB.net is much lower than most other languages out there, so using it as a starting point is a good idea. And the fact that the programs can run on things like the Pocket PC make it even more interesting. It'd difficult to come up with new ideas for desktop apps, but PDAs are still a wide-open territory, where the individual programmer can still create something useful, that hasn't been done yet.
The amount of tools built into the framework (.net) that you can take and use is great. The standard tools are there, freeing someone up to create interesting stuff. I don't need to make things like slider controls, color pickers, file I/O dialogue boxes, etc. It's all there, built in, and ready to use.
Personally, I like that simplicity. And since I'm not out to impress anyone with what languages I know, I use VB when it's appropriate. The only thing my users care about is 'does it work?'. Not 'oohhh boy, VB is so lame...re-make this app in C++, then it will be 10* better'.
Well, they DO make 2D games still- take a look at Metal Slug 3.
I was VERY interested in this before it came out- I thought it sounded like a good idea, to put a 2D shooter on more modern hardware, and see what happens.
Well, I got the demo, I found out what happens...In my opinion, it sucks.
As confused as I was the first time I played Mario 64- I realize that it was a huge step in gaming. I loved Donkey Kong Country, and I liked Donkey Kong 64 (except for chasing those damn bananas...what a pain in the ass) but so much progress has been made with 3D gaming that going back to 2D is well...quite a let-down.
Take a look at the Panzer Dragoon series of games. Play Panzer Dragoon Orta on the Xbox, then go back to the others. The previous games were good, but absolutely no match for Orta.
Nostalgia is big in America right now. A lot of people are convinced that things were so much better in the past (just watch 'I love the 80s' or 'I love the 90s', or notice how fondly people use the term 'old school'). Hopefully this will run out of steam soon, and we can get back to the business of creating a future...not looking back on our childhood with rose colored glasses.
The Graphics vs. Gameplay issue comes up on Slashdot a lot. The more vocal group (majority? dunno) seems to think that the gameplay is suffering, because the graphics are getting more attention.
My response to that is....bullshit. Games now have bigger budgets- meaning more people. They take longer to create, meaning more time. Even if graphics are 90% of that time x money formula, just 10% of the total effort that goes into most modern games is far more than what was put into the entire game 15 years ago. First comparison- the Atari 2600 had the game 'Skiing' where you move a square down a white screen with occasional green blobs that you were supposed to avoid. Consoles have games like Amped and SSX. If you can't see the improved gameplay, you are blind. And of course the graphics are like 45^99th times better too.
To me, games are a little like hairstyles. I'm sure you've seen women going around with a ridiculous 20 year old hairstyle. Well, 20 years ago was probably the best time of her life, and she is going to hang on to every part of that era that she can. A lot of gamers are the same way. 'Platformers from the 80s are the best'. Okay...chances are you are over the age of 25, and most modern games intimidate you. So, it's much easier to stick with those games essentially for the rest of your life. Oh, you'll look at them, but soon dismiss them because you understand Kaboom! so much more.
Some people think that Quake was the pinnacle of first person shooters...my guess is that they were in a college dorm (or similar situation) when Quake came out. Now, if a new game comes out, they don't have 20 guys sitting around who want to play (It's called Xbox Live..check it out) and it isn't as much fun. So therefore, the new games just aren't as good. (Even if they do have things like a real vertical plane, smarter enemies, larger/more complex maps, etc etc)
Also, as games mature, they get more complex. The computing power is available to do more, and the graphics cards can handle better/more complex graphics.
Age of Empires was a good game. Age of Empires II was a great game, and Rise of Nations was even better. I still know people who are stuck on the first AOE, and aren't willing to move on. In fact, they look at Rise of Nations, and think that all of the other stuff is un-necessary... Yet, ask someone to go backwards (somebody who played Rise of Nations first) and they will feel that the previous games were absolute crap. Well, some people have a limited capacity for learning new things (games included) and they stick with what they know.
Okay...enough rambling. Thank you for listening. (and for the record, I'm 36 years old, and I hate older games because I LIKE new games with nice graphics and more complex gameplay.)
Some of the best Japanese voice acting isn't in video games. It's on a TV show. 'MXC' is great, and I'm surprised at what a great command of English those Japanese hosts have.
Is it just me, or does Yahoo! provide a similar 'warning' on many of their game pages:
"Note: Bounce Out is not compatible with Unix or Macintosh computers." game page
Yes, possibly you can make them work, but when my wife is at her computer, and it won't work...she doesn't go looking into HOW she can make it work. She just comes over and uses my computer.
The odd thing to me is....who is having the confusion?
Assuming this is a technical issue, why can't the third parties software tell the difference between Elite_Guy and E1ite_Guy?
Are they printing out the database, and then loading it back in using OCR?
I've never had a database confuse two items because they were similar. Then again, I don't use databases with fuzzy logic, maybe that's my problem.
In the past 6 years I've worked on 2 projects that were halted, because the product we were creating was added in to Windows. It's hard to sell a product that duplicates what comes in the OS itself.
In both cases, our primary competitors sold out to Microsoft. Afterward we all sat around like igits, thinking "why didn't we sell out sooner?"
Microsoft's problem is not competition. In most markets, they own a huge share. So Mac's ~5% and Linux's small share are not the problem.
The problem is that innovation (?) is getting more and more expensive. And in order to keep revenues up, they need to spend huge amounts of money on advertising, etc.
The low-hanging fruit has been picked, and now they need to go after new markets, new products, and the more difficult dollars.
I think that 3rd person games work a lot better on consoles than PCs.
Also, if it is 'brought down' to the console level, it could be a great game, and sell zillions. Putting the same game on a PC would need to be re-worked (Deus Ex: Invisible War?!?) to work with a different control method.
Swingin' Ape was a little strange about their first/only game- Metal Arms. Awesome game but on the disc they had all types of 'About Swingin' Ape' stuff that made them out to be a hot-shot studio...but it was their first game, so they essentially started their own hype machine before the first game was even released.
Metal Arms was great, but if they had put multi-player on Live it would have been 10 times better.
My job doesn't provide any sort of compensation for any of my own resources I use on the job, and that's all right.
I have broadband at home that I routinely use to check/maintain/update my servers at work. My boss knows my cell phone number, and uses it whenever she needs to get in touch with me. I make work-related long-distance phone calls from home.
I don't get directly compensated for any of that, but at the same time I am treated as a professional, and I'm given the lee-way to schedule my work, and conduct myself the way I see fit.
I am expected to keep some semblance of a 8-5 workday, 5 days a week. But in reality I have an extremely flexible schedule that works to my benefit 99% of the time. Nobody checks to see when I get in the office, or when I leave. When I need to leave, I leave. And if I am completely bored, stressed, or whatever, I can just go for a walk, or whatever I want to do.
If I've got a reason to stay home (let's say waiting for a delivery, or a repairman or something) I can just sit back at home, and check on things while I'm waiting...without taking any 'time off'.
That's why I had no problem going in to work on the 4th of July to work on the database server (not my server, but I rely on it anyway) when it went down. No need to even tell the boss to try to get some Kudos. She knows that I'll do what I need to in order to keep things going the best I can, but at the same time I have a real life, that is my real priority.
She gets 24x7 support, and I get my freedom.
Now don't get me wrong- I bust my butt during the week to make sure that any evening/weekend calls are kept to a bare minimum. I've probably only had to come in 6 times over the last 3 years. So it's not like I'm tethered to my job, but I've got a great trade-off that works for me and my boss.
Remember- money isn't everything...your sanity and peace of mind are worth far more.
Good sex, comfortable shoes, and a warm place to go to the bathroom...that's all I need.
I hate responding to AC's...but here ya go asshole:
A story in Newsweek, which was was actually linked on Slashdot.
It is 16 DVD's per year that the average American home purchases. But I covered myself by stating '~15'.
I don't mind the spelling/grammar Nazis on Slashdot, but the 'please provide a link to prove every facet of your statement' people are freaking annoying.
What I should have said was..."look it up your damn self".
But, I provided links...so karma me up!
The big story in the media last week, was that DVDs actually supply over 50% of the movie industry income.
The average american home purchase ~15 DVDs per year.
That's huge- and it is ON TOP of record-setting box office receipts. They make a lot of money from them.
But somehow, they still manage to claim that they are bleeding money out the ass.
I'd like to say that I will be boycotting them, and not supporting their industry. But looking at the top 100 films in the past 2 years, I've seen all but two. So whether or not we like their business, we do like their product.