I agree that the ESRB may not use the best methods available, but they have to make compromises.
They can't play the entire game for many reasons, 1) many times the game is sent to be rated before it is finished, 2) most games are way too long to play in a couple of hours, 3) not everybody can finish a game, 4) even if you played the entire game you might miss something.
So, not perfect, but can you think of a better way to do it? One that doesn't require hiring only QA level gamers, that can play 80-120+ hours in less than a week (to avoid shipping delays), who represent the broad spectrum of America?
Instead, they have to trust the developer to show them the worse and punish them when they try to sneak something past. Rockstar lost millions because they didn't show a half-finished mini-game in GTA:SA that you couldn't play without patching the code. They're going to think twice before trying that again.
The government had nothing to do with censoring Manhunt 2. In fact the government doesn't require you to rate your game at all, but Nintendo and Walmart do. Walmart will not sell an unrated or AO game and Nintendo will not allow them on their system (I think Microsoft and Sony have the same restriction, but I'm not sure).
Rockstar could of released Manhunt 2 as they liked. They could of skipped the ESRB, released to PC, and sell directly to consumers. But they wanted the money, so they had to play by Walmart's rules.
There are plenty of games with "brutal, gut wrenching violence" for sale, just like there are plenty of magazines with "raw hot sex", but you're not going to find either of them for sale at Walmart.
The ESRB isn't perfect, but I trust them more than Hilary Clinton or Arnold Schwarzenegger.
Without something like the ESRB, the government will step in and tell you want you can and can't buy. At least with self-rating we can avoid government censorship.
When Doom-II was the hot item, Mac had a great game called "Marathon". The game kicked ass in almost all the ways Halo did (just with 1990's graphics). When I showed the game to PC owners, they got jealous.
Did it influence many purchasing decisions? Not that I'm aware of. And while Bungie was popular in the small Mac gaming circles, they didn't become a household name until they released a product on the console.
I don't like to make personal attacks, but did somebody poop in your Cheerios this morning?;)
I don't recall saying anything about Microsoft not subsidizing the XBox to get a foothold in the gaming market (they did). Or talking about Sony at all.
Halo was a big console pusher for the XBox. In fact, 5 to 10 years from now, it will probably be the only game most people remember playing on the original XBox.
But you're right, it wouldn't have sold that many Macs. One of the reasons it did so well, IMHO, is because it provided a great FPS experience to people without requiring a $1200+ gaming rig. By the time Halo2 came out, you could buy the system and the game for less than the price of a high-end video card.
I'm only talking about US prices.* We could compare the current price of a NES in France to the Launch price of the XBox 360 in Austria if you like, but I don't see the point.
Here's the launch prices in US dollars: Atari VCS (1977)$249.99, Nintendo Entertainment System (1985) $199.99, SEGA Genesis (1989) $249.99,NeoGeo (1990) $699.99, Super Nintendo (1991) for $199.99, Jaguar (1993) $249.99, 3DO Interactive Multiplayer (1993) $699.95, SEGA Saturn (1995) $399.99. Nintendo 64 (1996) $199.99, SEGA Dreamcast (1999) $199.99, PlayStation (1995) $299.99, PlayStation 2 (2000) $299.99, Xbox (2001) $299.99, GameCube (2001) $199.99.
Besides three systems, all of the prices has been $250 +/- $50. Hardly all over the map. The three systems that didn't follow this rule didn't do very well.
*(yes, I know there is life outside the US. But I don't know much about their shopping habits.)
I'm comparing the launch prices of consoles. Not the current price of old-generation to the launch price of next-generation.
People who buy next-generation consoles in their first year are comparing it to the cost of the last-generation console in its first year. People who wait to buy the last-generation console shortly after the next-generation console is released, will wait until the PS3 cost less than $200 to purchase it.
You can move the numbers around how you like, compare as many apples to as many oranges as you can, but this is been trend. Consumers expect a new console launch price to be roughly equal to the previous console launch price.
As we've seen time and time again, you can not adjust for inflation when it comes to consoles or PCs.
I'm not sure why this is, but there is some weird "stasis bubble" around the price which is why my first console (Atari 2600) and my latest console (Wii) both cost $249.99 (and each came with one game).
I'm looking after my own house nicely (good hours, fair pay, excellent work environment, a workforce that is old enough to have kids in college), thank you.:) But I know the industry in general has a bit of a bad rep to work on, which is why we have organizations like the IGDA.
The comment about older workers did bring up a good point that (sort of) ties back to the original topic. It's hard to find younger tech-workers here in the US at least those with skills. Yes, you learn a lot more "on the job" then you ever will in school but, the few people I interviewed, didn't have the basic knowledge that (IMHO) should be taught in entry level classes (how memory is managed, how function calls work on a low level, what the ".." in printf actually means).
Smart answer. 100% true. It's the same economics that makes it cheaper to hire overseas than in the US.
I work for a bit of a strange case. Our parent company was overseas to start with and they "in sourced" to the US to get skill labor. Now the skilled labor here is in short supply, they can no longer afford to "buy American".
And if we promised unicorns and cocaine, the line would be twice as long.;)
But it would of been more accurate for me to say "Price wasn't a factor because not a single applicate could answer even basic questions (like 'what is a stack')."
I work in a traditionally underpaid part of the tech-industry (entertainment software), and I can still make a good living at it. Not "rock star" good, but "new car and house" good.
I use to think that the Microsoft's of the industry were just trying to save some cash by hiring workers overseas, until I had to interview for a co-worker. I'm surprised at a)the limited number of people in the US looking for a programming job and b)the almost complete lack of skill by those who did.
Long story short, after a year of looking we couldn't fill the position at any price.
Unless you are a console developer, I'm not sure why we should even think about Home right now. It will not be out until next year. Hopefully, by that time, the PS3 will cost almost half of what it does now and have a couple of fun games to play.;)
In the meantime, enjoy the dozen or so other Virtual Game worlds on the market (which are free and run on the hardware you own today).
"The Blu-Ray market is far smaller than the gamer market."
Do you have any data to back this up?
The CEA (ce.org) shows 131,902,035 DVD players have been sold in the US alone. This number does not including PCs or game consoles (so, technically, I don't own a DVD player;)). This is roughly equal to the total worldwide sale of the last generation of game consoles (PS2, GameCube, & XBox).
*If* Blu-Ray becomes the winner for this format war, the Blu-Ray market could be bigger than games.
Like you said, there probably isn't an "official policy" to play the open games but everybody does it. And since they have to sell it "as new", that's going to bite them in the ass.
The first "new" game I buy from GameStop that comes with everything unlocked will also be the last game I buy from them.
I'm not sure how long I played Bioshock. I think its a sign of a good game if you don't feel the need to time it. It could of been 10, 20, 40 or so hours, but I enjoyed all of them. Yes, it was almost totally linear. But I'm okay with that. It was like a great movie or book. To me, it was well worth the time and money.
If you wanted a game that lasted forever (or at least felt like it did) you should of bought one of the epic RPGs or an MMO. You could spend 100's of hours in EQ2 killing rats. If all you want to do is kill time, there are even MMOs out today that allow you to do this for free.
My point being, the game market is huge and full of choices. I'm not sure how they would lose a customer for life if you didn't play every game that came to market. In fact, I think they are more likely to lose you if you keep playing games you don't enjoy.
Also, as you said, there's plenty else to do. In fact, there is almost to much to do. In addition to working full time and being in a relationship, I'm an avid inline skater. I also enjoy biking, skiing, movies, amusement parks, books, and the internet. With so much to do, I'm glad I can find a game that is fun and doesn't eat up all my time.
We're all just guessing here, and that causes problems.
I doubt GameStop, or any major game store, has any policy that allows employees to play games and then re-sell them as new. Not saying it doesn't happen, just that it isn't an official policy.
Slashdot Mirror
I agree that the ESRB may not use the best methods available, but they have to make compromises.
They can't play the entire game for many reasons, 1) many times the game is sent to be rated before it is finished, 2) most games are way too long to play in a couple of hours, 3) not everybody can finish a game, 4) even if you played the entire game you might miss something.
So, not perfect, but can you think of a better way to do it? One that doesn't require hiring only QA level gamers, that can play 80-120+ hours in less than a week (to avoid shipping delays), who represent the broad spectrum of America?
Instead, they have to trust the developer to show them the worse and punish them when they try to sneak something past. Rockstar lost millions because they didn't show a half-finished mini-game in GTA:SA that you couldn't play without patching the code. They're going to think twice before trying that again.
I said "..avoid government censorship..".
The government had nothing to do with censoring Manhunt 2. In fact the government doesn't require you to rate your game at all, but Nintendo and Walmart do. Walmart will not sell an unrated or AO game and Nintendo will not allow them on their system (I think Microsoft and Sony have the same restriction, but I'm not sure).
Rockstar could of released Manhunt 2 as they liked. They could of skipped the ESRB, released to PC, and sell directly to consumers. But they wanted the money, so they had to play by Walmart's rules.
There are plenty of games with "brutal, gut wrenching violence" for sale, just like there are plenty of magazines with "raw hot sex", but you're not going to find either of them for sale at Walmart.
The ESRB isn't perfect, but I trust them more than Hilary Clinton or Arnold Schwarzenegger.
Without something like the ESRB, the government will step in and tell you want you can and can't buy. At least with self-rating we can avoid government censorship.
I'm not sure about this.
When Doom-II was the hot item, Mac had a great game called "Marathon". The game kicked ass in almost all the ways Halo did (just with 1990's graphics). When I showed the game to PC owners, they got jealous.
Did it influence many purchasing decisions? Not that I'm aware of. And while Bungie was popular in the small Mac gaming circles, they didn't become a household name until they released a product on the console.
I don't like to make personal attacks, but did somebody poop in your Cheerios this morning? ;)
I don't recall saying anything about Microsoft not subsidizing the XBox to get a foothold in the gaming market (they did). Or talking about Sony at all.
Please vent your anti-"M$" rage where it fits.
Halo was a big console pusher for the XBox. In fact, 5 to 10 years from now, it will probably be the only game most people remember playing on the original XBox.
But you're right, it wouldn't have sold that many Macs. One of the reasons it did so well, IMHO, is because it provided a great FPS experience to people without requiring a $1200+ gaming rig. By the time Halo2 came out, you could buy the system and the game for less than the price of a high-end video card.
I'm only talking about US prices.* We could compare the current price of a NES in France to the Launch price of the XBox 360 in Austria if you like, but I don't see the point.
Here's the launch prices in US dollars: Atari VCS (1977)$249.99, Nintendo Entertainment System (1985) $199.99, SEGA Genesis (1989) $249.99,NeoGeo (1990) $699.99, Super Nintendo (1991) for $199.99, Jaguar (1993) $249.99, 3DO Interactive Multiplayer (1993) $699.95, SEGA Saturn (1995) $399.99. Nintendo 64 (1996) $199.99, SEGA Dreamcast (1999) $199.99, PlayStation (1995) $299.99, PlayStation 2 (2000) $299.99, Xbox (2001) $299.99, GameCube (2001) $199.99.
Besides three systems, all of the prices has been $250 +/- $50. Hardly all over the map. The three systems that didn't follow this rule didn't do very well.
*(yes, I know there is life outside the US. But I don't know much about their shopping habits.)
Am I not being clear?
I'm comparing the launch prices of consoles. Not the current price of old-generation to the launch price of next-generation.
People who buy next-generation consoles in their first year are comparing it to the cost of the last-generation console in its first year. People who wait to buy the last-generation console shortly after the next-generation console is released, will wait until the PS3 cost less than $200 to purchase it.
You can move the numbers around how you like, compare as many apples to as many oranges as you can, but this is been trend. Consumers expect a new console launch price to be roughly equal to the previous console launch price.
For me its called "pride in ones work".
And, yes, we are taken advantage because of it; which is why the overturn rate at game companies is so high. But we leave *after* the project is done.
I understand inflation. I also understand why electronics get faster and cheaper over time. That wasn't the point of my post.
Maybe I should of said: "Buyers do not adjust for inflation when it comes to consoles or PCs."
The PS3 may be equal to the adjusted price of the PS2, but all consumers see is that the price is double what they paid for their last system.
As we've seen time and time again, you can not adjust for inflation when it comes to consoles or PCs.
I'm not sure why this is, but there is some weird "stasis bubble" around the price which is why my first console (Atari 2600) and my latest console (Wii) both cost $249.99 (and each came with one game).
Which pill? The one that makes you smaller? One that makes you tall? Or the one that keeps you from being a mom?
I'm looking after my own house nicely (good hours, fair pay, excellent work environment, a workforce that is old enough to have kids in college), thank you. :) But I know the industry in general has a bit of a bad rep to work on, which is why we have organizations like the IGDA.
The comment about older workers did bring up a good point that (sort of) ties back to the original topic. It's hard to find younger tech-workers here in the US at least those with skills. Yes, you learn a lot more "on the job" then you ever will in school but, the few people I interviewed, didn't have the basic knowledge that (IMHO) should be taught in entry level classes (how memory is managed, how function calls work on a low level, what the ".." in printf actually means).
Are they not teaching this in school anymore?
Smart answer. 100% true. It's the same economics that makes it cheaper to hire overseas than in the US.
I work for a bit of a strange case. Our parent company was overseas to start with and they "in sourced" to the US to get skill labor. Now the skilled labor here is in short supply, they can no longer afford to "buy American".
And if we promised unicorns and cocaine, the line would be twice as long. ;)
But it would of been more accurate for me to say "Price wasn't a factor because not a single applicate could answer even basic questions (like 'what is a stack')."
Depends, do you think you are worth 200K a year? We considered applicants who asked for over 100K who couldn't do simple 3D math.
I work in a traditionally underpaid part of the tech-industry (entertainment software), and I can still make a good living at it. Not "rock star" good, but "new car and house" good.
I use to think that the Microsoft's of the industry were just trying to save some cash by hiring workers overseas, until I had to interview for a co-worker. I'm surprised at a)the limited number of people in the US looking for a programming job and b)the almost complete lack of skill by those who did.
Long story short, after a year of looking we couldn't fill the position at any price.
I'm happy Halo3 is out because it helps collect the jerks in one spot.
Although it is almost funny in Shadowrun having an 100-lbs elf call your 800-lbs Troll a fag. ;)
Unless you are a console developer, I'm not sure why we should even think about Home right now. It will not be out until next year. Hopefully, by that time, the PS3 will cost almost half of what it does now and have a couple of fun games to play. ;)
In the meantime, enjoy the dozen or so other Virtual Game worlds on the market (which are free and run on the hardware you own today).
...or call their moms and play-back what they just said.
The result would be a lot like a shaped charge, but less messy. ;)
"The Blu-Ray market is far smaller than the gamer market."
Do you have any data to back this up?
The CEA (ce.org) shows 131,902,035 DVD players have been sold in the US alone. This number does not including PCs or game consoles (so, technically, I don't own a DVD player ;)). This is roughly equal to the total worldwide sale of the last generation of game consoles (PS2, GameCube, & XBox).
*If* Blu-Ray becomes the winner for this format war, the Blu-Ray market could be bigger than games.
I'd be happy if it just cut their microphone when they got stressed.
Thanks for the inside information.
Like you said, there probably isn't an "official policy" to play the open games but everybody does it. And since they have to sell it "as new", that's going to bite them in the ass.
The first "new" game I buy from GameStop that comes with everything unlocked will also be the last game I buy from them.
I'm not sure how long I played Bioshock. I think its a sign of a good game if you don't feel the need to time it. It could of been 10, 20, 40 or so hours, but I enjoyed all of them. Yes, it was almost totally linear. But I'm okay with that. It was like a great movie or book. To me, it was well worth the time and money.
If you wanted a game that lasted forever (or at least felt like it did) you should of bought one of the epic RPGs or an MMO. You could spend 100's of hours in EQ2 killing rats. If all you want to do is kill time, there are even MMOs out today that allow you to do this for free.
My point being, the game market is huge and full of choices. I'm not sure how they would lose a customer for life if you didn't play every game that came to market. In fact, I think they are more likely to lose you if you keep playing games you don't enjoy.
Also, as you said, there's plenty else to do. In fact, there is almost to much to do. In addition to working full time and being in a relationship, I'm an avid inline skater. I also enjoy biking, skiing, movies, amusement parks, books, and the internet. With so much to do, I'm glad I can find a game that is fun and doesn't eat up all my time.
(In short, go out and skate!):)
We're all just guessing here, and that causes problems.
I doubt GameStop, or any major game store, has any policy that allows employees to play games and then re-sell them as new. Not saying it doesn't happen, just that it isn't an official policy.