"..became one when my sister got a new copy of Elite Beat Agents and was crushed to find that everything had already been unlocked.."
Most likely they sold her a returned (used) copy as new. 100% pure profit for the store.
This probably wasn't a company policy but just a bored underpaid employee who didn't care to check. Either case, I hope you returned the title and demanded the new version you paid for.
Hardly months later. I can buy a used copy of BioShock right now. In a week, I could buy a used copy of Halo3 if I looked hard enough. I don't do this because a) I work in the industry and I like to think that some of my money would support the developer, and b) saving $4 on a $60 title doesn't feel like a big win to me.
I'm not saying they shouldn't sell used games, I don't think brick-and-mortar stores can survive on new game sales alone. But used game sales do not help developers (which is one reason why they are changing their revenue stream to online content and ads).
This is all true (at least as far as I know). But why didn't Sony come out and tell us this instead of lying to us over and over ("last gen", "wouldn't work", "massive damage", etc.).
I would have given Sony credit for fighting BS patents, instead they treated us all like 6-year-olds by trying to hide the truth with half-assed lies.
In today's political environment (in the US at least), a lunchbox based on a M-Rated game would cause hell. But you can have a lunchbox based on an R-Rated movie that tells you 3rd grader that he's dining in hell.
Because they are 3rd place in a race with only three players?
If you look at all console sales (including portable and "last gen") there is a clear link between cost and sales (almost as if the majority of consumers have to live on a budget...).
Yes, Microsoft really rushed the entire market this generation.
If they waited a year (or two), maybe 1 out of 3 360s wouldn't need to be repaired. The PS3 could of cost 1/2 to 2/3 the price. And the Wii could of used a next generation graphics.
"The question is do you want that 3rd one to be one of the Swan songs of the platform (Like God of War II) or one of the Launch titles for the new one and use the new tech available?"
I'd like to see Mass Effect 3 squeeze every last drop from the XBox360 and make us question why we need a new system when this old one can still rock.
Then I would love to see Bioware release a totally new game series on the new platform that makes us forget all about the 360.:)
How can a post be insightful if it can't even do basic math?
The first game is almost out. Which gives them four years to do two games (1 every TWO years). Which is about how long most new game projects are designed to take.
Since BioWare will probably build on the tools and engine of the first game, the second and third should be much easier (not trivial, but easier). I would guess 18 months between each game (given the huge amount of content).
Pay $50 to get some "free swag" and walk around in the world's biggest GameStop? No thanks.
I've already turned down free tickets to this event because, honestly, I don't think it is worth the LA traffic or the cost of parking (which can run you $30-$50 if the main lot is full).
I doubt many "very very casual gamers" will think its a good idea either...
Thank you. I have two degrees and I was starting to feel like an idiot because I had to look enjoined up to figure out if this was a good or bad thing.
I speak English, Tech, Marketing, Gamer, SciFi, Lit, and Geek but I never learned Lawyer...
That makes sense. There is no way you are going to get modded up for sane talk like that! Quick, replace the 'S' in Microsoft with a '$' or bitch about Sony DRM.;)
A 'Turing complete' AI isn't an issue, but I think you mean one that passes the 'Turing Test'. This has been done already, and I think the Lovelace Test has been passed as well.
But this is beside the point. Making an AI more human (or more dog-like) isn't always the best goal. For games, it's all about more fun.
(And I would suggest that you play catch with your dog, not Halo3.;) Even if you could train a dog to play deathmatch, an AI opponent would be much more fun.)
This isn't true. Many game still use finite state machines (FSM), but you also see things such as Bayesian Networks, Blackboard Architectures, STRIPS, etc.
Even if a game just used FSM, don't you think it would make sense to accelerate that? If I wanted to simulate New York City using only FSM, I would have to do thousands (millions?) of calculations per frame to get the behavior right.
ODE is good but, like most open source projects, I think it tries to be too much. It also has some fundamental issues that haven't been worked out yet.
Havok has great game support (for people who can afford it) including support for PS3 and XBox360. It does one thing, game physics, and it does it well.
Yes, because the only people who could enjoy AI that did more than basic pathfinding and state-tree seaches are chess players(???)
Good AI != Tough AI. With today's technology, you can easily make an AI that always knows where the player is, always selects the best weapon, and always hits the target for "massive damage"(tm). This is trivial. The only reason you don't see this is because the game wouldn't be any fun.
The trick is making AI that is interesting, fair, and fun. In an FPS I don't want to have my head shot off unless I believe I earned it (i.e. If I walk down the middle of a battlefield, I deserved it. If I'm sneaking in the shadows, they shouldn't be able to see me.). In an RPG, I want a world full of background AI that react to my actions and have lives of their own (Farmer Bob tends to the field until I set his sheep on fire. Then he comes at me with an axe.). And so on.
Complex AI like this can take a long time to design, debug, and test. And the AI programmers normally get 8-12% of the CPU to do it with (2005 stats, we may have more now). If we could offload some of that AI onto hardware, we could have a lot more of it.
So marketing people from Sony can't bother even making fake accounts on Slashdot now?
Maybe this AC is just a fanboy but, honestly, this is so much empty marketing crap. So, in the interest of equal time, lets talk about A World of Your Own!
First, I would love to know where that conversion of RedPlanet went (I loved that game, and I'm sad to see it go).
Having played the MW4 on the custom hardware ("Firestorm" Pods) I have to say I still prefer the previous (Tesla) version. You could play the original Tesla BattleTech for years and still not get bored with it, but the learning curve was high for new players. The Firestorm version removed the simulation parts to make it easy to learn, which made sense since they also moved the Pods into arcades, but it stopped being a sim and just became another arcade machine.
Even MW3, rushed as it was, still had the right feel of a military sim (not surprising given Zipper's background).
I'm not going to defend the price. I think if they priced it at $40 they would have sold a lot more. But the only problem with the limited number of maps is marketing.
Each map in Shadowrun is amazing. You get the feeling that they spent months perfecting each one.
But, given how many people cite the "lack of maps" as a killer, they probably should of made a dozen more half-assed levels just to bump up the count.
Back in the late 80s (or 90s), the US government basically told the game industry: "You have to rate your games or we'll do it for you." A couple of organizations were created, and the ESRB became the standard.
So, in short, the ESRB is the only thing that stops people like Hilary or Arnold from tell you what you can play.
Slashdot Mirror
"..became one when my sister got a new copy of Elite Beat Agents and was crushed to find that everything had already been unlocked.."
Most likely they sold her a returned (used) copy as new. 100% pure profit for the store.
This probably wasn't a company policy but just a bored underpaid employee who didn't care to check. Either case, I hope you returned the title and demanded the new version you paid for.
Hardly months later. I can buy a used copy of BioShock right now. In a week, I could buy a used copy of Halo3 if I looked hard enough. I don't do this because a) I work in the industry and I like to think that some of my money would support the developer, and b) saving $4 on a $60 title doesn't feel like a big win to me.
I'm not saying they shouldn't sell used games, I don't think brick-and-mortar stores can survive on new game sales alone. But used game sales do not help developers (which is one reason why they are changing their revenue stream to online content and ads).
This is all true (at least as far as I know). But why didn't Sony come out and tell us this instead of lying to us over and over ("last gen", "wouldn't work", "massive damage", etc.).
I would have given Sony credit for fighting BS patents, instead they treated us all like 6-year-olds by trying to hide the truth with half-assed lies.
You're right, and me without mod points
In today's political environment (in the US at least), a lunchbox based on a M-Rated game would cause hell. But you can have a lunchbox based on an R-Rated movie that tells you 3rd grader that he's dining in hell.
I'm not really a "fancy underwear" kind of girl, but I would totally buy that.
Me too... ah, wait. The other guys still haven't recovered from my Princess Leia outfit... ;)
Given the Red Planet news released on their website a few days after this story went up, I think I have my answer. :)
That wasn't AI, but most likely level design (or blind luck).
AI that can be put anywhere and act "smart" is still a ways off...
Because they are 3rd place in a race with only three players?
If you look at all console sales (including portable and "last gen") there is a clear link between cost and sales (almost as if the majority of consumers have to live on a budget...).
Yes, Microsoft really rushed the entire market this generation.
If they waited a year (or two), maybe 1 out of 3 360s wouldn't need to be repaired. The PS3 could of cost 1/2 to 2/3 the price. And the Wii could of used a next generation graphics.
"The question is do you want that 3rd one to be one of the Swan songs of the platform (Like God of War II) or one of the Launch titles for the new one and use the new tech available?"
I'd like to see Mass Effect 3 squeeze every last drop from the XBox360 and make us question why we need a new system when this old one can still rock.
Then I would love to see Bioware release a totally new game series on the new platform that makes us forget all about the 360. :)
How can a post be insightful if it can't even do basic math?
The first game is almost out. Which gives them four years to do two games (1 every TWO years). Which is about how long most new game projects are designed to take.
Since BioWare will probably build on the tools and engine of the first game, the second and third should be much easier (not trivial, but easier). I would guess 18 months between each game (given the huge amount of content).
Pay $50 to get some "free swag" and walk around in the world's biggest GameStop? No thanks.
I've already turned down free tickets to this event because, honestly, I don't think it is worth the LA traffic or the cost of parking (which can run you $30-$50 if the main lot is full).
I doubt many "very very casual gamers" will think its a good idea either...
Thank you. I have two degrees and I was starting to feel like an idiot because I had to look enjoined up to figure out if this was a good or bad thing.
I speak English, Tech, Marketing, Gamer, SciFi, Lit, and Geek but I never learned Lawyer...
That makes sense. There is no way you are going to get modded up for sane talk like that! Quick, replace the 'S' in Microsoft with a '$' or bitch about Sony DRM. ;)
Either the people from "E for All" think they are strong enough to crush PAX (unlikely), or they just want to end it all.
Or they are too clueless to care...
A 'Turing complete' AI isn't an issue, but I think you mean one that passes the 'Turing Test'. This has been done already, and I think the Lovelace Test has been passed as well.
But this is beside the point. Making an AI more human (or more dog-like) isn't always the best goal. For games, it's all about more fun.
(And I would suggest that you play catch with your dog, not Halo3. ;) Even if you could train a dog to play deathmatch, an AI opponent would be much more fun.)
I'm not sure where to start with this. I'll just say that you have an "interesting view" on what it takes to make game AI fun and leave it at that. :)
This isn't true. Many game still use finite state machines (FSM), but you also see things such as Bayesian Networks, Blackboard Architectures, STRIPS, etc.
Even if a game just used FSM, don't you think it would make sense to accelerate that? If I wanted to simulate New York City using only FSM, I would have to do thousands (millions?) of calculations per frame to get the behavior right.
ODE is good but, like most open source projects, I think it tries to be too much. It also has some fundamental issues that haven't been worked out yet.
Havok has great game support (for people who can afford it) including support for PS3 and XBox360. It does one thing, game physics, and it does it well.
IMHO
Yes, because the only people who could enjoy AI that did more than basic pathfinding and state-tree seaches are chess players(???)
Good AI != Tough AI. With today's technology, you can easily make an AI that always knows where the player is, always selects the best weapon, and always hits the target for "massive damage"(tm). This is trivial. The only reason you don't see this is because the game wouldn't be any fun.
The trick is making AI that is interesting, fair, and fun. In an FPS I don't want to have my head shot off unless I believe I earned it (i.e. If I walk down the middle of a battlefield, I deserved it. If I'm sneaking in the shadows, they shouldn't be able to see me.). In an RPG, I want a world full of background AI that react to my actions and have lives of their own (Farmer Bob tends to the field until I set his sheep on fire. Then he comes at me with an axe.). And so on.
Complex AI like this can take a long time to design, debug, and test. And the AI programmers normally get 8-12% of the CPU to do it with (2005 stats, we may have more now). If we could offload some of that AI onto hardware, we could have a lot more of it.
So marketing people from Sony can't bother even making fake accounts on Slashdot now?
Maybe this AC is just a fanboy but, honestly, this is so much empty marketing crap. So, in the interest of equal time, lets talk about A World of Your Own!
The amount of effort must be staggering to create a system as good as Sony's Home, but release it sooner:...
First, I would love to know where that conversion of RedPlanet went (I loved that game, and I'm sad to see it go).
Having played the MW4 on the custom hardware ("Firestorm" Pods) I have to say I still prefer the previous (Tesla) version. You could play the original Tesla BattleTech for years and still not get bored with it, but the learning curve was high for new players. The Firestorm version removed the simulation parts to make it easy to learn, which made sense since they also moved the Pods into arcades, but it stopped being a sim and just became another arcade machine.
Even MW3, rushed as it was, still had the right feel of a military sim (not surprising given Zipper's background).
I'm not going to defend the price. I think if they priced it at $40 they would have sold a lot more. But the only problem with the limited number of maps is marketing.
Each map in Shadowrun is amazing. You get the feeling that they spent months perfecting each one.
But, given how many people cite the "lack of maps" as a killer, they probably should of made a dozen more half-assed levels just to bump up the count.
Short answer, its harder to sell used PC games. Used games is where they make their money.
Plus the PC game market is small compared to consoles. Which is why you still see all those 3-year-old games still unsold.
Back in the late 80s (or 90s), the US government basically told the game industry: "You have to rate your games or we'll do it for you." A couple of organizations were created, and the ESRB became the standard.
So, in short, the ESRB is the only thing that stops people like Hilary or Arnold from tell you what you can play.
(And, yes, it still sucks)