first off, your correct. Hunters are great for soloing. In fact, I played one myself. I'm mainly referring to PvP in this respect. As a hunter, using all my abilities including my pet, I had the hardest time with mages (EG: Shaman, mage, priest, warlock). Even 2 levels lower than me (shaman especially) could beat me with little effort. Against an on par warlock, I got owned, because they were able to out damage deal me, and could cast spells to reduce my attack speed and movement speed = no escape.
As for the whiny kids part. That happened alot to the point where I thought about leaving the general chat. If you weren't paying much attention to it, then you probably didn't notice it as much. Yes there were friendly people who helped, I was one of them. However, the same questions always arose regardless of how many times they were answered. Also, while I understand people complaining about the lag, some people didn't know when to quit. Instead of being constructive about it, and moving on to other issues, they simply continued to complain about the lag. However, you have to anticipate lag and crashes in a beta. Blizzard gave us a free two week pass to play their game. Even with the problems it had, I still had fun, and I rarely complained about it (I mainly made my arguements in the forums as opposed to the general chat).
Initially, I was holding out for WoW, but my friends got me hooked on FFXI. At that point, I was unsure if I'd even care if WoW would ever come out. Now, I'm at the point where I'm considering letting my character just fade away in FFXI, so I can conduct new and exciting adventures in Azeroth.
Honestly, even with the beta flaws, the game was great.
The negative: No PvP reward system. Massive lag Game occasinally crashed while in PvP Class imbalances, mage types appeared to have a major advantage over all other classes bugged quests, abilities, etc.. Whiny kids asking for everbody in general chat to guide them through every single quest regardless of whether the quest log told them exactly what to do. Mind you that when the lag occured they were the first to type, "OMG!!!!11111 LAAAAAAAGGGGGGGGGGGG"
The positive: Good graphics PvP reward system should be in at retail Massive world to explore PvP was fun for the first couple of days till it became apparent that it simply detracted from questing and xping (I had alot of fun with it regardless). Lots of interesting quests, this is the best way to lv your character. Also, it I found it best to always find quests that took place in the same general area, so you didn't have to run back and forth as much. An example area is duskwood where you had to trek to Raven's hill many many times ( a 15+ minute walk from Duskwood). Casual feel makes the game fun, instead of like work. Lots of humerous little things such as Gubber Blump, a sort of dunce, who is WoW's equivalent to Forest Gump.
In any case, I find it a shame that all our characters are being deleted. I expected it, but there was a rumor going around that Blizzard was going to let us keep our characters for retail. Many people, including myself fear that all the "nooby" areas upon release will have massive amounts of players attemping to quest and xp. Choking the areas, and creating a sort of frustration. Hopefully it won't be as bad as I fear.
I also hope they get the lag problems solved. Many people said that it was mainly part of the stress test, but who knows. Blizzard isn't infallable and while they're doing a good job, really they are in uncharted waters.
I agree. I really like Bruce Boxleitner.
As for JMS being in charge of the show. If that were true, then it would be a step in the right direction. His writing is typically top notch, and at the very least it wouldn't be any worse than what we've seen on tv so far.
I'd have to dissagree with that. As far as I'm concerned Babylon 5 was a giant space soap opera. If you look at it from beginning to end, there is a giant purpose to how JMS wrote it. In fact, there was even hints that how the story turned out was not his true vision. That Sinclair was supposed to be the only "the one". In any case, babylon 5 is a giant soap opera, and it worked in a 1 hour time slot. Star Wars can do the same, it will all come down to the writers, and pray they aren't like the Star Trek writers.
Am I the only one who gets tired of hearing about jedi vs. Sith lords? Why don't they try Red vs. Blue for a change, geez.
Also, once again. Its a jedi (or potential jedi) who is torn between light and dark and can go either way. Good idea, but its becoming cliche.
Well in any case, I won't judge it till its near completion. I liked KOTOR, but I hope they improve your options for making choices. Also, I would like to see a higher capacity for a romantic relationship in the game (it was pretty lame in KOTOR). Finally, more choices in locations to visit/ more in depth areas to explore. I felt somewhat caged in KOTOR.
I don't want to have to say, "this isn't the game your looking for" *waves hand* to people.
I'm not 100% sure they did listen. There's a scene in that trailer where doc oct tells parker to find spider man. He then procedes to throw parker into a brick wall....You'd think that after Parker got back up with only minor injuries that Doc Oct, a genius, would figure out that parker is spiderman. I may be reading too much in to the trailer, but it seems logical. Anyway, my sequel senses are tingling, and they are warning me of a possible dissapointment.
I'd like to add...yeah, and its not like those programmers don't work their asses off to get the game done either. Gee, those darn lazy programmers and their bloated salaries. How dare they only work 12-16 hours days, and sleep at work so they can get started working on the game faster. How dare they try and make a living wage based on the education and skill they contribute. Darn evil programmers making too much! They can burn in hell! Outsourcing is good cuz it helps the poor broke little game making companies. boo hoo!
Sure, I'll go directly to your claim that minimum wage kills jobs. Partially because I grow weary of this, partially because you state the obvious and third because you continue to misinterpret or add your own spin on what I have written. You also either don't get my points or are asininely witty. Finally, you disregard morality, ethics, human rights. Which btw, are as important as having the job. You say that it doesn't matter if its voluntary, because its a better choice. You also make claims that my counter arguements are irrelevant, but they clearly knock down your claims that conditions will improve if they eventually make demands. You cannot improve conditions somewhere if the factors for improvement are not present. An oppresive/corrupt fundamentalist government is quite relevant, especially if it enables poor business practice, such as denying human rights, fair wages, etc...
It also does not make it right to let people work in poor conditions so prices can go down. Especially if its somebody who wishes to save a dollar on his walkman or cellphone.
A variety of studies looking at the impact of an increase in the minimum wage have shown that it has little or no effect. Besides, you could say we'd have more jobs if we paid people $3 an hour. We need to establish a floor beyond which companies should not be allowed to go. The economy is not a force of nature. We intervene all over the place. We need to ensure these workers get a fair shake.
Fortune (Europe); 9/29/2003, Vol. 148 Issue 6, p27, 1/2p, 1bw
First, notice that Fortune is a credible source, and I am citing something after the year 2000. Instead of from 45 years ago. Unemployment does not necessarily result from an increase in the minimum wage. There are a variety of factors that influence it.
it is not known how high minimum wages can be pushed before consumers begin to substitute away from goods and services that are produced using highly labor-intensive means
in other words, you can push up wages and consumers may not even notice the difference.
The fact that a majority of the businesses we surveyed indicated they would not be affected by a wage increase to $7.25 is an indication that the current minimum wage is below the market-clearing wage. However, we can expect that disemployment effects will increase as the wage approaches a market-clearing wage....As a society, we have an economic and moral interest in ensuring that those who work earn a wage that allows them to live in dignity above the poverty line. With appropriate consideration given to wage structure and employment consequences, the minimum wage can be used to boost incomes for those at the low end of the wage scale. Today there is the additional concern of growing wage inequality, and research into the relationship between the minimum wage and wage contours could provide some insight into means of narrowing the wage gap.
Challenge; Mar/Apr2000, Vol. 43 Issue 2, p86, 11p
In other words, raising minimum wage can be done, and without a major loss in jobs.
...it is not possible to conclude that increased (decreased) unemployment induced by minimum wage policy necessarily implies decreased (increased) social welfare. When sequential, random search yields equilibrium wages rates that are too low, too many firms
operate and less efficient firms absorb labor that might otherwise be employed more
productively at better firms. Imposing a higher wage in this instance may eliminate less productive activities and redistribute labor to that, on average, it is used more productively. When social welfare and unemployment rise concomitantly, the increased average productivity of the employed is enough to offset any production lost by tolerating more unemployment.
Journal of Labor Economics; Apr96, Vol. 14 Issue 2, p340, 16p
Again, implementing and using a minimum wage that ensures a decent living wage can be a good thing. Sure there will be unemployed, but they can find work elsewhere. Its also pos
First, sorry it took so long to respond. I had way more important things to do first. However, I like how you ended your last response so that if I didn't bother to respond it would seem like you've "won" the arguement.
You are not making any points. You keep regurgitating that they need standards and living wages and minimum wage and all these things that
Actually, yes I am making a point. If I wasn't then you wouldn't bother to respond.You do keep ignoring important points. You are also hypocritical, you allow exceptions for yourself but not me. When you make a statement, you assume its automatically true, but do not allow such things for me. Many of the theoretical perspectives you apply only work in countries that are A) industrialized B) Value human rights C) Have a similar belief system to our own, and you cannot tell me that Asian countries value the individual over the group.
yet you continue on in the most pretentious and mocking manner. If I left out quoted text it's because it was redundant...Otherwise you are creating strawmen
And your text isn't redundant? Mind you that if I do sound mocking, its only to discourage what I call the "duh" factor. Assume that I'm aware of simple mathmatics, the principles of economics, and that having a diploma doesn't guarantee a job. Also assume that I CAN walk and chew bubble gum at the same time. BTW: You are right, I'm not an economist, and neither are you. I'm a computer programmer. If you were an economist, you wouldn't be quoting 100 level econ theory and stating that its completely applicable to the real world. Course I can pretend to be an economomist just like you. All I gotta do is crack open one of my econ books and quote it or I can google a question.
I can not quote you on everything because it is reptetious and mostly void of argument. I do my best to summarize your arguments (rather than quoting paragraphs and making red herrings) because it is simply more logical, and a more condensed read. Let me start with your arguments you've made and why they are wrong
repetitious, yes, because A) you didn't knock it down B) you seemed mixed in your feelings. You want to see those 3rd world workers improve their surroundings via the "invisible hand", but you seem to care more about getting cheap products.
C) My arguements are only mute or void when you fail to consider the alternative, or convince yourself that it is non-existant. Therefore you can win in your mind by default. Also, I don't make red-herrings, I make red snappers, its a very tasty fish you know;). If I quote paragraphs, sorry. Its often easier that way for me. At least I try to respond to every comment of yours. Mind you that your "arguements" can be knocked down as well, considering that you see it from a moral/ethical view, as well as reality instead of theory. You also have to ask more questions. Just because new and "innovative" (I love that word) jobs came about after the automotive industry outsourced doesn't mean that the move was directly responsible for it. In that case, we could say that during the summer, burglary goes up with the amount of ice cream consumed, or we could say that as jobs were lost the amount of burglary and the amount of inmates in a correctional institution went up.
New and "innovative" jobs may have came from the shift, but it could also be because new technology came out (new field to train in), temp jobs, that Y2k thing. I'm sure some new jobs came about because of the move. In fact I read a few articles on how it created new jobs in America. New and "innovative" jobs, course they failed to list in what sector, the pay, the number of jobs.
Providing a low wage is not slavery whatsoever.
sure its not. Cause you know how making next to nothing isn't slavery. I guess you just have to make nothing in order for it to be slavery. Not like there is such thing as legalized slavery, legal plunder, or anything like that.
No. The logic wasn't based on 3rd world labor = good, American labor = bad. It's based on government intervention screwing up the marketplace. This is artificial unemployment. THAT is what I'm against. Minimum wage laws have a history of causing unemployment. Here's your proof/source: http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/153901_unemp loy26.html?searchpagefrom=1&searchdiff=49
I am completly in favor of employing 10 third world workers if it puts one American out of work. Why? Because I am not as nationalistic as you. I realize that an unemployed American will be far better off than an unemployed Indian.
First, nice to know you ignored large portions of my responses. Second, nice article not only does it appear to be an opinion but it just so happens that its a dead link. Other than that I suppose the rest of this part of your argument is okay. Sure, an unemployed american will be better off, but don't complain when he/she is receiving unemployment. Second of all, in terms of 3rd world countries, you cannot seriously believe that poor wages and working conditions help a country.
But this is not always the case. It depends on productivity. To blindly pay somebody more out of 'good conscience' will end up putting you out of business. The above anaylsis is crucial if you want to stay competetive. Any attempt to 'level the playing field' will cause more unemployment and drive up the price of goods
Well, we're not actually blindly paying somebody. In fact, we are not even saying that they have to be paid minimum wage. However, I am saying that if you want to do business with the US then you should be paying them our minimum wage, in the context that the company is from the US using foreign labor. They should also have safe working conditions. None of that is arbitrary, and if you really think that safety is arbitrary then go move to a 3rd world country.
btw: thx for the math lesson. First you point out the obvious, now this.
Comparative advantage is the hallmark of free trade. It is the only 'free lunch' that exists. Free lunches do not come from minimum wage laws unfortunately. And you are right, there is a transitional period where we do have unemployment (known as strucutural/frictional unemployment) which is largely considered healthy by all economists. Go ahead. Look it up.
Specialization's benefits vastly outweighs the negatives. Otherwise we'd never trade with anyone other under any circumstaces. When you try to interupt free trade you are telling people they shouldn't be allowed to make voluntarily transactions. How is that fair?
Do you really think said 55 year old, with years of experience under his belt is going to work at Wal-mart? Companies like experience. I'm sure he's going to be fine. Unless of course YOU can show me some proof of huge amounts of unemployed 55 year olds
yes, except for the rule that states, "there is no free lunch". I think I also said CA was a big load of something that stinks. When you are 55 retraining will be a major hassle. Sure, maybe they will be fine, but do you really want to retrain when you are that old? Also as you've pointed out to me many times in another form. Experience doesn't gurantee you a job, especially if you go into another field of work.
Which btw: I'm not going to bother giving you proof on an example. Mainly because you left out key points that I made, I'm half convinced your just trolling. Also, once again you take liberties on what I am saying, by claiming what you said is what I said. Somehow, you think that I said free lunches come from minimum wage laws? okay.....
As a reasonable human being, yes of course you should. It's funny you complain that these people need protection like living standards and minimum wage laws, and all along you don't really care what happens, just so long as it benefits American. Try to be a little more compassionate.
The context of my statement, is that if you don't care if an American gets unemployed, why should I care if someb
We still have not received anything from Hasbro
so we are moving in a new direction.
We have taken down our old page and will be creating a new one.
We have posted links to our forums here an have a small contact list here.
Right now we need some help naming a couple of the new vehicles
so if you guys would like to help us out please check out the post in our
forum or you can go directly to post here.
Thanks for the post, shame you didn't bother posting this piece as well.
It doesn't matter how long you've studied, what you studied, what your investment is, or anything like that. Your going to university doesn't guarantee you anything. It doesn't matter that you studied computer science. If you went to school for 4 years and can't get a job over 30K, then that was a poor decision on your part. University is about making yourself valuable to employers. That requires you own intiative and research. Nobody will hand you a job because you have a degree.
....thanks for overstating the obvious.
I have no idea where you got my 'logic' from. I am against paying 3rd world people minimum wage beacuse it will unemploy them. I am against forcing companies to hire overpriced American labor because it will drive up the price of goods and make the economy more sluggish and more unemployed. Therefore: I am against unemployment.
In order to see the logic, all you have to do is re-read your initial post and what I said. Pretty much, you said. If you lose your job to somebody in the 3rd world who can be paid less, that's okay, too bad for you. However, if we make the requirement that outsourced business require liveable working conditions and be paid the minimum wage at the very least (in order to do business in the US), that is bad. Why? because it will unemploy slave wage workers. Essentially your statement means that unemployment in the US is okay, if it gives a job to a 3rd world worker. If we then make conditions that require fair and decent working conditions in the 3rd world business, it may unemploy the worker, that's bad. How is that bad? Or better yet, how is that worse than unemploying somebody in the US? Mind you I never said that a programmer had to be paid $80k a year. In fact somebody linked to an article on some programmers who make around $40k a year. Also, and again. Give me proof that it would unemploy them. I want you to show proof that it would unemploy these workers if they got a decent wage. You cannot tell me your over paying them if you give them workable conditions and better pay. That's insane. You think that underpaying workers will lead to a better infrastructure? yeah right. Cause you know how countries like vietnam, and the phillipines are up and coming. I hear they might become 2nd class nations in the next 200 years based on current incomes.
Employers are not in the business of supplying jobs, they are in the business of supplying products. This means either:
A. Hiring very productive people and paying them well.
B. Hiring fairly unproductive people and paying them little
really?! I thought that they were. You mean this isn't communist Russia? Seriously though, I'd choose A everytime. Paying well, doesn't = being overpaid. In many cases, it can mean, enough pay to raise a family, buy a house, car, etc... B is stupid, and in the long run, I think that it will end up hurting more than it does good. Who knows, we'll see. All I can say is that you get what you pay for. When it comes to "overpayed" workers, tell that to lots of hardworking tech workers who are oncall and do a ton of work. Some fly or drive to a different state on a moments notice. Many of their pay checks are justified.
Which you choose depends on the actual numerical values of the production output, and the wages paid. In this case, it is more economical to pay Indians to do the same work as Americans. If Americans don't want to work under those 'dreadful' conditions, that's too bad. I'm happy for the Indians who actually have a job.
There's nothing wrong with someone willing to do your job for less, regardless of where they live.
Okay, good for you. I'm glad that you enjoy it.
Giving them so-called "livable" environment is also expensive. Any measure that would over-value the employees would cause them to be unemployed
Am I supposed to care if they become unemployed? People in the US become employed because of 3rd world labor, and I'm seriously supposed to care?
Boohoo, it co
First and foremost, I have no idea where to begin with how wrong your statements are.
1) The implication is in regards to those who studied computer science, or business. I'm quite aware that getting an MFA doesn't guarantee you a steady job.
2) that's an interesting arguement...
"you are only worth as much as your productivity, and if someone is willing to work for less than you, that's your problem" Later you say, "these workers are far less productive than Americans. If you pay them minimum wage it won't be profitable to hire them anymore, and they'll be unemployed." So what your saying is that firing productive well paid workers, and unemploying them is okay. Then hiring slave labor, thats not very productive and paying them more is bad because its not profitable. That if we pay them minimum wage it will make them unemployed. So unemploy US workers good, unemploy 3rd world workers bad. Umm yeah..... I can see the logic in that.
if someone is willing to work for less than you , that's your problem.
Naw, its not my problem. Its your problem, my problem, and everybody elses. There are alot of jobs you can outsource. Only a few jobs have true security. However, with alot of unemployed people, there's a larger pool of hungry laborers just willing to take your job if they can. They'll even do it for less, provided that the law allows them to do so.
You claim that our productivity is our wealth. Yeah, so that's things like steel, semicondutors, computers, cars....stuff like that right? We put lots of that stuff out....oh right, lots of that is outsourced to foreign countries, and from what I recall, the steel industry has been hit hard as of late due to cheap Asian steel.
In either case, I couldn't care less about "OUR" productivity. I'm talking about living wages that allow people to buy cars, houses, and raise a family. So maybe Productivity is the nations wealth, but wages are the people's wealth.
as for your remark on 3, yeah, yah know its nice to take an attitude of "who cares", but the fact still remains that we got rid of working conditions like that in America for a reason. However, your right, they DID CHOOSE a slave labor job above others. I mean, if YOU had a choice between poverty and a.14 a day wage, or poverty and starving to death. Which would you choose? That's like saying, "these people chose to be slaves as opposed to being gassed. They wanted to live."
We cannot superimpose American standards on third world countries.
Minimum wage will be a terrible thing to implement as well
Your right, we can't impose our standards on 3rd worth countries. However, we can on our own businesses. Fung-Shue-slave inc. isn't the one importing the shoes to the states, its Nike. I think that american businesses or businesses that want to sell in america have to adhere to a certain level of business practices. That means, ensuring that the environment that workers work in are safe and liveable. Also that their wages meet our own federal minimum wage. If a business can't meet those requirements, then they shouldn't do business in America. Mind you that it would not be more expensive to do this. You have no proof that it would be more expensive, and I challenge you to cough up the evidence. You also have to ask why they are less productive (in your own words), could it be because they live in piss poor conditions. Course you probably wouldn't know that considering that your probably living quite comfortably.
My politics would not hurt the third world countries. That's like saying "your repairs will hurt that broken down old car." You cannot break what is already broken. These countries are being exploited, and they certainly would not hurt countries that DO pay their employees a living wage. Honestly, India would not be harmed by my idea because they are already being paid well enough for where they live. If they make $40k a year, then they obviously are being paid more than our own federal minimum wage standard.
honestly, I have to agree with the AC's response to you. Your dumb if you think that people can survive without jobs today. I want to see you grow all your food in your backyard, plus make enough to be able to pay for the land that you are growing your food on. Hey, maybe now that all the tech jobs are outsourced. All the "techies" can move back home and get paper routes.
"So start your own innovative IT business".
First off, that requires venture capital. Without a job, that's kinda hard to get. Course, with that paper route I just signed up for, it should only take 20 years:P. Anyway, you make it sound easier than it really is. Hey, how about you become president of the united states instead of trolling on/.? see how easy that was?
seriously, you can start a business, but innovation is pretty ambiguous. Also, I seem to recall an event called the dot bomb. Lots of guys created innovative businesses only to find that their stock was cheaper than toilet paper. So at this point, starting a business is out of the question.
I'm not saying that I haven't adapted. However, I think I still have the right to say that its wrong. Just like you have the right to say, "get over it". My point is simply that you can spend alot of time becoming educated, and it doesn't mean anything. Why spend all that time and money going to school, if the best you can get is $20,000-$40,000 annually? Why? because somebody far away can do an adequate job for way less money. Usually because they are not playing by the same rules/laws, and have lower standards of living.
Also lowering the products production cost doesn't necessarily raise the standard of living for all americans. I'm sorry you think that. Typically, profits go to the company and the share holders first. Not the people buying the product. Usually, the price falls due to competition because one company has an advantage, and all the other businesses have to play "keep up". That's where the price drop usually occurs.
actually, that's a good point. The reason for our tax dollars (in theory) when the US govt. hires contracts is that it helps the taxpayers through jobs, and that whole trickle down theory. However, if you outsource beyond the US borders. The taxdollars help only the owners, and foreign companies. I think that is wrong because it deprives our own citizens of their own money. I also see the counter arguement of it being cheaper for the US tax payers. However, my response is that in the long run its more expensive because our money is now outside our own borders. On top of that, did they really save money? the Govt. probably still gave out all the money, its just that the contracting company got to pocket more of it. So AC, I think your right.
okee dokee. Calm down okay. First and foremost, I said nothing about the EU having a booming economy. Second of all, you'll note that I put my comment about their outsourcing with a ? (question) mark. EG: How many EU countries are outsourcing to India? I think your comment may have been more helpful if it targeted the question I asked instead of the sarcastic remark about their unemployment rate. If your gonna reply, reply constructively instead of hastily
Outsourcing is by far the bane of the american dream.
As one Indian exec put it to me: The Americans' self-image that this tech thing was their private preserve is over. This is a "wake-up call" for U.S. workers to redouble their efforts at education and research. If they do that, he said, it will spur "a whole new cycle of innovation, and we'll both win. If we each pull down our shutters, we will both lose."
My basest impression of this comment is that it is a big load of crap. I know well educated people who can't find a job or who were layed off. Thank goodness that most employers allow you to find new departments to work in. Even still, I don't think more education and research are part of the solution. My impression of tech jobs, is that you usually have to go to school your whole life to keep current.
Also, I never once believed that this "tech thing" was America's private preserve. However, how many EU countries are outsourcing to India? No, America's private preserve seems to be outsourcing to lower wage countries, while the news often puts a positive spin on it. The question that pops back into my mind is the one that every laid off/fired employee has, "Who's going to pay for all their products if nobody can afford them, and how am I going to live off of a highly reduced salary?"
as for that last part of the statement about a whole new cycle of innovation...and we'll both win. Yeah, I think that's a load....by both win, he means, India will win because they can undercut american salaries by far.
I think at some point the outsourcing needs to be regulated or even curbed back. I think also there should be a public list of companies that have outsourced to any foreign land and how many American jobs were lost because of it.
I agree, outsourcing should be regulated. It not only hurts the American economy, but it hurts many foreign countries as well. Nike, comes to my mind first. Mainly because they are notorious for their phillipines, slave labor like conditions.
I think the first stipulation would be that any US business has to pay the US minimum wage to overseas employees. Plus, they have to have livable working conditions, complete with breaks.
Bush is supposed to be working on new jobs for the unemployed, but I think most of those are going to be minimum wage jobs, and you know how those with a tech degree from college want to work at register. Nevermind the fact that we worked hard, sleepless nights to get away from that thing.
and buggy it is. I upgraded from 9.2 to 10.0 and I have to say that while 10.0 is more visually stunning than 9.2, it has some annoying bugs. One is the mouse bug. The mouse bug basically occurs in the install, where it fails to detect your mouse. If you configure your mouse yourself, then the configuration tool won't work. While not a major bug (if you know to use draktools), its very annoying for those who are noobs to linux. Do I dislike mandrake? no. Even with bugs mandrake is great for those who want to know more about linux. However, the bugs are a major deterrent for people such as myself who would like to trust mandrake linux.
I dissagree, there are lots of games made today that are just as fun as older games. Just because lots of games that are mediocre come out, doesn't mean the level of fun games is less. Some games are just remakes, and some are improvements. I mean, I really enjoyed the RE remake more so than the original. I can see your point in the idea, that its harder to put out an original idea.
I agree with you though, that most games are giant commercial projects now. However, that's the gamers fault I think. Most companies noticed the trend that consumers would buy the games that looked the coolest, rather than the game that was the most fun (am I wrong?).
Open source games is a cool concept because it lets programmers get a feel for how games should be coded. Game programming is hard, and lots of "tutorials" don't tell you all the stuff you have to put into a games engine.
This DIY games idea of awarding the best independent games seems almost equivalent to the cannes film festival. Really, there should be something like that for gamers. Not only would it show off new talent, but also what can be done with a tiny budget.
yeah, I started to catch onto the humor of what you were saying towards the end. Right about where I said, Now mind you that I find the humor in your statements.
heh. You got some funny ideas. 12 year olds using money obtained from drug dealing or worse, selling copies of Windows
I would say the biggest weakness the GC had is that it can't play DVDs
I dissagree with that. Lots of people claim the lack of DVD support is a drawback. I doubt that, you can get DVD players so cheap now, that they are practically a dime a dozen. The GC is simply a pure game console. I mean seriously, in my household alone, we have something like 10 devices that play DVDs. My GC's lack of DVD playback is not a problem.
Now I could see other households that might not have a bunch of tech stuff, but seriously. Picking up a $40 DVD (that's good) and a GC is still cheaper then buying a PS2 or xbox. Really, though, I think what might be hurting the GC is the lack of cheap titles, that compete with the PS2's Greatest Hits price and selection.
the satisfaction of not supporting M$ or $ony...
Nintendo couldn't be any more like Apple:
Please recheck your facts. Nintendo is as bad as $M and $ony. $hin-tendo is as money hungry as any other corporation, and as I recall they made deals with stores such as Toy R U$ to perpetuate a monopoly that pushed competitive groups out of their market. It wasn't till many lawsuits and regulations that Nintendo finally lost its stranglehold on the market.
I also don't find satisfaction in deny microsoft or sony money. If they sell a good product, I'm just as happy buying it from a large corporation as I would be if I bought it from a small business. Your partisan ideals really don't have a place in the console area mainly because what we are seeing is an era of awesome game choice, good prices, and good consoles.
Now mind you that I find the humor in your statements, but really the gamecube is a great console, that is NOT underpowered, but hey what do I know. I mean, according to microsoft a 733 celeron is faster than a 500mhz 128-bit processor. So obviously a 485Mhz proc of a different spec is guaranteed to be slower than the PS2 or xbox's proc. Also, the GC has a very nice graphics card, and fast ram. The only real drawback is that it lacks a hard drive. That's hardly a reason to be up in arms. Most games don't take advantage of the hard drive feature.
If your interepretation of "underpowered" is different from mine, please let me know.
Slashdot Mirror
first off, your correct. Hunters are great for soloing. In fact, I played one myself. I'm mainly referring to PvP in this respect. As a hunter, using all my abilities including my pet, I had the hardest time with mages (EG: Shaman, mage, priest, warlock). Even 2 levels lower than me (shaman especially) could beat me with little effort. Against an on par warlock, I got owned, because they were able to out damage deal me, and could cast spells to reduce my attack speed and movement speed = no escape. As for the whiny kids part. That happened alot to the point where I thought about leaving the general chat. If you weren't paying much attention to it, then you probably didn't notice it as much. Yes there were friendly people who helped, I was one of them. However, the same questions always arose regardless of how many times they were answered. Also, while I understand people complaining about the lag, some people didn't know when to quit. Instead of being constructive about it, and moving on to other issues, they simply continued to complain about the lag. However, you have to anticipate lag and crashes in a beta. Blizzard gave us a free two week pass to play their game. Even with the problems it had, I still had fun, and I rarely complained about it (I mainly made my arguements in the forums as opposed to the general chat).
Initially, I was holding out for WoW, but my friends got me hooked on FFXI. At that point, I was unsure if I'd even care if WoW would ever come out. Now, I'm at the point where I'm considering letting my character just fade away in FFXI, so I can conduct new and exciting adventures in Azeroth.
Honestly, even with the beta flaws, the game was great.
The negative:
No PvP reward system.
Massive lag
Game occasinally crashed while in PvP
Class imbalances, mage types appeared to have a major advantage over all other classes
bugged quests, abilities, etc..
Whiny kids asking for everbody in general chat to guide them through every single quest regardless of whether the quest log told them exactly what to do. Mind you that when the lag occured they were the first to type, "OMG!!!!11111 LAAAAAAAGGGGGGGGGGGG"
The positive:
Good graphics
PvP reward system should be in at retail
Massive world to explore
PvP was fun for the first couple of days till it became apparent that it simply detracted from questing and xping (I had alot of fun with it regardless).
Lots of interesting quests, this is the best way to lv your character. Also, it I found it best to always find quests that took place in the same general area, so you didn't have to run back and forth as much. An example area is duskwood where you had to trek to Raven's hill many many times ( a 15+ minute walk from Duskwood).
Casual feel makes the game fun, instead of like work.
Lots of humerous little things such as Gubber Blump, a sort of dunce, who is WoW's equivalent to Forest Gump.
In any case, I find it a shame that all our characters are being deleted. I expected it, but there was a rumor going around that Blizzard was going to let us keep our characters for retail.
Many people, including myself fear that all the "nooby" areas upon release will have massive amounts of players attemping to quest and xp. Choking the areas, and creating a sort of frustration. Hopefully it won't be as bad as I fear.
I also hope they get the lag problems solved. Many people said that it was mainly part of the stress test, but who knows. Blizzard isn't infallable and while they're doing a good job, really they are in uncharted waters.
I agree. I really like Bruce Boxleitner. As for JMS being in charge of the show. If that were true, then it would be a step in the right direction. His writing is typically top notch, and at the very least it wouldn't be any worse than what we've seen on tv so far.
I'd have to dissagree with that. As far as I'm concerned Babylon 5 was a giant space soap opera. If you look at it from beginning to end, there is a giant purpose to how JMS wrote it. In fact, there was even hints that how the story turned out was not his true vision. That Sinclair was supposed to be the only "the one". In any case, babylon 5 is a giant soap opera, and it worked in a 1 hour time slot. Star Wars can do the same, it will all come down to the writers, and pray they aren't like the Star Trek writers.
Also, once again. Its a jedi (or potential jedi) who is torn between light and dark and can go either way. Good idea, but its becoming cliche.
Well in any case, I won't judge it till its near completion. I liked KOTOR, but I hope they improve your options for making choices. Also, I would like to see a higher capacity for a romantic relationship in the game (it was pretty lame in KOTOR). Finally, more choices in locations to visit/ more in depth areas to explore. I felt somewhat caged in KOTOR.
I don't want to have to say, "this isn't the game your looking for" *waves hand* to people.
I'm not 100% sure they did listen. There's a scene in that trailer where doc oct tells parker to find spider man. He then procedes to throw parker into a brick wall....You'd think that after Parker got back up with only minor injuries that Doc Oct, a genius, would figure out that parker is spiderman. I may be reading too much in to the trailer, but it seems logical. Anyway, my sequel senses are tingling, and they are warning me of a possible dissapointment.
I'd like to add...yeah, and its not like those programmers don't work their asses off to get the game done either. Gee, those darn lazy programmers and their bloated salaries. How dare they only work 12-16 hours days, and sleep at work so they can get started working on the game faster. How dare they try and make a living wage based on the education and skill they contribute. Darn evil programmers making too much! They can burn in hell! Outsourcing is good cuz it helps the poor broke little game making companies. boo hoo!
Labs spokesman Michael Dickman called the downsized AT&T Labs...
Anybody else think that Dickman and downsized are two words that shouldn't be used anywhere near each other?
A variety of studies looking at the impact of an increase in the minimum wage have shown that it has little or no effect. Besides, you could say we'd have more jobs if we paid people $3 an hour. We need to establish a floor beyond which companies should not be allowed to go. The economy is not a force of nature. We intervene all over the place. We need to ensure these workers get a fair shake. Fortune (Europe); 9/29/2003, Vol. 148 Issue 6, p27, 1/2p, 1bw
First, notice that Fortune is a credible source, and I am citing something after the year 2000. Instead of from 45 years ago. Unemployment does not necessarily result from an increase in the minimum wage. There are a variety of factors that influence it.
it is not known how high minimum wages can be pushed before consumers begin to substitute away from goods and services that are produced using highly labor-intensive means
in other words, you can push up wages and consumers may not even notice the difference.
The fact that a majority of the businesses we surveyed indicated they would not be affected by a wage increase to $7.25 is an indication that the current minimum wage is below the market-clearing wage. However, we can expect that disemployment effects will increase as the wage approaches a market-clearing wage....As a society, we have an economic and moral interest in ensuring that those who work earn a wage that allows them to live in dignity above the poverty line. With appropriate consideration given to wage structure and employment consequences, the minimum wage can be used to boost incomes for those at the low end of the wage scale. Today there is the additional concern of growing wage inequality, and research into the relationship between the minimum wage and wage contours could provide some insight into means of narrowing the wage gap. Challenge; Mar/Apr2000, Vol. 43 Issue 2, p86, 11p
In other words, raising minimum wage can be done, and without a major loss in jobs.
Again, implementing and using a minimum wage that ensures a decent living wage can be a good thing. Sure there will be unemployed, but they can find work elsewhere. Its also pos
First, sorry it took so long to respond. I had way more important things to do first. However, I like how you ended your last response so that if I didn't bother to respond it would seem like you've "won" the arguement.
You are not making any points. You keep regurgitating that they need standards and living wages and minimum wage and all these things that
Actually, yes I am making a point. If I wasn't then you wouldn't bother to respond.You do keep ignoring important points. You are also hypocritical, you allow exceptions for yourself but not me. When you make a statement, you assume its automatically true, but do not allow such things for me. Many of the theoretical perspectives you apply only work in countries that are A) industrialized B) Value human rights C) Have a similar belief system to our own, and you cannot tell me that Asian countries value the individual over the group.
yet you continue on in the most pretentious and mocking manner. If I left out quoted text it's because it was redundant...Otherwise you are creating strawmen
And your text isn't redundant? Mind you that if I do sound mocking, its only to discourage what I call the "duh" factor. Assume that I'm aware of simple mathmatics, the principles of economics, and that having a diploma doesn't guarantee a job. Also assume that I CAN walk and chew bubble gum at the same time. BTW: You are right, I'm not an economist, and neither are you. I'm a computer programmer. If you were an economist, you wouldn't be quoting 100 level econ theory and stating that its completely applicable to the real world. Course I can pretend to be an economomist just like you. All I gotta do is crack open one of my econ books and quote it or I can google a question.
I can not quote you on everything because it is reptetious and mostly void of argument. I do my best to summarize your arguments (rather than quoting paragraphs and making red herrings) because it is simply more logical, and a more condensed read. Let me start with your arguments you've made and why they are wrong
repetitious, yes, because A) you didn't knock it down B) you seemed mixed in your feelings. You want to see those 3rd world workers improve their surroundings via the "invisible hand", but you seem to care more about getting cheap products. C) My arguements are only mute or void when you fail to consider the alternative, or convince yourself that it is non-existant. Therefore you can win in your mind by default. Also, I don't make red-herrings, I make red snappers, its a very tasty fish you know ;). If I quote paragraphs, sorry. Its often easier that way for me. At least I try to respond to every comment of yours. Mind you that your "arguements" can be knocked down as well, considering that you see it from a moral/ethical view, as well as reality instead of theory. You also have to ask more questions. Just because new and "innovative" (I love that word) jobs came about after the automotive industry outsourced doesn't mean that the move was directly responsible for it. In that case, we could say that during the summer, burglary goes up with the amount of ice cream consumed, or we could say that as jobs were lost the amount of burglary and the amount of inmates in a correctional institution went up.
New and "innovative" jobs may have came from the shift, but it could also be because new technology came out (new field to train in), temp jobs, that Y2k thing. I'm sure some new jobs came about because of the move. In fact I read a few articles on how it created new jobs in America. New and "innovative" jobs, course they failed to list in what sector, the pay, the number of jobs.
Providing a low wage is not slavery whatsoever.
sure its not. Cause you know how making next to nothing isn't slavery. I guess you just have to make nothing in order for it to be slavery. Not like there is such thing as legalized slavery, legal plunder, or anything like that.
Like I said it's voluntarily. You
First, nice to know you ignored large portions of my responses. Second, nice article not only does it appear to be an opinion but it just so happens that its a dead link. Other than that I suppose the rest of this part of your argument is okay. Sure, an unemployed american will be better off, but don't complain when he/she is receiving unemployment. Second of all, in terms of 3rd world countries, you cannot seriously believe that poor wages and working conditions help a country.
But this is not always the case. It depends on productivity. To blindly pay somebody more out of 'good conscience' will end up putting you out of business. The above anaylsis is crucial if you want to stay competetive. Any attempt to 'level the playing field' will cause more unemployment and drive up the price of goods
Well, we're not actually blindly paying somebody. In fact, we are not even saying that they have to be paid minimum wage. However, I am saying that if you want to do business with the US then you should be paying them our minimum wage, in the context that the company is from the US using foreign labor. They should also have safe working conditions. None of that is arbitrary, and if you really think that safety is arbitrary then go move to a 3rd world country. btw: thx for the math lesson. First you point out the obvious, now this.
Comparative advantage is the hallmark of free trade. It is the only 'free lunch' that exists. Free lunches do not come from minimum wage laws unfortunately. And you are right, there is a transitional period where we do have unemployment (known as strucutural/frictional unemployment) which is largely considered healthy by all economists. Go ahead. Look it up. Specialization's benefits vastly outweighs the negatives. Otherwise we'd never trade with anyone other under any circumstaces. When you try to interupt free trade you are telling people they shouldn't be allowed to make voluntarily transactions. How is that fair? Do you really think said 55 year old, with years of experience under his belt is going to work at Wal-mart? Companies like experience. I'm sure he's going to be fine. Unless of course YOU can show me some proof of huge amounts of unemployed 55 year olds
yes, except for the rule that states, "there is no free lunch". I think I also said CA was a big load of something that stinks. When you are 55 retraining will be a major hassle. Sure, maybe they will be fine, but do you really want to retrain when you are that old? Also as you've pointed out to me many times in another form. Experience doesn't gurantee you a job, especially if you go into another field of work. Which btw: I'm not going to bother giving you proof on an example. Mainly because you left out key points that I made, I'm half convinced your just trolling. Also, once again you take liberties on what I am saying, by claiming what you said is what I said. Somehow, you think that I said free lunches come from minimum wage laws? okay.....
As a reasonable human being, yes of course you should. It's funny you complain that these people need protection like living standards and minimum wage laws, and all along you don't really care what happens, just so long as it benefits American. Try to be a little more compassionate.
The context of my statement, is that if you don't care if an American gets unemployed, why should I care if someb
Thanks for the post, shame you didn't bother posting this piece as well.
Would that mean that the mod would include an aim bot that forces everybody to miss?
Yo-Joe! Co-bra!
"OMG! You killed duke! YOU bastard!"
yes, so the best way to do that is go on ./ and type like your crazy or a 12 yr old AOler, right?
I have no idea where you got my 'logic' from. I am against paying 3rd world people minimum wage beacuse it will unemploy them. I am against forcing companies to hire overpriced American labor because it will drive up the price of goods and make the economy more sluggish and more unemployed. Therefore: I am against unemployment.
In order to see the logic, all you have to do is re-read your initial post and what I said. Pretty much, you said. If you lose your job to somebody in the 3rd world who can be paid less, that's okay, too bad for you. However, if we make the requirement that outsourced business require liveable working conditions and be paid the minimum wage at the very least (in order to do business in the US), that is bad. Why? because it will unemploy slave wage workers. Essentially your statement means that unemployment in the US is okay, if it gives a job to a 3rd world worker. If we then make conditions that require fair and decent working conditions in the 3rd world business, it may unemploy the worker, that's bad. How is that bad? Or better yet, how is that worse than unemploying somebody in the US? Mind you I never said that a programmer had to be paid $80k a year. In fact somebody linked to an article on some programmers who make around $40k a year. Also, and again. Give me proof that it would unemploy them. I want you to show proof that it would unemploy these workers if they got a decent wage. You cannot tell me your over paying them if you give them workable conditions and better pay. That's insane. You think that underpaying workers will lead to a better infrastructure? yeah right. Cause you know how countries like vietnam, and the phillipines are up and coming. I hear they might become 2nd class nations in the next 200 years based on current incomes.
Employers are not in the business of supplying jobs, they are in the business of supplying products. This means either: A. Hiring very productive people and paying them well. B. Hiring fairly unproductive people and paying them little
really?! I thought that they were. You mean this isn't communist Russia? Seriously though, I'd choose A everytime. Paying well, doesn't = being overpaid. In many cases, it can mean, enough pay to raise a family, buy a house, car, etc... B is stupid, and in the long run, I think that it will end up hurting more than it does good. Who knows, we'll see. All I can say is that you get what you pay for. When it comes to "overpayed" workers, tell that to lots of hardworking tech workers who are oncall and do a ton of work. Some fly or drive to a different state on a moments notice. Many of their pay checks are justified.
Which you choose depends on the actual numerical values of the production output, and the wages paid. In this case, it is more economical to pay Indians to do the same work as Americans. If Americans don't want to work under those 'dreadful' conditions, that's too bad. I'm happy for the Indians who actually have a job. There's nothing wrong with someone willing to do your job for less, regardless of where they live.
Okay, good for you. I'm glad that you enjoy it.
Giving them so-called "livable" environment is also expensive. Any measure that would over-value the employees would cause them to be unemployed
Am I supposed to care if they become unemployed? People in the US become employed because of 3rd world labor, and I'm seriously supposed to care? Boohoo, it co
1) The implication is in regards to those who studied computer science, or business. I'm quite aware that getting an MFA doesn't guarantee you a steady job.
2) that's an interesting arguement... "you are only worth as much as your productivity, and if someone is willing to work for less than you, that's your problem" Later you say, "these workers are far less productive than Americans. If you pay them minimum wage it won't be profitable to hire them anymore, and they'll be unemployed." So what your saying is that firing productive well paid workers, and unemploying them is okay. Then hiring slave labor, thats not very productive and paying them more is bad because its not profitable. That if we pay them minimum wage it will make them unemployed. So unemploy US workers good, unemploy 3rd world workers bad. Umm yeah..... I can see the logic in that.
if someone is willing to work for less than you , that's your problem.
Naw, its not my problem. Its your problem, my problem, and everybody elses. There are alot of jobs you can outsource. Only a few jobs have true security. However, with alot of unemployed people, there's a larger pool of hungry laborers just willing to take your job if they can. They'll even do it for less, provided that the law allows them to do so.
You claim that our productivity is our wealth. Yeah, so that's things like steel, semicondutors, computers, cars....stuff like that right? We put lots of that stuff out....oh right, lots of that is outsourced to foreign countries, and from what I recall, the steel industry has been hit hard as of late due to cheap Asian steel. In either case, I couldn't care less about "OUR" productivity. I'm talking about living wages that allow people to buy cars, houses, and raise a family. So maybe Productivity is the nations wealth, but wages are the people's wealth.
as for your remark on 3, yeah, yah know its nice to take an attitude of "who cares", but the fact still remains that we got rid of working conditions like that in America for a reason. However, your right, they DID CHOOSE a slave labor job above others. I mean, if YOU had a choice between poverty and a .14 a day wage, or poverty and starving to death. Which would you choose? That's like saying, "these people chose to be slaves as opposed to being gassed. They wanted to live."
We cannot superimpose American standards on third world countries. Minimum wage will be a terrible thing to implement as well
Your right, we can't impose our standards on 3rd worth countries. However, we can on our own businesses. Fung-Shue-slave inc. isn't the one importing the shoes to the states, its Nike. I think that american businesses or businesses that want to sell in america have to adhere to a certain level of business practices. That means, ensuring that the environment that workers work in are safe and liveable. Also that their wages meet our own federal minimum wage. If a business can't meet those requirements, then they shouldn't do business in America. Mind you that it would not be more expensive to do this. You have no proof that it would be more expensive, and I challenge you to cough up the evidence. You also have to ask why they are less productive (in your own words), could it be because they live in piss poor conditions. Course you probably wouldn't know that considering that your probably living quite comfortably.
My politics would not hurt the third world countries. That's like saying "your repairs will hurt that broken down old car." You cannot break what is already broken. These countries are being exploited, and they certainly would not hurt countries that DO pay their employees a living wage. Honestly, India would not be harmed by my idea because they are already being paid well enough for where they live. If they make $40k a year, then they obviously are being paid more than our own federal minimum wage standard.
"So start your own innovative IT business".
First off, that requires venture capital. Without a job, that's kinda hard to get. Course, with that paper route I just signed up for, it should only take 20 years :P. Anyway, you make it sound easier than it really is. Hey, how about you become president of the united states instead of trolling on /.? see how easy that was?
seriously, you can start a business, but innovation is pretty ambiguous. Also, I seem to recall an event called the dot bomb. Lots of guys created innovative businesses only to find that their stock was cheaper than toilet paper. So at this point, starting a business is out of the question.
Also lowering the products production cost doesn't necessarily raise the standard of living for all americans. I'm sorry you think that. Typically, profits go to the company and the share holders first. Not the people buying the product. Usually, the price falls due to competition because one company has an advantage, and all the other businesses have to play "keep up". That's where the price drop usually occurs.
actually, that's a good point. The reason for our tax dollars (in theory) when the US govt. hires contracts is that it helps the taxpayers through jobs, and that whole trickle down theory. However, if you outsource beyond the US borders. The taxdollars help only the owners, and foreign companies. I think that is wrong because it deprives our own citizens of their own money. I also see the counter arguement of it being cheaper for the US tax payers. However, my response is that in the long run its more expensive because our money is now outside our own borders. On top of that, did they really save money? the Govt. probably still gave out all the money, its just that the contracting company got to pocket more of it. So AC, I think your right.
okee dokee. Calm down okay. First and foremost, I said nothing about the EU having a booming economy. Second of all, you'll note that I put my comment about their outsourcing with a ? (question) mark. EG: How many EU countries are outsourcing to India? I think your comment may have been more helpful if it targeted the question I asked instead of the sarcastic remark about their unemployment rate. If your gonna reply, reply constructively instead of hastily
My basest impression of this comment is that it is a big load of crap. I know well educated people who can't find a job or who were layed off. Thank goodness that most employers allow you to find new departments to work in. Even still, I don't think more education and research are part of the solution. My impression of tech jobs, is that you usually have to go to school your whole life to keep current.
Also, I never once believed that this "tech thing" was America's private preserve. However, how many EU countries are outsourcing to India? No, America's private preserve seems to be outsourcing to lower wage countries, while the news often puts a positive spin on it. The question that pops back into my mind is the one that every laid off/fired employee has, "Who's going to pay for all their products if nobody can afford them, and how am I going to live off of a highly reduced salary?"
as for that last part of the statement about a whole new cycle of innovation...and we'll both win. Yeah, I think that's a load....by both win, he means, India will win because they can undercut american salaries by far.
I think at some point the outsourcing needs to be regulated or even curbed back. I think also there should be a public list of companies that have outsourced to any foreign land and how many American jobs were lost because of it.
I agree, outsourcing should be regulated. It not only hurts the American economy, but it hurts many foreign countries as well. Nike, comes to my mind first. Mainly because they are notorious for their phillipines, slave labor like conditions. I think the first stipulation would be that any US business has to pay the US minimum wage to overseas employees. Plus, they have to have livable working conditions, complete with breaks. Bush is supposed to be working on new jobs for the unemployed, but I think most of those are going to be minimum wage jobs, and you know how those with a tech degree from college want to work at register. Nevermind the fact that we worked hard, sleepless nights to get away from that thing.
and buggy it is. I upgraded from 9.2 to 10.0 and I have to say that while 10.0 is more visually stunning than 9.2, it has some annoying bugs. One is the mouse bug. The mouse bug basically occurs in the install, where it fails to detect your mouse. If you configure your mouse yourself, then the configuration tool won't work. While not a major bug (if you know to use draktools), its very annoying for those who are noobs to linux. Do I dislike mandrake? no. Even with bugs mandrake is great for those who want to know more about linux. However, the bugs are a major deterrent for people such as myself who would like to trust mandrake linux.
I agree with you though, that most games are giant commercial projects now. However, that's the gamers fault I think. Most companies noticed the trend that consumers would buy the games that looked the coolest, rather than the game that was the most fun (am I wrong?).
Open source games is a cool concept because it lets programmers get a feel for how games should be coded. Game programming is hard, and lots of "tutorials" don't tell you all the stuff you have to put into a games engine.
This DIY games idea of awarding the best independent games seems almost equivalent to the cannes film festival. Really, there should be something like that for gamers. Not only would it show off new talent, but also what can be done with a tiny budget.
heh. You got some funny ideas. 12 year olds using money obtained from drug dealing or worse, selling copies of Windows I would say the biggest weakness the GC had is that it can't play DVDs
I dissagree with that. Lots of people claim the lack of DVD support is a drawback. I doubt that, you can get DVD players so cheap now, that they are practically a dime a dozen. The GC is simply a pure game console. I mean seriously, in my household alone, we have something like 10 devices that play DVDs. My GC's lack of DVD playback is not a problem.
Now I could see other households that might not have a bunch of tech stuff, but seriously. Picking up a $40 DVD (that's good) and a GC is still cheaper then buying a PS2 or xbox. Really, though, I think what might be hurting the GC is the lack of cheap titles, that compete with the PS2's Greatest Hits price and selection.
Please recheck your facts. Nintendo is as bad as $M and $ony. $hin-tendo is as money hungry as any other corporation, and as I recall they made deals with stores such as Toy R U$ to perpetuate a monopoly that pushed competitive groups out of their market. It wasn't till many lawsuits and regulations that Nintendo finally lost its stranglehold on the market.
I also don't find satisfaction in deny microsoft or sony money. If they sell a good product, I'm just as happy buying it from a large corporation as I would be if I bought it from a small business. Your partisan ideals really don't have a place in the console area mainly because what we are seeing is an era of awesome game choice, good prices, and good consoles.
Now mind you that I find the humor in your statements, but really the gamecube is a great console, that is NOT underpowered, but hey what do I know. I mean, according to microsoft a 733 celeron is faster than a 500mhz 128-bit processor. So obviously a 485Mhz proc of a different spec is guaranteed to be slower than the PS2 or xbox's proc. Also, the GC has a very nice graphics card, and fast ram. The only real drawback is that it lacks a hard drive. That's hardly a reason to be up in arms. Most games don't take advantage of the hard drive feature.
If your interepretation of "underpowered" is different from mine, please let me know.