yeah, buying game jewelry from a company that serves the geek community seems a little dumb. Besides that, I actually went to the site where they show all their products. Alot of the stuff is repeat "jewelry" that just has a different color gem. The other thing is that I imagine all the "jewelry" will probably made from plastic. Seriously, what girl is going to spend money on a game when they can go out and buy cheap jewelry that isn't going to make them look like a toddler
STAR SISTERZ enables tween girls to develop interpersonal skills through communication and trust exercises with friends. More importantly, STAR SISTERZ fosters a heightened sense of self as girls discover and define their own unique interests and talents."
yeah, cause you know how girls can't develop communication skillz and trust with friends through IM, the phone, normal conversation, and good games (IMHO, this is a stupid game idea). Here's how I see it....
Girl1: "Like OMG, you look so like Britney spears!"
Girl2: "OMG! I was gonna say the same about you."
girl1: "Okay, so its like my turn. Truth or dare, do you like Will Farrell?"
girl2: "Dare! *giggle"
Girl1: "okay, so like, my bracelet compells you to be like an anorexic for a week."
girl2: "OMG! I already am."
girl1: "OMG! I am too!"
*both girls giggle.
maybe, I'm outta touch, maybe I got karma to burn, but that's my thoughts on this.
Actually, I've seen game manuals and warnings that said, take breaks every couple of hours, stand up, walk around and do other things for a bit to keep from getting carple tunnel or the like. I'm amazed that he never did get up. Considering after about 30 minutes, my legs usually start to go numb.
scissors they take stabs at each other. Rock they throw stones at each other, but problem is they both sorta have glass houses (if you know what i mean). Paper, would be they are both lame I guess. You figure that one out.
At the time, that commment made sense, but even though that comment was mistyped (It was supposed to be "Let's hope they don't both pick scissors"), I have no clue what I was thinking when I typed that.:P
First off, I only own a PS2. I've thought about getting an Xbox, becaused I'd like Amped 2 and a few others, but I can't justify it. A $99 dollar console I'd rush out and buy without thinking about it. I'd pick up a couple games too without regrets.
So you don't own a gamecube because?
Anyhow, here is my take on what MS should do to put up a decent fight. Drop the Xbox to $99 and announce that the Xbox Next will be backwards compatible on the same day. I'd buy a console and a few games that day and a few more over the course of time. Backwards compatibility is also critical to ensure a decent library of titles for the next gen console and game makers switch over.
A sound strategy, and I would consider buying an xboxnext, but not an xbox. Why buy the console if I now that the xboxnext will be backwards compatible? I can wait, honestly, I can wait. There are few if any xbox games I have to have.
Then, if MS can beat Sony by a 9 months to market, I'd pick up an Xbox Next and probably not get a PS3. The performance differences will be negligible and I will still have my PS2 around to play my current game collection
Perhaps, but again, Sony has breathing room to react to Microsofts tactics. If they release early, Microsoft's cards are now on the table. Sony can react to that. This does not gurantee a win for Microsoft anymore than saying the console will be backwards compatable (although it would be nice).
Should I also make a console, that I'd like to see Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo all do well? cause that's what I want. I just think that the idea of an early release isn't going to happen. You can say, "Told you so!" if it does come true.
Anyway, good post and your arguments are all valid.
umm...yeah, those are some good examples, and dropping the price to $99 will just suddenly make a person go out and buy a console? You also still have to go out and buy the games which adds to that total price. Multiplayer? add controllers. In the end, you will pay more the xbox than just the $99, because its worthless without dvds, games, music, linux...etc.
Granted, that's a nice price, but it does not guarantee that people will go out and buy the thing. That's not to say that it won't help sales, but I seriouly doubt that everybody is just going to start buying xboxs left and right because now the price is $99.
Also, as I recall, nintendo dropped the price and added free games. They also dropped the price during the holiday season. Hey, what do I know, the only point I wanted to really get across is that I think microsoft will release around the same time as Sony
Well, I tried to imply that patching isn't bad for online games. It is bad when you let serious bugs into your game with the assumption that they can be patched later after people have bought the game. I also think that patching loosens the QA because the patching option is there.
I will not deny that there are games out there on nintendo's consoles that were perfect, but usually the bugs were not that bad. Most of the games where consoles had no patching option were high quality.
Your right, piracy wasn't the only factor that killed the dreamcast, but it was a big component. Honestly, who would release a game that is bound to get pirated. I don't really believe the arguement that hacking and piracy actually helped the DC. I've been to the irc channels, seen the bit torrent sites, and kazaa and seen the traffic of DC games.
If Sony did bully 3rd parties from Sega, making the arguement, that your not going to make as much with the protectionless DC is going to be persuasive.
Microsoft, certainly, is in a much stronger position than Sega. The Xbox's buzz factor is on the rise - and will soar higher if the company opts for a $99 price tag. But it hasn't yet established a reputation that's strong enough for it to sway Sony loyalists
Although Microsoft has money, I seriously doubt they'll try to do what Sega did. Primarily because it is a huge risk, and that seems to be the tone of the article. Pretty much, if they pulled an early release stunt it would either make them or break them. First off, with their next console they have to try and ensure that they are not in the red like they are with the xbox.
lower the xbox's price down to $99 will not necessarily make people go out and buy one. That's still $100, and the holiday season is over with.
Sega may not have been in as strong a financial situation as Microsoft, but the dreamcast was a great console. The only thing that really ruined it was the fact that it did not have solid piracy protection. Who's going to make games on a system that everybody can steal? Before that, we saw lots of great games on the Dreamcast.
The xbox's buzzfactor, I think is as high as it can go. While observing Microsoft's moves, I've noted that they've done PC like stuff for the console. So basically they did things such as gamespatches that had never been done before by companies such as Nintendo. Think about that 20 years 1988-2004, no patching games, and then Microsoft comes along and starts patching games that have major bugs (granted, online games don't count, but think morrowind...etc.)
was the article worth reading? sorta, its all speculation, and it states the obvious. Basically, if the rumors are true, and Microsoft releases early, then this could hurt them. Like i said before, the article is pessimistic on the idea of M$ releasing early.
IMHO, Microsoft will probably release around the same day and time as Sony to be safe. By putting their cards on the table early, it will give Sony plenty of time to respond. If they release around the same time, it will be more like a game of rock,paper, scissors (just hope they both choose scissors).
Actually, I think there are lots of other companies that are more restrictive in their online play of games. From personal experience I can say that these players be SHOULD banned for what they do. You have no idea how aggravating it can be to play a game thinking you have a fair chance only to find that one of your allies is going to throw the game. Blizzard has done as much as it can do to prevent griefing (EG: give allies control of players units if they drop), but at some point they had to start threatening people with banning.
I'll tell you right now that I think that your over reacting, like they're some fascist government or something, but I know that people get banned from IRC chat rooms for less. The punishment fits the crime, grief and you get banned. Its that simple.
Lemme give you an example to highlight my point.
if I go into a restraunt and they have a no shoes no shirt no service policy and some guy walks in violating those rules, and to top it off, he starts pestering paying customers, he's going to get kicked out. The Bnet community doesn't want that sort of behavior, and Blizzard is responding.
Based on your logic, Blizzard should do nothing, let people get away with ruining games because otherwise their being restrictive. Games are supposed to be fun, and griefers really mess that up. The other thing you fail to realize is that this sort of thing also happens outside of the ladder games. Look for my other post on this topic.
What I don't understand is how Blizzard can keep doing things like this, just snapping its fingers and banning thousands of people
Basically, they are NOT snapping their fingers. Like any crime, evidence is submitted (EG: a replay of the game). Blizzard support looks at it, sees the person doing the crime, and they ban that person. This is not an arbitrary ban, these people know what they are doing is wrong and bugs other people. They do not care, for them its funny or a cure for boredom. For everybody else its a loss on their record and an annoyance to gameplay.
It keeps happening, a few people keep griping, and the mindless Blizzard junkies who have become zealous followers of every game the company makes keep praising Blizz for allowing them to play with less people. It's bound to crash and burn eventually.
First off, there are lots of people who want to play without interference. I don't think that Blizzards stance of helping out where problems exist will cause them to crash and burn. By your logic, we should rid our streets of police officers because too many victims gripe, and our society is becoming a "police state" because a few people with the power to enforce the law do so. Blizzard is the police on Bnet, and they respond to victims of a very annoying crime.
I agree with you totally on that. I had to deal with that today. Some nob didn't like me asking him what units he was going for so he killed his base and mine, in a 3vs3 game. This happened not once but twice in a row by the same guy going by the name of "iamthedaddy". In previous days I've encountered Lossbot, and a few others that just magically dropped for no reason.
So I am glad that Blizzard takes an active stance against this bs because it ruins a great game.The worse part is when people don't understand what is going on. Before they know it their base is destroyed by some jerk.
I also think that Blizzard has to do this because otherwise there would be no fear of doing this. Its bad enough when people use hacks, but its even worse when they rig a game so that you lose or are severly crippled.
doubt this is a viable solution, since these people will just create new accounts, but at least Blizzard is trying
I think that Blizzard bans based on your cd-key. So creating new accounts becomes a problem. Also, some people have some really nice records. We're talking 500+ wins, so losing an account like that is devastating (and this does happen, EG: Iamthedaddy).
Slashdot had a article on WOW's alpha, and basically it said that the WOW alpha was more of a highly polished beta. I really think WOW is going to be great. Plus, unlike many MMORPGs, they plan on allowing players to define the world instead of being restrictive (EG: Star Wars Galaxies where they have a very restrictive rules set).
One of the things I'm hoping for is the ability to be a deathknight or blood mage in WOW. I'm so excited about this game!
I was doing some googling and found a site that talks about the history of the patent. Basically in England, it was used by the monarchy to grant monopolies and maintain control (EG gain quick coin). http://www.ladas.com/Patents/USPatentHistory.html
Apparently a patent only lasts about 17 years. So that's not as bad as a copyright, because if I recall a copyright lasts for around the life of the individual + ~20years(correct me if I'm wrong, one site said about 95 years).
In anycase, the US concept of the patent was used as a device to protect individual property rights during a time when the US needed technology bad (think back to when England had efficient factories, and the US wanted to know said secrets). Now with the concept of the corporation, it seems that the ideals of the patent have been corrupted. However, I can see the importance of protecting intellectual property rights, but at the same time, the US corporate world is beating every US citizen over the head with laws that should be corrected.
We are with the government. You are violating the patriot act gullableguy@aol.stupiduser.com. We just want you to go to this site and give us all your compromising information because you are violating the patriot act under provision 1234. Please go to this site otherwise you will lose your FDIC insurance coverage. Please disregard the fact that if you really were suspected, the US government wouldn't actually contact you by email, and that the patriot act doesn't have anything to do with the FDIC. Oh and we would have addressed you by name instead of your email account. Oh, and other obivious and logical stuff too.
My assumption is that weapons and armor wear out unless they have magical properties. Even then, magical items should have a shelf-life if they are not kept. However, your average creature isn't going to leave weapons and armor. You have to sell those to people with the skills to make them into useable items. So trading posts or what not. At the same time, certain creatures have body parts that are components to make magical items. However, not all the components are known to make a powerful item, that requires experimentation.
perhaps your right though, maybe my idea only slows the rate. However, I don't see the need for NPCs to be santa Claus to every player. If the market gets saturated, NPCs won't want to pay much for that item. So really, they do need to put Supply and demand into the mechanics of the game.
I Agree with you on that 100%. If people are playing, but they don't have to pay for anything than the gold situation gets out of hand. The one thing I can't understand is why monsters have to give you gold in the first place?
logically, where does it say that monsters just happen to go around carrying the very thing that is spent in towns? It would seem to me, that MMORPGs would use something based off of reality. Say you have a creature called, "the Giant mammoth of Tarverac", and its strong, but if you kill it you can forage it for its tusks (very valuable), skin, good for shields or armor, and its meat for food. From which you turn around and sell it. However, the monster itself doesn't leave gold, unless it just happens to eat gold for food. Does this make sense?
You forgot Street Fighter as well. Personally, I hope they make a movie off of NBA2k3 or BMX XXX, I'm sure they could create a deeply driven movie on either of those games.
Seriously, doesn't hollywood have some good movie ideas? The move obivious answer is apparently not.
I don't think that they are really "friendly" to the idea of their source code being open. I think it may be simply a matter of economics. If the game is seen as unprofitable, its pointless to go for lawsuits. How would you justify that to your share holders? Remember, Infogrames, Atari and Hasbro were all part of a large lawsuit against various game makers (E.G: Andre LaMothe head of Xtreme games LLC) because they were "infringing" on copyrighted titles. Why did they sue? because they thought releases of games like Frogger would be profitable. So maybe they have changed, but I doubt it.
OH! but I agree with you on the TA remake or open source. I love TA, with world domination and final frontier! I also heard about an TA remake using the Unreal engine.
I really don't think that will be the case. Even if they don't make another Diablo, its likely that we'll see something that is along the lines of Diablo. One thing I've learned about Blizzard is that they try not to milk their franchises with alot of crappy sequels. I mean, do you realize the number of people not only crying out for another Diablo, but another Star Craft? lots of people (and SC: Ghost does not count). In some ways I wonder if Blizzard is concerned that they could not do the story justice by making another Diablo or Starcraft sequel. I mean think about the pressure. Lots of companies faulter in that area *cough* episode 1 *hack* Legacy of Kain.
In either case, don't count Blizzard out. I think we shouldn't start worrying until they start sucking. You shouldn't be worried anyway, because there will always be other companies to replace Blizzard. I mean, I like Blizzard and all, but software companies come and go. I was a fan of Westwood and Black Isle., but I understand that companies die, get bought, or whatever. Great games are still made, and that's what should count.
D'oh! I knew I shouldn't have believed him when he said there is no such thing as a free lunch. 'Cause everybody knows that Linux is free as in "free beer".
The article that talks about the Gamecube not doing very is overly critical. They make is sound as if Nintendo is on its last legs, nobody likes them anymore and about to go bankrupt.
"Does it want to be in the handheld, the kiddie market or compete more externally in the wider market?"
first and foremost, this part of the article is totally ridiculous. A console can be many many things. In fact, Nintendo has had the opportunity of a lucrative handheld market, while also being a console business. Why do you have to cater to one and only one market? Obviously you don't. I think if anything there are two things that Nintendo is doing wrong. The first is their image, people DO still think of the gamecube as primarily for kids. I do, but I also own the Mature titles. So perhaps their image needs to be dealt with. The other thing is with their lack of cheaper titles. I can play $15 greatest hits PS2 titles and $20 PS2 GH games. While it usually costs around $25-$30 for a GH equivalent on the gamecube. Who cares if the GC is cheaper, the games are often more expensive when it comes to older titles. Perhaps Nintendo should consider making more of their titles around the $20-$25 mark.
Also in the market, it talks about how the PS2 had a year's headstart over Microsoft and Nintendo. However, the first year the PS2 was out, lots of gamers were dissappointed with the lack of titles. I think having a headstart doesn't necessarily give a company an advantage. Nintendo and Microsoft have some great titles, but yes, I am aware that the PS2 has a huge selection of titles (but is that due to them being Sony, or having a headstart, and could you say the same if we were talking about Nintendo or Microsoft?).
I do agree however that Nintendo should not be underestimated. They don't have the resource of Sony or Microsoft, but they do have experience. I think that they will be around for along time.
The only other problem I have, is that at this point I see no reason for Nintendo to make a next gen console. The GC still has alot of potential left in it, and it seems absurd to make gamers buy a new console, and new games for it. Also, it might be good to see what Sony, and Microsoft come out with so they can top those consoles. All the while, continuing to increase the number of the titles for the GC. On the otherhand, it makes perfect sense that the PS2 be phased out to the PS3 since the PS2 is seeing its age.
In any case, don't count Nintendo out just because they don't have the buy power of Sony and Microsoft. Money doesn't bring success, talent does.
umm....yeah...I think that's my the subject of my topic is Interesting but an extreme case. So, yeah, I know that its about one kid. However, YOU must realize that people become addicted to things such as games, gambling, and drugs. South Korea recognizes that online games have changed their society. The question is how are they going to react to this. If this story gets headlines, and its a big deal, will they overreact like some countries? that was my point. Apparently I wasn't clear enough for you.
Obviously this is an extreme case of gaming gone amuck. However, it would be interesting to see what the South Korean government cooks up to help curtail video game addiction. Hopefully it will be well thought out and not absurd. The real question is how do you stop a problem like this? You can do ad campaigns, include restrictive legislation (which I think they already have something about limiting the time of day for game playing). However, could they include moral values, or reality values into the MMORPG games?(IE: yeah, the cyber world is great, but the real world is better). I think this is a social psychological problem. malajusted people look for escapist realities to cope with a dissapointing life. Plus, if you do poorly in school, but your a hero in a virtual world, wouldn't you want to go where your welcome?
Overall, I hope this kid grows out of his addiction to video games or at least learns to moderate, but I do think that something else in his life is making games more appealing than real life. However, we don't get to see that because of the articles focus. Ask the why.
Well, all the silent hills have let you explore the town to some degree. So even if it says you are stuck, that doesn't mean for sure. I mean, we only have a glimpse of what's going on. I mean, at the very end, maybe you escape, and get to run around the town. In anycase, that's my own personal opinion that I want to explore silent hill more. Whether Konami allows this is really anyone's guess
What rule stated that every game on the nextgen consoles HAS TO BE 3D? I still like to 2D games. I mean, they could just as easily used fixed angle 3D, so it looks 2D.
But I'm glad to hear that another silent hill will be produced. I like how konami is reusing their game engine to produce quality games instead of trying to constantly top their last game's graphics; while not bothering with story. I mean, Silent Hill 3 was far superior to Silent Hill 2 in so many ways. Hopefully SH4 will be better story wise, and I want to explore Silent Hill more in 4!!!!
Slashdot Mirror
yeah, buying game jewelry from a company that serves the geek community seems a little dumb. Besides that, I actually went to the site where they show all their products. Alot of the stuff is repeat "jewelry" that just has a different color gem. The other thing is that I imagine all the "jewelry" will probably made from plastic. Seriously, what girl is going to spend money on a game when they can go out and buy cheap jewelry that isn't going to make them look like a toddler
yeah, cause you know how girls can't develop communication skillz and trust with friends through IM, the phone, normal conversation, and good games (IMHO, this is a stupid game idea). Here's how I see it....
Girl1: "Like OMG, you look so like Britney spears!"
Girl2: "OMG! I was gonna say the same about you."
girl1: "Okay, so its like my turn. Truth or dare, do you like Will Farrell?"
girl2: "Dare! *giggle"
Girl1: "okay, so like, my bracelet compells you to be like an anorexic for a week."
girl2: "OMG! I already am."
girl1: "OMG! I am too!" *both girls giggle.
maybe, I'm outta touch, maybe I got karma to burn, but that's my thoughts on this.
Actually, I've seen game manuals and warnings that said, take breaks every couple of hours, stand up, walk around and do other things for a bit to keep from getting carple tunnel or the like. I'm amazed that he never did get up. Considering after about 30 minutes, my legs usually start to go numb.
scissors they take stabs at each other. Rock they throw stones at each other, but problem is they both sorta have glass houses (if you know what i mean). Paper, would be they are both lame I guess. You figure that one out. At the time, that commment made sense, but even though that comment was mistyped (It was supposed to be "Let's hope they don't both pick scissors"), I have no clue what I was thinking when I typed that. :P
So you don't own a gamecube because?
Anyhow, here is my take on what MS should do to put up a decent fight. Drop the Xbox to $99 and announce that the Xbox Next will be backwards compatible on the same day. I'd buy a console and a few games that day and a few more over the course of time. Backwards compatibility is also critical to ensure a decent library of titles for the next gen console and game makers switch over.
A sound strategy, and I would consider buying an xboxnext, but not an xbox. Why buy the console if I now that the xboxnext will be backwards compatible? I can wait, honestly, I can wait. There are few if any xbox games I have to have.
Then, if MS can beat Sony by a 9 months to market, I'd pick up an Xbox Next and probably not get a PS3. The performance differences will be negligible and I will still have my PS2 around to play my current game collection Perhaps, but again, Sony has breathing room to react to Microsofts tactics. If they release early, Microsoft's cards are now on the table. Sony can react to that. This does not gurantee a win for Microsoft anymore than saying the console will be backwards compatable (although it would be nice).
Should I also make a console, that I'd like to see Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo all do well? cause that's what I want. I just think that the idea of an early release isn't going to happen. You can say, "Told you so!" if it does come true.
Anyway, good post and your arguments are all valid.
umm...yeah, those are some good examples, and dropping the price to $99 will just suddenly make a person go out and buy a console? You also still have to go out and buy the games which adds to that total price. Multiplayer? add controllers. In the end, you will pay more the xbox than just the $99, because its worthless without dvds, games, music, linux...etc. Granted, that's a nice price, but it does not guarantee that people will go out and buy the thing. That's not to say that it won't help sales, but I seriouly doubt that everybody is just going to start buying xboxs left and right because now the price is $99. Also, as I recall, nintendo dropped the price and added free games. They also dropped the price during the holiday season. Hey, what do I know, the only point I wanted to really get across is that I think microsoft will release around the same time as Sony
Interesting considering that morrowind for the pc didn't have bug that could potentially wipe your hard drive out.
I will not deny that there are games out there on nintendo's consoles that were perfect, but usually the bugs were not that bad. Most of the games where consoles had no patching option were high quality.
Your right, piracy wasn't the only factor that killed the dreamcast, but it was a big component. Honestly, who would release a game that is bound to get pirated. I don't really believe the arguement that hacking and piracy actually helped the DC. I've been to the irc channels, seen the bit torrent sites, and kazaa and seen the traffic of DC games.
If Sony did bully 3rd parties from Sega, making the arguement, that your not going to make as much with the protectionless DC is going to be persuasive.
Although Microsoft has money, I seriously doubt they'll try to do what Sega did. Primarily because it is a huge risk, and that seems to be the tone of the article. Pretty much, if they pulled an early release stunt it would either make them or break them. First off, with their next console they have to try and ensure that they are not in the red like they are with the xbox.
lower the xbox's price down to $99 will not necessarily make people go out and buy one. That's still $100, and the holiday season is over with.
Sega may not have been in as strong a financial situation as Microsoft, but the dreamcast was a great console. The only thing that really ruined it was the fact that it did not have solid piracy protection. Who's going to make games on a system that everybody can steal? Before that, we saw lots of great games on the Dreamcast.
The xbox's buzzfactor, I think is as high as it can go. While observing Microsoft's moves, I've noted that they've done PC like stuff for the console. So basically they did things such as gamespatches that had never been done before by companies such as Nintendo. Think about that 20 years 1988-2004, no patching games, and then Microsoft comes along and starts patching games that have major bugs (granted, online games don't count, but think morrowind...etc.)
was the article worth reading? sorta, its all speculation, and it states the obvious. Basically, if the rumors are true, and Microsoft releases early, then this could hurt them. Like i said before, the article is pessimistic on the idea of M$ releasing early.
IMHO, Microsoft will probably release around the same day and time as Sony to be safe. By putting their cards on the table early, it will give Sony plenty of time to respond. If they release around the same time, it will be more like a game of rock,paper, scissors (just hope they both choose scissors).
I'll tell you right now that I think that your over reacting, like they're some fascist government or something, but I know that people get banned from IRC chat rooms for less. The punishment fits the crime, grief and you get banned. Its that simple.
Lemme give you an example to highlight my point. if I go into a restraunt and they have a no shoes no shirt no service policy and some guy walks in violating those rules, and to top it off, he starts pestering paying customers, he's going to get kicked out. The Bnet community doesn't want that sort of behavior, and Blizzard is responding.
Based on your logic, Blizzard should do nothing, let people get away with ruining games because otherwise their being restrictive. Games are supposed to be fun, and griefers really mess that up. The other thing you fail to realize is that this sort of thing also happens outside of the ladder games. Look for my other post on this topic.
What I don't understand is how Blizzard can keep doing things like this, just snapping its fingers and banning thousands of people Basically, they are NOT snapping their fingers. Like any crime, evidence is submitted (EG: a replay of the game). Blizzard support looks at it, sees the person doing the crime, and they ban that person. This is not an arbitrary ban, these people know what they are doing is wrong and bugs other people. They do not care, for them its funny or a cure for boredom. For everybody else its a loss on their record and an annoyance to gameplay.
It keeps happening, a few people keep griping, and the mindless Blizzard junkies who have become zealous followers of every game the company makes keep praising Blizz for allowing them to play with less people. It's bound to crash and burn eventually. First off, there are lots of people who want to play without interference. I don't think that Blizzards stance of helping out where problems exist will cause them to crash and burn. By your logic, we should rid our streets of police officers because too many victims gripe, and our society is becoming a "police state" because a few people with the power to enforce the law do so. Blizzard is the police on Bnet, and they respond to victims of a very annoying crime.
So I am glad that Blizzard takes an active stance against this bs because it ruins a great game.The worse part is when people don't understand what is going on. Before they know it their base is destroyed by some jerk.
I also think that Blizzard has to do this because otherwise there would be no fear of doing this. Its bad enough when people use hacks, but its even worse when they rig a game so that you lose or are severly crippled.
doubt this is a viable solution, since these people will just create new accounts, but at least Blizzard is trying
I think that Blizzard bans based on your cd-key. So creating new accounts becomes a problem. Also, some people have some really nice records. We're talking 500+ wins, so losing an account like that is devastating (and this does happen, EG: Iamthedaddy).
One of the things I'm hoping for is the ability to be a deathknight or blood mage in WOW. I'm so excited about this game!
Apparently a patent only lasts about 17 years. So that's not as bad as a copyright, because if I recall a copyright lasts for around the life of the individual + ~20years(correct me if I'm wrong, one site said about 95 years).
In anycase, the US concept of the patent was used as a device to protect individual property rights during a time when the US needed technology bad (think back to when England had efficient factories, and the US wanted to know said secrets). Now with the concept of the corporation, it seems that the ideals of the patent have been corrupted. However, I can see the importance of protecting intellectual property rights, but at the same time, the US corporate world is beating every US citizen over the head with laws that should be corrected.
We are with the government. You are violating the patriot act gullableguy@aol.stupiduser.com. We just want you to go to this site and give us all your compromising information because you are violating the patriot act under provision 1234. Please go to this site otherwise you will lose your FDIC insurance coverage. Please disregard the fact that if you really were suspected, the US government wouldn't actually contact you by email, and that the patriot act doesn't have anything to do with the FDIC. Oh and we would have addressed you by name instead of your email account. Oh, and other obivious and logical stuff too.
Best regards,
A guy who isn't pakistani
perhaps your right though, maybe my idea only slows the rate. However, I don't see the need for NPCs to be santa Claus to every player. If the market gets saturated, NPCs won't want to pay much for that item. So really, they do need to put Supply and demand into the mechanics of the game.
logically, where does it say that monsters just happen to go around carrying the very thing that is spent in towns? It would seem to me, that MMORPGs would use something based off of reality. Say you have a creature called, "the Giant mammoth of Tarverac", and its strong, but if you kill it you can forage it for its tusks (very valuable), skin, good for shields or armor, and its meat for food. From which you turn around and sell it. However, the monster itself doesn't leave gold, unless it just happens to eat gold for food. Does this make sense?
You forgot Street Fighter as well. Personally, I hope they make a movie off of NBA2k3 or BMX XXX, I'm sure they could create a deeply driven movie on either of those games. Seriously, doesn't hollywood have some good movie ideas? The move obivious answer is apparently not.
OH! but I agree with you on the TA remake or open source. I love TA, with world domination and final frontier! I also heard about an TA remake using the Unreal engine.
In either case, don't count Blizzard out. I think we shouldn't start worrying until they start sucking. You shouldn't be worried anyway, because there will always be other companies to replace Blizzard. I mean, I like Blizzard and all, but software companies come and go. I was a fan of Westwood and Black Isle., but I understand that companies die, get bought, or whatever. Great games are still made, and that's what should count.
D'oh! I knew I shouldn't have believed him when he said there is no such thing as a free lunch. 'Cause everybody knows that Linux is free as in "free beer".
"Does it want to be in the handheld, the kiddie market or compete more externally in the wider market?"
first and foremost, this part of the article is totally ridiculous. A console can be many many things. In fact, Nintendo has had the opportunity of a lucrative handheld market, while also being a console business. Why do you have to cater to one and only one market? Obviously you don't. I think if anything there are two things that Nintendo is doing wrong. The first is their image, people DO still think of the gamecube as primarily for kids. I do, but I also own the Mature titles. So perhaps their image needs to be dealt with. The other thing is with their lack of cheaper titles. I can play $15 greatest hits PS2 titles and $20 PS2 GH games. While it usually costs around $25-$30 for a GH equivalent on the gamecube. Who cares if the GC is cheaper, the games are often more expensive when it comes to older titles. Perhaps Nintendo should consider making more of their titles around the $20-$25 mark.
Also in the market, it talks about how the PS2 had a year's headstart over Microsoft and Nintendo. However, the first year the PS2 was out, lots of gamers were dissappointed with the lack of titles. I think having a headstart doesn't necessarily give a company an advantage. Nintendo and Microsoft have some great titles, but yes, I am aware that the PS2 has a huge selection of titles (but is that due to them being Sony, or having a headstart, and could you say the same if we were talking about Nintendo or Microsoft?).
I do agree however that Nintendo should not be underestimated. They don't have the resource of Sony or Microsoft, but they do have experience. I think that they will be around for along time.
The only other problem I have, is that at this point I see no reason for Nintendo to make a next gen console. The GC still has alot of potential left in it, and it seems absurd to make gamers buy a new console, and new games for it. Also, it might be good to see what Sony, and Microsoft come out with so they can top those consoles. All the while, continuing to increase the number of the titles for the GC. On the otherhand, it makes perfect sense that the PS2 be phased out to the PS3 since the PS2 is seeing its age.
In any case, don't count Nintendo out just because they don't have the buy power of Sony and Microsoft. Money doesn't bring success, talent does.
umm....yeah...I think that's my the subject of my topic is Interesting but an extreme case. So, yeah, I know that its about one kid. However, YOU must realize that people become addicted to things such as games, gambling, and drugs. South Korea recognizes that online games have changed their society. The question is how are they going to react to this. If this story gets headlines, and its a big deal, will they overreact like some countries? that was my point. Apparently I wasn't clear enough for you.
Obviously this is an extreme case of gaming gone amuck. However, it would be interesting to see what the South Korean government cooks up to help curtail video game addiction. Hopefully it will be well thought out and not absurd. The real question is how do you stop a problem like this? You can do ad campaigns, include restrictive legislation (which I think they already have something about limiting the time of day for game playing). However, could they include moral values, or reality values into the MMORPG games?(IE: yeah, the cyber world is great, but the real world is better).
I think this is a social psychological problem. malajusted people look for escapist realities to cope with a dissapointing life. Plus, if you do poorly in school, but your a hero in a virtual world, wouldn't you want to go where your welcome?
Overall, I hope this kid grows out of his addiction to video games or at least learns to moderate, but I do think that something else in his life is making games more appealing than real life. However, we don't get to see that because of the articles focus. Ask the why.
Anyway, that's my two cents.
Well, all the silent hills have let you explore the town to some degree. So even if it says you are stuck, that doesn't mean for sure. I mean, we only have a glimpse of what's going on. I mean, at the very end, maybe you escape, and get to run around the town. In anycase, that's my own personal opinion that I want to explore silent hill more. Whether Konami allows this is really anyone's guess
But I'm glad to hear that another silent hill will be produced. I like how konami is reusing their game engine to produce quality games instead of trying to constantly top their last game's graphics; while not bothering with story. I mean, Silent Hill 3 was far superior to Silent Hill 2 in so many ways. Hopefully SH4 will be better story wise, and I want to explore Silent Hill more in 4!!!!
FInal thought: Grand Theft Auto: Silent Hill City