Everyone who has a username on the internet thinks they deserve to be in Wikipedia. Notability is of some importance, to establish a base for submission. I run a niche auction site with about 50,000 members. Do I deserve to have a wiki entry? No. Does my website? No. Does a regional radio talk show host? Probably. Does The Penny Arcade comic strip? Probably. Does something some guy does with a couple thousand RSS subscribers? Probably not.
Now, the problem is, what defines notability? I believe an example I saw given on Wikipedia was "will they still matter in 50 years?". Well, in today's culture, how many people are still "notable" from the 1950s that still were of some importance in the time, anyway? It would be a little bit like suggesting that a library (or especially the Library of Congress) only archive "best sellers".
And of course, there should be no problem with an article on Wikipedia discussing web comics which then lists dozens or even hundreds of web comic serials. But for every single pokey-the-fucking-penguin to have its own article? I don't really see the point.
So there needs to be a careful balance between only documenting and archiving things that "matter a great deal" and letting a lot of history and information slough off to the side forever, because at the time, not enough people deemed the subject or topic "popular" enough.
In all fairness, the reason I changed my mind is because the Robosapien toy is a piece of crap. It wouldn't walk on any surface I could find. It wouldn't even walk on the floor or carpet at Best Buy when I demonstrated it to them. It is quite possibly the stupidest purchase I have ever made. So my returning that item because I didn't like it would be sort of like returning a television that I didn't like, because it didn't have any way to control the volume.
But the fact is that they could also have made me go through hoops to return it and they didn't. They just asked what was wrong. I said it sucked and didn't work and they had me sign something and gave me my money back. About as decent an experience as you can get (except for Amazon.com where they've even let me return opened software, such as when I bought Anarchy Online and three weeks later their servers still weren't even remotely playable and Amazon paid for return shipping and a refund).
By the way, I've spent about $11,000 at Amazon since that return, too. Just goes to show that if you do treat a customer right, they will definitely come back.
As far as I can tell, cable companies have monopolies in their cities. Any time you have a different "cable/internet provider" for an apartment complex, it usually means there is just some douchebag that is acting as a needless middleman that is reselling the regular monopoly service you could get if you were down the street. That's what they do where I'm at. So, I just ignored them and subscribed directly to the cable company anyway. Why should I deal with a middleman, just because I live in an apartment?!
I've never heard of having real cable company choices at a single address, however.
That's what I was thinking, too. But then what would prevent someone in the supply and distribution chain from stealing an item, taking the tag off and then sticking the RFID tag onto a stack of tiles? Unless they plan on embedding the RFID tag into the internal components of products, in which case I won't be interested in buying them to begin with.
Since I no longer live back home on the west coast, I don't have access to a Frye's or any other real computer store. There aren't even mom and pop computer stores out here in the Denver area. So, I've shopped at Best Buy a few times. They've been great about returns. One time I bought the $400 Robosapien as a gift for someone. Within hours, I realized what a stupid piece of crap it was and returned it the next day for a full refund. I bought a set of speaker stands and found out they weren't the right ones. Returned them (even though the package was not resealable) for a full refund with no hassle.
The thing is, if this guy left the store at any point and then returned the box later, then he could very well be scamming them. People do amazing things to scam retailers. Especially on returns and exchanges. If I were the manager there and some guy came in and claimed that I sold him a box of tiles instead of a hard drive, I would be very skeptical.
As for how it happened? I doubt it was another customer returning them. It's possible, but I doubt it. I suspect it is more likely that someone working at the store stole the drive and filled it with crap so nobody would notice. Or perhaps someone along the supply chain did this.
Either way, it's really a difficult situation on both sides. You don't want to open yourself to letting every con-artist do this to your company, but you don't want to risk screwing an honest customer over, either.
So as mentioned before -- just open a box and at least check that the main item is in it before leaving. If it slows up the line or pisses people off -- too bad for them.:)
Wow. Imagine that. Some tool trying to create a "web 2.0" service and giving it a Chinese, Hawaiian or Swahili word name.And why hulu? A site with videos of NBC content named after a chinese word for "health"? What the fuck? That makes no sense.
First of all, how do you prove that you didn't just stuff the box full of crap and try to exchange it so you could wind up with two drives for the price of one? It may be legitimate and the blame may be at some point in the supply chain at or before Best Buy, but how does one prove it? And how do you - as a retailer - not end up with a bunch of morons returning boxes that they've stuffed crap into, as well?
It would seem the only reasonable thing to do from this point on is to open a box and make sure your item is in there before leaving the store. That's what I intend to do after hearing enough of these stories. If you haven't left the store, then they can't put the blame on you and you can return it right there.
I usually spend about $600 on my videocard. If you're a little strapped, then I can't imagine paying more than a couple hundred bucks (or wherever the price break might be). But really, by your logic, anyone who spends more than $300 on a television is crazy. Anyone who spends more than $1500 on a car is crazy. Anyone who spends more than a couple grand on speakers is crazy.
In my opinion, spending more than $100 on shoes is crazy. But people do it all the time. *shrug*
It's kind of like making negative comments about Firefly, Star Wars, Star Trek or anyone who is ever (even rightfully) sued by copyright holders. You just don't voice that sort of thing here and expect to get away with it. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion -- as long as it matches everyone else's.
Damn it all, the only reason your "real bosses" get things their way is they participate. If, by "participate", you mean "stuff wads of cash and benefits into the pockets of those they are trying to sway toward the benefit and ultimate needs of their corporations", then I agree.
Who do you think has more power? A multi-national corporation that gives goodies and hundreds of thousands of dollars to each of a number of high priority legislators? -- or a couple hundred morons blocking traffic in downtown Portland holding signs?
Or do you mean "well, join the political process and VOTE!".
You mean, vote between two sides of the same coin? People vote on the choices they are given. They choices they are given have been vetted by the real powers who fund them years before actual voting even occurs.
However, people are constantly fed this line of bullshit that they just need to "get involved". Yes, everything will be solved if only you rock that vote. Indeed! *snicker*
Okay wait a damn minute. This video is less than thirty seconds long. I may be wrong but I thought it was considered fair use to use an excerpt from a song as long as said excerpt was less than forty-five seconds. I don't believe you can use 30-45 second song clips in a production. As a sample when selling the album on Amazon? Sure. As a sample to go along with a review or critique of the artist or song? Sure. But I don't think you can just go make a video, television show or movie and dump a quarter of the song into it and justify using it without paying royalties because it's only part of the song.
Why would they single this person out? I have no idea. But that doesn't justify their use. I know a number of people in the radio and television industry as well as people who do a lot of audio and video podcasting and they all go extremely out of their way to avoid using copyrighted music under any circumstances -- whether as a bed, bumper or other. . . unless they plan to pay for its use.
Look at videos that used to be played on "Americas Funniest Home Videos". They weed out submissions that have copyrighted music in the background, because they don't want to have to pay for them.
Just because this chick isn't making money off her youtube video doesn't mean YouTube isn't making money off of it (even if it's just a penny for the 20 views it got). And if someone is making money off of it, then it's a completely different ballpark.
Sure, let market forces allow such things to be decided.
However, as long as my tax dollars are being used to grant monopolies to utility providers in an area (such as broadband), then I demand that my needs and concerns be addressed. Just like airlines have to cater to the public beyond just "market demands", because they are subsidized by my tax dollars.
It makes a nice headline to say that you're investigating such things, but the fact is they're all in the pockets of the telcom industry (as with most industries), so in the end whatever they do is going to be in their favor.
Hell, they've been talking about doing ala-carte cable television channels. We still don't actually have access to them yet though, do we? And once we do, they'll make it so prohibitively expensive and difficult to acquire (as a giant fuck-you to everyone) that nobody will use it. I'm sure the same will happen with internet access.
They'll offer "metered" access to the internet for those who use more than, say, 15gb/mo. Everyone who still pays $65/mo today will pay that much tomorrow, but they will have seriously limited bandwidth. Everyone who uses the internet for more than email and surfing a few low-bandwidth websites will be told that they have to pay for metered access for $5/gb or something. It'll be so prohibitive that even those of us who are willing to pay (some) more money for more access won't be able to afford it.
In no way will it result in an improved infrastructure or improved customer experience.
Colbert is just doing openly what every other candidate does behind the curtain.
You don't even become a viable candidate in this country unless you have been vetted and supported by prominent corporations and aristocrats. There's a reason all of the candidates are essentially the same on both sides of the aisle and why the new boss is almost always the same as the old boss. It's because they're only made viable by the same real "bosses" every time.
But more importantly, she has a child! Having a child makes you a saint and should protect you from the repercussions of doing anything wrong! It's not like she's one of those horrible, selfish non-breeding people using a copyrighted song in content she put online!
And see, that is the thing... youtube makes money off the site, because of the videos people put up to draw traffic to it. So this copyrighted song is being used for a commercial application. If she was posting this on her own non-commercial website, I doubt anyone would have cared.
But you may not have contemplated the tools used by paranormal investigators No. I also have never contemplated the utilities that unicorn hunters, dragon fighters or chupa cabra hunters use.
Since half the consoles have to be replaced multiple times, they're definitely losing money on each console.
Another lesson in measure-twice; cut once. Imagine how much better they'd be doing financially, if they hadn't screwed up on the initial hardware design?
Then again, they also have morons like myself who bought two 360s, so that they'd always have one to play even when the other is "in the shop".
You're right, I must be doing it wrong. I've only been in the industry my entire adult life and have been building my PCs and servers for a couple of decades.
Yes, you can build and run a midrange gaming machine for far cheaper, but where is the fun in that? And now that you have 65" widescreens running in 1080p and you only need a $400 console to do it, why would I want to spend my time hunched over my keyboard in front of a 30" or smaller screen? Even though the resolution may be higher.
I never suggested that every gamer requires a $2000+ annual investment, but even with a much smaller investment, they're looking at spending far more than the console investment. I am speaking of my particular experience. What makes you happy and what you are willing to settle for may not be the same as I am willing to settle for. My grandmother is happy playing on my old 700mhz Duron with a 17" LCD and a copy of Solitaire on a gnome desktop. *shrug*
I haven't found simply upgrading a component here and there worthwhile in at least a decade. Any significant upgraded component is likely to require a change in other components, anyway. Either by force of architecture or simply performance bottleneck. That $2,500 also includes a high end case and quality PSU. I understand that not everyone is in this situation. But even then, a console is more bang for the buck as it has a solid five year life span and doesn't require upgrading. A $500 console over five years is $100/yr. What are you going to do with your PC on a $100/yr budget?
Also, I found that I enjoy dumping what I used to spend on my PC into my home entertainment center, instead. Heh.
I guess it's just replacing one bad habit with another. But . . . unlike my videocard, my speakers are going to last 30 years.:D
Yes, but when you're a PC gaming fanatic, you don't want components that will allow you to play a game reasonably well. If you aren't playing the game with all the candy cranked up and at the highest possible resolution, you just aren't happy. And then you find yourself in a cycle.
When I was much younger, I always bought at the price break, because I had to. I haven't had to do that for a long time, though. I could easily justify spending $500 or $600 just on a videocard, because I knew I was going to be playing whatever set of upcoming games for countless hours on end. There haven't been any such games in a long time now, though -- so it can't be justified. And if you're just going to settle for a mid-range machine to play current games at mid-range quality settings, then why not just enjoy them on a console? Anyway, that's the conclusion I've come to.
I also agree. Unfortunately, most of the wii games have absolutely no quality gameplay and for the most part the only enjoyable Wii games are the ones that require at least two people to play.
As for the other points:
. I still, for the most part, prefer playing games on the computer - to me the mouse is the best input device ever. Every generation it's like 'the PC's dead! The PC's dead!'. But it carries on growing when consoles are flat for five years. At the moment I can get better graphics on my PC than I can on the PS3.'" Yes, I prefer playing games on the computer, too. And yes, a good computer today has better graphics than any of the consoles. It's been that since the day each of the consoles were released. However, I'm getting tired of having to spend $2,500 every year to build a top of the line gaming machine. If I want to play Unreal Tournament III at the best quality on my 2560x1600 30" monitor, I'm going to have to upgrade this dual core GF 8800 machine that I just built in February.
I've been a PC gamer my entire life, but the rat-race of keeping up with the hardware is getting absurd. And while today's $2500 PC puts a PS3 to shame, you can buy a PS3 and a couple of games for the price of a PC video card.
Well, even geniuses can be stupid from time to time.
I own all three consoles and I play the Wii the least. There just aren't many great games and almost no games that are truly enjoyable for single player. Sure, I can play Devil May Cry with the wii controls, but I have to sacrifice audio quality, screen size, screen resolution and general graphics quality.
Now, if the games were absurdly fantastic, that could make up for it. But there are just so few games. And the ones that I keep looking forward to buying always end up being total ass.
As for Spore . ..I said it a cople days ago and I'll say it today -- it just won't hold a gamer's interest for long. It looks like something we're all going to buy and play out of curiosity. Then after a few days, we'll get tired of the repetitiveness or the lack of involved skill and quit playing.
Slashdot Mirror
Everyone who has a username on the internet thinks they deserve to be in Wikipedia. Notability is of some importance, to establish a base for submission. I run a niche auction site with about 50,000 members. Do I deserve to have a wiki entry? No. Does my website? No. Does a regional radio talk show host? Probably. Does The Penny Arcade comic strip? Probably. Does something some guy does with a couple thousand RSS subscribers? Probably not.
Now, the problem is, what defines notability? I believe an example I saw given on Wikipedia was "will they still matter in 50 years?". Well, in today's culture, how many people are still "notable" from the 1950s that still were of some importance in the time, anyway? It would be a little bit like suggesting that a library (or especially the Library of Congress) only archive "best sellers".
And of course, there should be no problem with an article on Wikipedia discussing web comics which then lists dozens or even hundreds of web comic serials. But for every single pokey-the-fucking-penguin to have its own article? I don't really see the point.
So there needs to be a careful balance between only documenting and archiving things that "matter a great deal" and letting a lot of history and information slough off to the side forever, because at the time, not enough people deemed the subject or topic "popular" enough.
In all fairness, the reason I changed my mind is because the Robosapien toy is a piece of crap. It wouldn't walk on any surface I could find. It wouldn't even walk on the floor or carpet at Best Buy when I demonstrated it to them. It is quite possibly the stupidest purchase I have ever made. So my returning that item because I didn't like it would be sort of like returning a television that I didn't like, because it didn't have any way to control the volume.
But the fact is that they could also have made me go through hoops to return it and they didn't. They just asked what was wrong. I said it sucked and didn't work and they had me sign something and gave me my money back. About as decent an experience as you can get (except for Amazon.com where they've even let me return opened software, such as when I bought Anarchy Online and three weeks later their servers still weren't even remotely playable and Amazon paid for return shipping and a refund).
By the way, I've spent about $11,000 at Amazon since that return, too. Just goes to show that if you do treat a customer right, they will definitely come back.
As far as I can tell, cable companies have monopolies in their cities. Any time you have a different "cable/internet provider" for an apartment complex, it usually means there is just some douchebag that is acting as a needless middleman that is reselling the regular monopoly service you could get if you were down the street. That's what they do where I'm at. So, I just ignored them and subscribed directly to the cable company anyway. Why should I deal with a middleman, just because I live in an apartment?!
I've never heard of having real cable company choices at a single address, however.
Parody, meet LingNoi.
LingNoi, meet Parody.
That's what I was thinking, too. But then what would prevent someone in the supply and distribution chain from stealing an item, taking the tag off and then sticking the RFID tag onto a stack of tiles? Unless they plan on embedding the RFID tag into the internal components of products, in which case I won't be interested in buying them to begin with.
Since I no longer live back home on the west coast, I don't have access to a Frye's or any other real computer store. There aren't even mom and pop computer stores out here in the Denver area. So, I've shopped at Best Buy a few times. They've been great about returns. One time I bought the $400 Robosapien as a gift for someone. Within hours, I realized what a stupid piece of crap it was and returned it the next day for a full refund. I bought a set of speaker stands and found out they weren't the right ones. Returned them (even though the package was not resealable) for a full refund with no hassle.
:)
The thing is, if this guy left the store at any point and then returned the box later, then he could very well be scamming them. People do amazing things to scam retailers. Especially on returns and exchanges. If I were the manager there and some guy came in and claimed that I sold him a box of tiles instead of a hard drive, I would be very skeptical.
As for how it happened? I doubt it was another customer returning them. It's possible, but I doubt it. I suspect it is more likely that someone working at the store stole the drive and filled it with crap so nobody would notice. Or perhaps someone along the supply chain did this.
Either way, it's really a difficult situation on both sides. You don't want to open yourself to letting every con-artist do this to your company, but you don't want to risk screwing an honest customer over, either.
So as mentioned before -- just open a box and at least check that the main item is in it before leaving. If it slows up the line or pisses people off -- too bad for them.
Wow. Imagine that. Some tool trying to create a "web 2.0" service and giving it a Chinese, Hawaiian or Swahili word name.And why hulu? A site with videos of NBC content named after a chinese word for "health"? What the fuck? That makes no sense.
First of all, how do you prove that you didn't just stuff the box full of crap and try to exchange it so you could wind up with two drives for the price of one? It may be legitimate and the blame may be at some point in the supply chain at or before Best Buy, but how does one prove it? And how do you - as a retailer - not end up with a bunch of morons returning boxes that they've stuffed crap into, as well?
It would seem the only reasonable thing to do from this point on is to open a box and make sure your item is in there before leaving the store. That's what I intend to do after hearing enough of these stories. If you haven't left the store, then they can't put the blame on you and you can return it right there.
I usually spend about $600 on my videocard. If you're a little strapped, then I can't imagine paying more than a couple hundred bucks (or wherever the price break might be). But really, by your logic, anyone who spends more than $300 on a television is crazy. Anyone who spends more than $1500 on a car is crazy. Anyone who spends more than a couple grand on speakers is crazy.
In my opinion, spending more than $100 on shoes is crazy. But people do it all the time. *shrug*
I've searched my debian install, my slackware install and my OSX install and I simply can't find the MSIE malware, either. Damn.
It's kind of like making negative comments about Firefly, Star Wars, Star Trek or anyone who is ever (even rightfully) sued by copyright holders. You just don't voice that sort of thing here and expect to get away with it. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion -- as long as it matches everyone else's.
As soon as they reach a terabyte, I'll only need to buy eight of them to fit all my porn on. I, for one, am eager to see this technology realized.
Who do you think has more power? A multi-national corporation that gives goodies and hundreds of thousands of dollars to each of a number of high priority legislators? -- or a couple hundred morons blocking traffic in downtown Portland holding signs?
Or do you mean "well, join the political process and VOTE!".
You mean, vote between two sides of the same coin? People vote on the choices they are given. They choices they are given have been vetted by the real powers who fund them years before actual voting even occurs.
However, people are constantly fed this line of bullshit that they just need to "get involved". Yes, everything will be solved if only you rock that vote. Indeed! *snicker*
Why would they single this person out? I have no idea. But that doesn't justify their use. I know a number of people in the radio and television industry as well as people who do a lot of audio and video podcasting and they all go extremely out of their way to avoid using copyrighted music under any circumstances -- whether as a bed, bumper or other. . . unless they plan to pay for its use.
Look at videos that used to be played on "Americas Funniest Home Videos". They weed out submissions that have copyrighted music in the background, because they don't want to have to pay for them.
Just because this chick isn't making money off her youtube video doesn't mean YouTube isn't making money off of it (even if it's just a penny for the 20 views it got). And if someone is making money off of it, then it's a completely different ballpark.
Sure, let market forces allow such things to be decided.
However, as long as my tax dollars are being used to grant monopolies to utility providers in an area (such as broadband), then I demand that my needs and concerns be addressed. Just like airlines have to cater to the public beyond just "market demands", because they are subsidized by my tax dollars.
It makes a nice headline to say that you're investigating such things, but the fact is they're all in the pockets of the telcom industry (as with most industries), so in the end whatever they do is going to be in their favor.
Hell, they've been talking about doing ala-carte cable television channels. We still don't actually have access to them yet though, do we? And once we do, they'll make it so prohibitively expensive and difficult to acquire (as a giant fuck-you to everyone) that nobody will use it. I'm sure the same will happen with internet access.
They'll offer "metered" access to the internet for those who use more than, say, 15gb/mo. Everyone who still pays $65/mo today will pay that much tomorrow, but they will have seriously limited bandwidth. Everyone who uses the internet for more than email and surfing a few low-bandwidth websites will be told that they have to pay for metered access for $5/gb or something. It'll be so prohibitive that even those of us who are willing to pay (some) more money for more access won't be able to afford it.
In no way will it result in an improved infrastructure or improved customer experience.
Colbert is just doing openly what every other candidate does behind the curtain.
You don't even become a viable candidate in this country unless you have been vetted and supported by prominent corporations and aristocrats. There's a reason all of the candidates are essentially the same on both sides of the aisle and why the new boss is almost always the same as the old boss. It's because they're only made viable by the same real "bosses" every time.
But more importantly, she has a child! Having a child makes you a saint and should protect you from the repercussions of doing anything wrong! It's not like she's one of those horrible, selfish non-breeding people using a copyrighted song in content she put online!
And see, that is the thing... youtube makes money off the site, because of the videos people put up to draw traffic to it. So this copyrighted song is being used for a commercial application. If she was posting this on her own non-commercial website, I doubt anyone would have cared.
Since half the consoles have to be replaced multiple times, they're definitely losing money on each console.
Another lesson in measure-twice; cut once. Imagine how much better they'd be doing financially, if they hadn't screwed up on the initial hardware design?
Then again, they also have morons like myself who bought two 360s, so that they'd always have one to play even when the other is "in the shop".
You're right, I must be doing it wrong. I've only been in the industry my entire adult life and have been building my PCs and servers for a couple of decades.
Yes, you can build and run a midrange gaming machine for far cheaper, but where is the fun in that? And now that you have 65" widescreens running in 1080p and you only need a $400 console to do it, why would I want to spend my time hunched over my keyboard in front of a 30" or smaller screen? Even though the resolution may be higher.
I never suggested that every gamer requires a $2000+ annual investment, but even with a much smaller investment, they're looking at spending far more than the console investment. I am speaking of my particular experience. What makes you happy and what you are willing to settle for may not be the same as I am willing to settle for. My grandmother is happy playing on my old 700mhz Duron with a 17" LCD and a copy of Solitaire on a gnome desktop. *shrug*
I haven't found simply upgrading a component here and there worthwhile in at least a decade. Any significant upgraded component is likely to require a change in other components, anyway. Either by force of architecture or simply performance bottleneck. That $2,500 also includes a high end case and quality PSU. I understand that not everyone is in this situation. But even then, a console is more bang for the buck as it has a solid five year life span and doesn't require upgrading. A $500 console over five years is $100/yr. What are you going to do with your PC on a $100/yr budget?
:D
Also, I found that I enjoy dumping what I used to spend on my PC into my home entertainment center, instead. Heh.
I guess it's just replacing one bad habit with another. But . . . unlike my videocard, my speakers are going to last 30 years.
Yes, but when you're a PC gaming fanatic, you don't want components that will allow you to play a game reasonably well. If you aren't playing the game with all the candy cranked up and at the highest possible resolution, you just aren't happy. And then you find yourself in a cycle.
When I was much younger, I always bought at the price break, because I had to. I haven't had to do that for a long time, though. I could easily justify spending $500 or $600 just on a videocard, because I knew I was going to be playing whatever set of upcoming games for countless hours on end. There haven't been any such games in a long time now, though -- so it can't be justified. And if you're just going to settle for a mid-range machine to play current games at mid-range quality settings, then why not just enjoy them on a console? Anyway, that's the conclusion I've come to.
As for the other points: . I still, for the most part, prefer playing games on the computer - to me the mouse is the best input device ever. Every generation it's like 'the PC's dead! The PC's dead!'. But it carries on growing when consoles are flat for five years. At the moment I can get better graphics on my PC than I can on the PS3.'" Yes, I prefer playing games on the computer, too. And yes, a good computer today has better graphics than any of the consoles. It's been that since the day each of the consoles were released. However, I'm getting tired of having to spend $2,500 every year to build a top of the line gaming machine. If I want to play Unreal Tournament III at the best quality on my 2560x1600 30" monitor, I'm going to have to upgrade this dual core GF 8800 machine that I just built in February.
I've been a PC gamer my entire life, but the rat-race of keeping up with the hardware is getting absurd. And while today's $2500 PC puts a PS3 to shame, you can buy a PS3 and a couple of games for the price of a PC video card.
Well, even geniuses can be stupid from time to time.
.I said it a cople days ago and I'll say it today -- it just won't hold a gamer's interest for long. It looks like something we're all going to buy and play out of curiosity. Then after a few days, we'll get tired of the repetitiveness or the lack of involved skill and quit playing.
I own all three consoles and I play the Wii the least. There just aren't many great games and almost no games that are truly enjoyable for single player. Sure, I can play Devil May Cry with the wii controls, but I have to sacrifice audio quality, screen size, screen resolution and general graphics quality.
Now, if the games were absurdly fantastic, that could make up for it. But there are just so few games. And the ones that I keep looking forward to buying always end up being total ass.
As for Spore . .