If you go into any EB or GameStop to sell them a mint used game, complete with box and instructions, they'll probably give you the same price as someone who only has a cart which looks like it's been through a war zone.
I'm guessing if anyone cares enough about games to keep the manual and box, they know better then to go to one of these stores, and instead sell/trade them over the internet.
Why doesn't Microsoft just give the Xbox away? If all they are after is market-share, that's a sure way to guarantee the number one spot in the console wars. Sure they'll lose more money, but they've been losing money on this console since it's launch.
Overall the reviewer thinks that the final version would be good, but not as good as we were led to believe.
You've got to be kidding. How can you take a review seriously of a STOLEN/INCOMPLETE/APLHA version of a game? It was probably optimized for a specific system and video card, it's missing huge chunks of the game, and it's NOT FINISHED!
I think I'll wait until the final version of the game is released before I pass judgement.
I don't think this is a hoax. By that, I mean, I don't think these guys are trying to play a "gotcha" on the rest of the world... there's no point.
However, I do think the Phantom is being put out by people who have no idea what they are doing, and it's doomed to failure. It's not to hard to throw a PC in a box, and put together a couple graphical menus. The hard part is getting people to buy into it... and I don't think they'll be able to do that.
...that the toys had been donated by a local catholic school, and were valued at nearly a thousand dollars.
If this is an example of the quality of news reporting today, it makes me wonder how much of the news we get on a daily basis is accurate.
Unfortunately, I think what happened was pretty predictable. I mean, they were doing something nice. Has anyone watched any news lately? If it bleeds, it leads.
That'll never be an issue, since you can't copyright a name (in the USofA, anyway). Names are protected by trademarks.
Sigh... yes, I mis-typed. I used the word "copyright" in place of "trademark." Thanks for taking the time to point that out... it changes entire meaning of my original post.
Yes, but I don't take things out of other people's published work and publish without permission for the purpose of making profit, which is illegal.
I don't think that applies here. If someone took copyrighted material from the game, something like the story or characters, then I think your argument would apply. But I don't think a domain name counts. Well, unless it contains a copyrighted name, but even that's iffy (ex: walmartsucks.com).
But I don't think this case would fall under the definition of copyright infringement, or anything similar. More like a simple mistake that came back to bite Ubisoft in the ass.
I guess my point is that society as a whole does have a responsibility to define right vs. wrong to a scant aspect (i.e. laws), leaving the greater burden upon the parents/guardians. Left unchecked, movies, songs, videogames or whatever media channel the kids dig into can impose a new (& contrary) social worldview that can do irreparable harm.
I like to think society has done something: the ESRB rating system. Seems that many people discount it, but the ESRB rating should be the first thing a parent looks at before letting their child play a game. It's up to the parents first and foremost to know what their kids are playing. Seems many parents want to throw the responsibility of rasing their children on to other people's shoulders, rather than doing it themselves.
I do realize it's more difficult with the volume of questionable material being thrown around the airwaves and what-not. But this is one thing I think parents should be able to handle on their own.
In addition, I don't like being told by journalists and others what I shouldn't be playing. Let me make that judgment for myself. I'll live my life, and other people can live theirs'.
The author is not only addressing the immorality aspect of this game, but also the financial aspects of the company....
Mod me how you want, but I agree w/ the author to an extent - these type of games can act as a desensitization (that a word?;)) of violence and its reprocussions (or lack thereof in this situation;)).
Seems to me the author is making a moral judgement disguised as business advice.
And I don't know about anyone else here, but I was desensitized to violence long before GTA III came out:
Meyers: I did a little research and I discovered a startling thing...
There was violence in the past, long before cartoons were invented. Kent: I see. Fascinating. Meyers: Yeah, and know something, Karl? The Crusades, for instance.
Tremendous violence, many people killed, the darned thing went
on for thirty years. Kent: And this was before cartoons were invented? Meyers: That's right, Kent.
- from "Itchy and Scratchy and Marge"
You're wrong. Have you seen:
Grand Theft Auto 3 & Vice City? Grab a helicoptor then fly around -- amazing graphics and how they can draw huge landscapes.
Sorry dude, I love my PS2, but almost any multiplatform game out there will look better on the XBOX. It's simply a more powerful system.
Grand theft auto is a great example of this. From the Gamespot review of the XBOX version: "The PlayStation 2 versions looked fantastic, given the relatively underpowered PS2 hardware, and the ports that appeared on the PC did a nice job of cleaning up and improving upon the original PS2 games. But the Xbox versions of the games go one step further than that. You'll immediately notice reflections coming off the cars, and the lighting in general is better. The texture quality and character models have been improved. The draw distance seems a little further out. And the frame rate remains pretty stable throughout. The games take advantage of the Xbox's audio prowess by playing in Dolby Digital 5.1 sound and offering support for the custom soundtrack feature."
I know this is a minor point, but the color will make it stand out like a sore thumb on most people's shelves. Why not make it black or gray? It would at least match Sony's own line of Wega TV's.
Maybe it their subtle way of getting it noticed: "What's that big white box on your shelf"
"Oh that's the PSX!"
How is it that while people repeatedly blast Nintendo for all of these "rehashes," these games not only get great reviews (up in the 90% range, usually) but also top best sellers lists constantly?
This is kinda an interesting point. I keep seeing game sites give Nintendo games great reviews, and then trash them on their editorial pages (not innovative, etc). They're talking out of both sides of their mouths'.
I personally think Nintendo is relying too much on their old titles to carry them forward (Zelda, Mario, FZero, Mario Kart are very similar to what we got on the N64). But I'm not going around praising those games one day, and complaining about them the next.
I would say every week is a good week to dislike X-play.
All I want out of a video game show is to see is reviews and clips of games. Extend... ahem... X-play *used* to be that.
TechTV took a decent, straight to the point show like "Extended Play," added a shaking/bouncing camera, added a bouncy hostess (who is more "flash" than substance), removed at least one review per episode to make room for more "funny" banter between the hosts, and changed the name to X-Play. Ya know, it's XTREME!!! Sorry guys, I'm not buying it.
I still watch the show. However, it's TIVOed, so I can skip over the host segments... and any review where Morgan is, you know, talking.
OMFG, it's only 50 cents. If you can't afford to spend 50 cents on a video game, you've got severe money problems, or a real cheapskate. Jesus Christ...
My point is, people blow money on disposable items like coffee all the time, and a video game costing 0.50 per play shouldn't result in endless threads of people bitching about it.
Who the HELL is going to pay 50 cents to play this thing.
Jesus, it's only 50 cents. You can't even buy coffee with that. I'd say $.50 for 3-5 minutes of playtime (and maybe a nostalgia kick on top of that) is a fair trade.
True. But, many of the original games suffer from a multitude of problems. Whether it be chips on the gameboard failing, or problems with the old black and white monitor, it's easier for operators (and yes, even home users) to pick one up for $2500 and not have to worry about it breaking down for quite a while (hopefully).
I personally think the new one looks like shit, and a "real" collector would seek out the original and restore it. But that's me.
I've heard from everyone that IGN, Gamespy, Gamespot, etc, etc suck. Okay, every mainstream video game site sucks. So rather then telling me all the sites that "suck," why not offer up some good alternatives.
You know, site that have "fair" reviews, write editorials about videos games, are updated on a daily basis, and, you know, don't suck.
But there are plenty of other games to pick on here with Ratchet & Clank getting a similar "darker" makeover in its sequel.
Am I missing something here? What in Rachet & Clank was "dark?" It seemed like the same tone as the previous game.
Of course most of these games are now story driven with plenty of cutscenes and dialogue that most gamers could care less about. How do I know they don't care? Most folks still claim they skip the cutscenes on a regular basis whether they're good or not.
Most folks? Who are these folks? I never skip cutscenes (unless they are just really poorly done). Some of them are almost movie quality (the animation in Jak and Daxter is amazing). I think of them as a reward for making progress in the game. Plus they usually only last about minute. I think I can control the ADD for that long.
From Telefragged: Technology: 90%
Interface: 89%
Graphics: 90%
Single Player: 89%
Multiplayer: 90%
Sound and Music: 92%
Overall: 90%
So what kept "Single Player" and "Interface" from reaching the coveted 90% score? What factors pushed it down to 89%?!
Looks like a pretty anal scoring system. I think it's going a little to far ranking games on a scale from 1-100. A "1-10 scale" would seem more than adequate.
I've never understood why the Lord of the Rings series considered so sacred. Anyway, let's face it, the
serieswas
"soldout"
well before a pinball machine was created using its license.
Slashdot Mirror
If you go into any EB or GameStop to sell them a mint used game, complete with box and instructions, they'll probably give you the same price as someone who only has a cart which looks like it's been through a war zone.
I'm guessing if anyone cares enough about games to keep the manual and box, they know better then to go to one of these stores, and instead sell/trade them over the internet.
Why doesn't Microsoft just give the Xbox away? If all they are after is market-share, that's a sure way to guarantee the number one spot in the console wars. Sure they'll lose more money, but they've been losing money on this console since it's launch.
Overall the reviewer thinks that the final version would be good, but not as good as we were led to believe.
You've got to be kidding. How can you take a review seriously of a STOLEN/INCOMPLETE/APLHA version of a game? It was probably optimized for a specific system and video card, it's missing huge chunks of the game, and it's NOT FINISHED!
I think I'll wait until the final version of the game is released before I pass judgement.
I don't think this is a hoax. By that, I mean, I don't think these guys are trying to play a "gotcha" on the rest of the world... there's no point.
However, I do think the Phantom is being put out by people who have no idea what they are doing, and it's doomed to failure. It's not to hard to throw a PC in a box, and put together a couple graphical menus. The hard part is getting people to buy into it... and I don't think they'll be able to do that.
...that the toys had been donated by a local catholic school, and were valued at nearly a thousand dollars.
If this is an example of the quality of news reporting today, it makes me wonder how much of the news we get on a daily basis is accurate.
Unfortunately, I think what happened was pretty predictable. I mean, they were doing something nice. Has anyone watched any news lately? If it bleeds, it leads.
A 4 gig MP3 player for $250. So, for $50 bucks less than the low-end IPOD, I can 11 gigs less storage space.
But it's smaller! I never really thought the original IPOD was incredibly huge. Oh, and I can choose from five colors. Who cares?
Who is Apple targeting with this? I was really looking forward to an affordable iPod. Sigh.
That'll never be an issue, since you can't copyright a name (in the USofA, anyway). Names are protected by trademarks.
Sigh... yes, I mis-typed. I used the word "copyright" in place of "trademark." Thanks for taking the time to point that out... it changes entire meaning of my original post.
Yes, but I don't take things out of other people's published work and publish without permission for the purpose of making profit, which is illegal.
I don't think that applies here. If someone took copyrighted material from the game, something like the story or characters, then I think your argument would apply. But I don't think a domain name counts. Well, unless it contains a copyrighted name, but even that's iffy (ex: walmartsucks.com).
But I don't think this case would fall under the definition of copyright infringement, or anything similar. More like a simple mistake that came back to bite Ubisoft in the ass.
I guess my point is that society as a whole does have a responsibility to define right vs. wrong to a scant aspect (i.e. laws), leaving the greater burden upon the parents/guardians. Left unchecked, movies, songs, videogames or whatever media channel the kids dig into can impose a new (& contrary) social worldview that can do irreparable harm.
I like to think society has done something: the ESRB rating system. Seems that many people discount it, but the ESRB rating should be the first thing a parent looks at before letting their child play a game. It's up to the parents first and foremost to know what their kids are playing. Seems many parents want to throw the responsibility of rasing their children on to other people's shoulders, rather than doing it themselves.
I do realize it's more difficult with the volume of questionable material being thrown around the airwaves and what-not. But this is one thing I think parents should be able to handle on their own.
In addition, I don't like being told by journalists and others what I shouldn't be playing. Let me make that judgment for myself. I'll live my life, and other people can live theirs'.
The author is not only addressing the immorality aspect of this game, but also the financial aspects of the company. ...
Mod me how you want, but I agree w/ the author to an extent - these type of games can act as a desensitization (that a word? ;)) of violence and its reprocussions (or lack thereof in this situation ;)).
Seems to me the author is making a moral judgement disguised as business advice.
And I don't know about anyone else here, but I was desensitized to violence long before GTA III came out:
Meyers: I did a little research and I discovered a startling thing... There was violence in the past, long before cartoons were invented.
Kent: I see. Fascinating.
Meyers: Yeah, and know something, Karl? The Crusades, for instance. Tremendous violence, many people killed, the darned thing went on for thirty years.
Kent: And this was before cartoons were invented?
Meyers: That's right, Kent.
- from "Itchy and Scratchy and Marge"
You're wrong. Have you seen: Grand Theft Auto 3 & Vice City? Grab a helicoptor then fly around -- amazing graphics and how they can draw huge landscapes.
Sorry dude, I love my PS2, but almost any multiplatform game out there will look better on the XBOX. It's simply a more powerful system.
Grand theft auto is a great example of this. From the Gamespot review of the XBOX version:
"The PlayStation 2 versions looked fantastic, given the relatively underpowered PS2 hardware, and the ports that appeared on the PC did a nice job of cleaning up and improving upon the original PS2 games. But the Xbox versions of the games go one step further than that. You'll immediately notice reflections coming off the cars, and the lighting in general is better. The texture quality and character models have been improved. The draw distance seems a little further out. And the frame rate remains pretty stable throughout. The games take advantage of the Xbox's audio prowess by playing in Dolby Digital 5.1 sound and offering support for the custom soundtrack feature."
I know this is a minor point, but the color will make it stand out like a sore thumb on most people's shelves. Why not make it black or gray? It would at least match Sony's own line of Wega TV's.
Maybe it their subtle way of getting it noticed:
"What's that big white box on your shelf"
"Oh that's the PSX!"
How is it that while people repeatedly blast Nintendo for all of these "rehashes," these games not only get great reviews (up in the 90% range, usually) but also top best sellers lists constantly?
This is kinda an interesting point. I keep seeing game sites give Nintendo games great reviews, and then trash them on their editorial pages (not innovative, etc). They're talking out of both sides of their mouths'.
I personally think Nintendo is relying too much on their old titles to carry them forward (Zelda, Mario, FZero, Mario Kart are very similar to what we got on the N64). But I'm not going around praising those games one day, and complaining about them the next.
Yeah, remember the pre-extreme days when Adam Sessler would actually talk about good games instead of the embarrassing shtick he's forced into now?
Good point. He seemed so much more competent on Extended Play. They basically turned him a walking cliche.
You know, the standard man/woman team, where the guy is a moron, and the woman always has some "witty" remark at the ready.
I would say every week is a good week to dislike X-play.
All I want out of a video game show is to see is reviews and clips of games. Extend... ahem... X-play *used* to be that.
TechTV took a decent, straight to the point show like "Extended Play," added a shaking/bouncing camera, added a bouncy hostess (who is more "flash" than substance), removed at least one review per episode to make room for more "funny" banter between the hosts, and changed the name to X-Play. Ya know, it's XTREME!!! Sorry guys, I'm not buying it.
I still watch the show. However, it's TIVOed, so I can skip over the host segments... and any review where Morgan is, you know, talking.
And I thought I was the only one who's television told him to do things like that.
OMFG, it's only 50 cents. If you can't afford to spend 50 cents on a video game, you've got severe money problems, or a real cheapskate. Jesus Christ...
Sigh. Fine. Coffee can be bought for 0.50.
My point is, people blow money on disposable items like coffee all the time, and a video game costing 0.50 per play shouldn't result in endless threads of people bitching about it.
Who the HELL is going to pay 50 cents to play this thing.
Jesus, it's only 50 cents. You can't even buy coffee with that. I'd say $.50 for 3-5 minutes of playtime (and maybe a nostalgia kick on top of that) is a fair trade.
True. But, many of the original games suffer from a multitude of problems. Whether it be chips on the gameboard failing, or problems with the old black and white monitor, it's easier for operators (and yes, even home users) to pick one up for $2500 and not have to worry about it breaking down for quite a while (hopefully).
I personally think the new one looks like shit, and a "real" collector would seek out the original and restore it. But that's me.
I've heard from everyone that IGN, Gamespy, Gamespot, etc, etc suck. Okay, every mainstream video game site sucks. So rather then telling me all the sites that "suck," why not offer up some good alternatives.
You know, site that have "fair" reviews, write editorials about videos games, are updated on a daily basis, and, you know, don't suck.
But there are plenty of other games to pick on here with Ratchet & Clank getting a similar "darker" makeover in its sequel.
Am I missing something here? What in Rachet & Clank was "dark?" It seemed like the same tone as the previous game.
Of course most of these games are now story driven with plenty of cutscenes and dialogue that most gamers could care less about. How do I know they don't care? Most folks still claim they skip the cutscenes on a regular basis whether they're good or not.
Most folks? Who are these folks? I never skip cutscenes (unless they are just really poorly done). Some of them are almost movie quality (the animation in Jak and Daxter is amazing). I think of them as a reward for making progress in the game. Plus they usually only last about minute. I think I can control the ADD for that long.
Technology: 90%
Interface: 89%
Graphics: 90%
Single Player: 89%
Multiplayer: 90%
Sound and Music: 92%
Overall: 90%
So what kept "Single Player" and "Interface" from reaching the coveted 90% score? What factors pushed it down to 89%?!
Looks like a pretty anal scoring system. I think it's going a little to far ranking games on a scale from 1-100. A "1-10 scale" would seem more than adequate.
Well, I've been brought out of my 2+ year shirking of /. because of this article. Hope you all are satisfied!
:)
Yes, yes, my evil plan is now finally coming to fruition.
Thanks for the info.
I've never understood why the Lord of the Rings series considered so sacred. Anyway, let's face it, the series was "sold out" well before a pinball machine was created using its license.