Plus $50 for the game to start with... I can't play this game enough to justify the cost. Looks like they are taking their cues from the cable companies.
Actually, they're taking cues from their players, and from other similar games.
If everybody played WoW, well, it wouldn't work -- the servers couldn't function at release-quality if they did. The goal isn't to get as many people as possible, it's to make the most money possible.
Yeah, when I first ran the game (it's in the Beta), after seeing that cutscene, I just sat there for a while, not moving. Which was nice, the menu music is also fantastic.
Re:Open Beta is going to be awefully short then!
on
WoW Street Date Announced
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Open Beta starts November 8th. The servers are up -- they're the same ones people are playing on now in the final stress test -- they just have to start allowing new signups.
I don't buy this. There is certainly achievement without risk. In real life, when I complete a project, even a small one, I feel acheivement. What did I risk? Nothing. It was inevitable that I would finish, and I knew how long it would take, but I feel achievement all the same. In games, it's the same, only more fun along the way. If I reach some kind of milestone, risky or not, I feel achievement.
people choose what is good for them, not what is good for the game
There is no difference between the two. It's entertainment. If it's good for the players, it's good for the game. If the players are enjoying themselves, the game is going well. There is no other standard of measurement.
Live action is vastly different than computer games. Computer games are, by nature, far more limited. They don't lend themselves to evolution in the same way, because they follow such a very strict set of rules.
The Nation which indulges toward another an habitual hatred or an habitual fondness is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to its animosity or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it astray from its duty and its interest. - George Washington, Farewell address, 9/17/1796
Just because it makes a big difference proportionally, on paper, doesn't mean it makes a difference in real terms in the real world.
Even if you keep voting for what you think is good, you're STILL going to keep getting Republicrats. Voting third party means you don't control which one you get. There's no practical effect of your vote.
Since this is Slashdot, it's analogy time! Linux is like third parties. It can make headway in the realms of specific applications, like servers. (Local elections.) But when it comes to the Big One, the home desktop (Presidency.) its biggest weakness is its small marketshare. This makes it stuck. It needs to get more people, in order to get more people. So, simply because more people use it, Windows (Rebublicrats.) gets people to keep using it.
You're sacrificing your practical say in the fate of the nation in order to make a statement. People will keep voting for Republicrats until the third parties have a chance of winning--but that's self defeating. It's the sad truth. If that's fine with you, then it's perfectly fine with me, but don't pretend it isn't so.
It's interesting to note that Zogby says he thinks Kerry will get it. Interesting because he is one of the men to listen to. He knows what people are saying now, he knows what they said in the past...he knows what happened in the past, he's got a good idea of what will happen now.
Of course, he's not SURE. It's close, and he knows that polls aren't reliable. But, again, he knows the ways in which polls aren't reliable, he knows he's not getting huge chunks of voters, and he has an idea of what those chucks are.
If you want to compare death rates now to under Saddam, the 100,000 estimate isn't exactly of people killed. It's the difference. There are 100,000 more dead Iraqis than there would have been had the U.S. left Saddam in power.
I don't give a shit if it's part of war. That's why civilized countries are so reluctant to go to war. Those 100,000 dead left millions with lost loved ones, and that is cause not for indignance or sadness, but absolute outrage.
America is no longer the moral pinnacle of the world. This nation's actions make the terrorists look noble: at least they fight for a cause.
About an hour before I read this, I put the following line in my AIM profile:
Terrorism: Red Scare v2.0, new and improved!
It makes insane actions seem sane, it gives the leaders the public support to do whatever they want. And the threat of it is, all-in-all, massively overstated. In fact, there would be no threat if we stopped fighting it.
I agree, it's incredibly sad, and, I think, infuriating.
I mentioned the 100,000 estimate to some people I know. They argued that that estimate was probably high, which is true. And they thought that made it okay. They act as if, oh, say, 80,000 is a perfectly acceptable loss of life.
And I sit here, going nuts, because there's nothing I can do. I've already voted, though Kerry was taking New York whether I helped out or not. The people who I'd like to convince about this war either refuse to listen, or already do agree with me. So I sit by while tens of thousands die for nothing, because there's nothing I can do that will make any further difference. I've filled out a form to vote, and I've written letters, and...that's all a half-educated 19-year-old can do, besides seethe.
The craziest thing is that these people who condone mass murder think I'm an (a)/(im)moral person because I don't believe in an invisible man in the sky.
I hear 'vote or don't bitch' and similar a lot. But I voted already (absentee) and need to know something. I plan on bitching even though I voted, no matter which way the election goes. Is that okay?
It IS true that many of the first members of Blizzard left. Not all, not most. But some. I think one of the two founders, and one or two senior designers out of about five. (Don't quote me on the numbers!) Chris Metzen, the man who practically invented the WarCraft universe, is still there. Those who left did specifically cite Vivendi telling them what to do as the reason, however (and now they're working on Guild Wars! Woo!). I know that. But those who left were more involved in making Diablo II than StarCraft or WarCraft III. They weren't in themselves the lifeblood of the company, or solely responsible for making their games great. Having played WoW, I think the game is doing just fine. Even with the limitations that Vivendi is placing on them, it looks more than finished to me. Not as finished as Blizzard would like, but not rushed to the point of being bug-laden.
So it's Blizzard's fault that people break into their games and cheat? I don't think it is. They've limited the number of ways that people can cheat as much as possible while keeping actual gameplay reliable, but until running games all serverside is cheap and everybody has zero-latency net connections, it's not possible. It's equally impossible to tell whether a disconnect is legitimate or not. They get a HUGE number of complaints no matter how they deal with disconnects. Even though the system isn't perfect, I fail to see how it could be better.
They take efforts to maintain and support their fan community. I challenge you to name a large game company that does as much to support their games after release.
About Bnetd, that was almost certainly a decision of Vivendi, not Blizzard. You know, the same people who are screwing up HL2? From all reports I've heard, Blizzard does not enjoy being under Vivendi's thumb, by the way.
Slashdot Mirror
Plus $50 for the game to start with... I can't play this game enough to justify the cost. Looks like they are taking their cues from the cable companies.
Actually, they're taking cues from their players, and from other similar games.
If everybody played WoW, well, it wouldn't work -- the servers couldn't function at release-quality if they did. The goal isn't to get as many people as possible, it's to make the most money possible.
Yeah, when I first ran the game (it's in the Beta), after seeing that cutscene, I just sat there for a while, not moving. Which was nice, the menu music is also fantastic.
Open Beta starts November 8th. The servers are up -- they're the same ones people are playing on now in the final stress test -- they just have to start allowing new signups.
A PSP, yeah. Or, you know, a DVD player, and the regular DVD-version of the movie which was confirmed long ago.
Not only do you need to keep the batteries charged, you need to turn off the system in the middle of play to make the swap. Pretty annoying.
with no risk there is no sense of achievement
I don't buy this. There is certainly achievement without risk. In real life, when I complete a project, even a small one, I feel acheivement. What did I risk? Nothing. It was inevitable that I would finish, and I knew how long it would take, but I feel achievement all the same. In games, it's the same, only more fun along the way. If I reach some kind of milestone, risky or not, I feel achievement.
people choose what is good for them, not what is good for the game
There is no difference between the two. It's entertainment. If it's good for the players, it's good for the game. If the players are enjoying themselves, the game is going well. There is no other standard of measurement.
Live action is vastly different than computer games. Computer games are, by nature, far more limited. They don't lend themselves to evolution in the same way, because they follow such a very strict set of rules.
Quite right.
The Nation which indulges toward another an habitual hatred or an habitual fondness is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to its animosity or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it astray from its duty and its interest.
- George Washington, Farewell address, 9/17/1796
since I have time on my hands waiting for WoW
What time? Final stress test starts now, open beta in a week, and release shortly after it ends!
Just because it makes a big difference proportionally, on paper, doesn't mean it makes a difference in real terms in the real world.
Even if you keep voting for what you think is good, you're STILL going to keep getting Republicrats. Voting third party means you don't control which one you get. There's no practical effect of your vote.
Since this is Slashdot, it's analogy time! Linux is like third parties. It can make headway in the realms of specific applications, like servers. (Local elections.) But when it comes to the Big One, the home desktop (Presidency.) its biggest weakness is its small marketshare. This makes it stuck. It needs to get more people, in order to get more people. So, simply because more people use it, Windows (Rebublicrats.) gets people to keep using it.
You're sacrificing your practical say in the fate of the nation in order to make a statement. People will keep voting for Republicrats until the third parties have a chance of winning--but that's self defeating. It's the sad truth. If that's fine with you, then it's perfectly fine with me, but don't pretend it isn't so.
It's interesting to note that Zogby says he thinks Kerry will get it. Interesting because he is one of the men to listen to. He knows what people are saying now, he knows what they said in the past...he knows what happened in the past, he's got a good idea of what will happen now.
Of course, he's not SURE. It's close, and he knows that polls aren't reliable. But, again, he knows the ways in which polls aren't reliable, he knows he's not getting huge chunks of voters, and he has an idea of what those chucks are.
Yeah. Determining where a piece of paper is going to fall. Real useful. :-)
If you want to compare death rates now to under Saddam, the 100,000 estimate isn't exactly of people killed. It's the difference. There are 100,000 more dead Iraqis than there would have been had the U.S. left Saddam in power.
I don't give a shit if it's part of war. That's why civilized countries are so reluctant to go to war. Those 100,000 dead left millions with lost loved ones, and that is cause not for indignance or sadness, but absolute outrage.
America is no longer the moral pinnacle of the world. This nation's actions make the terrorists look noble: at least they fight for a cause.
About an hour before I read this, I put the following line in my AIM profile:
Terrorism: Red Scare v2.0, new and improved!
It makes insane actions seem sane, it gives the leaders the public support to do whatever they want. And the threat of it is, all-in-all, massively overstated. In fact, there would be no threat if we stopped fighting it.
I agree, it's incredibly sad, and, I think, infuriating.
I mentioned the 100,000 estimate to some people I know. They argued that that estimate was probably high, which is true. And they thought that made it okay. They act as if, oh, say, 80,000 is a perfectly acceptable loss of life.
And I sit here, going nuts, because there's nothing I can do. I've already voted, though Kerry was taking New York whether I helped out or not. The people who I'd like to convince about this war either refuse to listen, or already do agree with me. So I sit by while tens of thousands die for nothing, because there's nothing I can do that will make any further difference. I've filled out a form to vote, and I've written letters, and...that's all a half-educated 19-year-old can do, besides seethe.
The craziest thing is that these people who condone mass murder think I'm an (a)/(im)moral person because I don't believe in an invisible man in the sky.
If he was around and wanted people to know it, he would prove it more conclusively.
Give him another couple days.
No, man, the AOL internet is different than the IE internet! That's why you have to subscribe to AOL and another ISP at the same time, to get it all.
I talked to somebody who thought this, I swear. I almost went insane.
That was impressive. I truly am impressed. Need mod points.
I hear 'vote or don't bitch' and similar a lot. But I voted already (absentee) and need to know something. I plan on bitching even though I voted, no matter which way the election goes. Is that okay?
and the Secret Service did nothing to bad to him. They saw his rant looked into it carefully then said have a nice day.
This is why I replied to the person that said they should have beaten the kid up a bit while they were there.
You do realize that this is exactly the type of speech the First Amendment was put in place to protect?
Now if only they stopped telling people that AOL == the internet, I'd be happy.
Seems to me that if it weren't an ad, it would have mentioned that the original game is such crap.
Taxes?
It IS true that many of the first members of Blizzard left. Not all, not most. But some. I think one of the two founders, and one or two senior designers out of about five. (Don't quote me on the numbers!) Chris Metzen, the man who practically invented the WarCraft universe, is still there. Those who left did specifically cite Vivendi telling them what to do as the reason, however (and now they're working on Guild Wars! Woo!). I know that. But those who left were more involved in making Diablo II than StarCraft or WarCraft III. They weren't in themselves the lifeblood of the company, or solely responsible for making their games great. Having played WoW, I think the game is doing just fine. Even with the limitations that Vivendi is placing on them, it looks more than finished to me. Not as finished as Blizzard would like, but not rushed to the point of being bug-laden.
So it's Blizzard's fault that people break into their games and cheat? I don't think it is. They've limited the number of ways that people can cheat as much as possible while keeping actual gameplay reliable, but until running games all serverside is cheap and everybody has zero-latency net connections, it's not possible. It's equally impossible to tell whether a disconnect is legitimate or not. They get a HUGE number of complaints no matter how they deal with disconnects. Even though the system isn't perfect, I fail to see how it could be better.
They take efforts to maintain and support their fan community. I challenge you to name a large game company that does as much to support their games after release.
About Bnetd, that was almost certainly a decision of Vivendi, not Blizzard. You know, the same people who are screwing up HL2? From all reports I've heard, Blizzard does not enjoy being under Vivendi's thumb, by the way.