I think you're looking back through some awfully rose-colored glasses. Sonic (1991) was NOT a 1st gen title for the Genesis (1989) and Phantasy Star (December 1987) was not a 1st gen title for the Master System (July 1986). They're both great games, but they each came out at least a year after the North American release of their respective console. Also, there are a TON of classic games that came out between Pong and Super Mario Brothers. Most of them were arcade titles (Pac-Man, Ms. Pac, Galaga, Donkey Kong, Joust, Defender, Centipede) but even the home releases of a lot of them were at least decent (as long as they weren't the 2600 versions).
The best early games for a console tend to come from in-house development. Microsoft did not release this console with a single game developed in-house from what I've seen.
"in-game advertising works on the traditional gamer demographic. From the eToyChest article: "The study was conducted among 1350 active male gamers ages 13 to 44.""
What advertising doesn't work on males ages 13 to 44? Success of advertising to that demographic is a big reason why it's such a target demographic.
"For example, for our next generation Wolfenstein game, which uses the Xbox 360 as it's primary development platform, we are developing technology that will change the way people play First Person games by doing away with the whole concept of 'levels', which has been the primary progression mechanic every first person game has used."
Ok, who's underwhelmed by this revolutionary idea. Looks to me like they're just taking a page from the GTA series. In fact, it looks to me like they're just latching onto the latest fad of openended gaming.
"Do you seriously think more people have seen Princess Diaries or GI Jane than own GTA or Madden?"
Maybe not, but that's an apples to oranges comparison. Games cost $60 to own when they first come out, but they drop in price rather quickly. Madden 2005 is as cheap as $7 now but last year at this time, it was fetching $40. It started at $50 - $55. I've seen Madden 2004 being sold for what it would cost to ship the thing. EA Sports has to throw another $X million into a new game every to keep the Madden franchise afloat. The typical game won't drop in price that quickly but you'll be hard pressed to find any game over 3 years old fetching more than $20. And most games that old tend to fall anywhere from $5 - $15.
A movie will start out at $20 - $30 on video but then after about a year it will drop to about $15 and stay there for a LONG time. Eventually, it might go down to $7 - $10 but typically only if it's not that great a movie. The same game over that period of time may very well be worthless. Also, don't forget that advertisers and pay TV stations will make money for a movie via TV stations paying broadcast rights over the course of many years. Video games simply do not have such an outlet yet (at least not a popular one).
Also, Companies A and B can only fix prices to a certain extent. The only reason there's not a Company C is because there isn't enough financial incentive for there to be a Company C. If the markup is too great from A and B, expect C and maybe even D-Z to come storming out of the gate.
Ah, but Yahtzee doesn't have a built-in compter whereas the Electronic Battleship and Stratego games do. Their computer insides are probably about as sophisticated as a Tiger handheld. Does that qualify? I imagine they count the Tiger handhelds in the definition of gamer. A game like Electronic Battleship (or even something like Simon) is certainly a grey area.
I didn't know it had a 3rd or 4th season. Did they move the day and time or something? My wife was the one who watched the show. Maybe she just decided to stop watching after the 2nd season. Thanks for clearing up my confusion about the actor and character name.
"How do you get a job if you don't already have a car and no employer is willing to give you hours compatible with the town's bus schedule (that is no nights, no Saturday evenings, and no Sundays or legal holidays)?"
Then I guess I'll be walking, biking, or doing whatever it takes to get to that job. I don't care what the conditions outside are. If I'm so far in the hole I can't even afford transportation to work, I'm going to find a way to get there. I'd try to do what I could to convince the town to broaden their schedule, but I sure wouldn't roll over and die just because the city won't cater to my work needs. I might even try to get the local paper to cover my story of making the daily trip to work without the bus. I could see a good sob story about a guy just trying to get to work putting pressure on the local politicians.
This article is about VIDEO gamers. If my kids play Yahtzee (with the cup and paper scorepad like God intended), they're not considered gamers by this report. However, if they fire up some fancy-schmancy computerized version of Yahtzee, they are gamers here. What about players of Electronic Battleship or Electronic Stratego? Are those folks "gamers?" They're just playing a console that only plays one game and doesn't need a television to connect to.
As long as people will pay $60 for games, games will sell for $60. If it makes you feel any better, just think of the official release as an early release especially for those who are willing to fork over extra money. For example, as far as I'm concerned, Madden 06 came out in early November for $28. There was an early release back in August for those dumb enough to pay $50 (and sometimes more) for it.
In Boston Public (an shortlived show about teachers on Fox), there was a character actually named Harvey Finkle. He was an older Jewish gentleman who was supposed to be the "old-school" teaacher from what I could tell.
No, but you can get away with having a lot of warriors and only a few shamen in WOW. On a starship (from what we've seen so far), you need at least two people for every Captain (Star Trek III as my source there). And that would leave the ship "bypassed like a Christmas Tree." Warriors and Paladins make up a LOT of the population of WOW from what I've seen. There can't be a fleet of 50% captains and 50% other crewmembers if you want to have a lot of variety in the positions available on a starship.
Leveling and grinding are two different things. MMOs use them both to the extent that it's easy to not be able to see one from the other. I can definately see a level structure where you have to have experience in various parts of the ship before they hand you over your own ship. It would be similar to ranking in the military. It would serve a purpose and it would have a point. Now if you have to sit there and play with the warp core in engineering for hours on end with no reprecussions to the outcome of the game just to get to that shiny new level, that would be a grind. That would not be a good thing.
"Whatever happens, the cable company will make it so you can't save money. I guarantee it."
No you can't guarantee it. I can always just stay away from the service. Right now I save a LOT of money a year because I don't have ESPN (or any cable/satellite for that matter). They can get $60 a year from me or they can get nothing.
Actually, it doesn't exist for College Football to nearly the extent it does for the NFL. ESPN College Gameday leaves out a LOT of games (probably due to contractual reasons). I'd want both if I'm going to fork over the cash for it.
What part of this is offtopic? Senator Clinton introduces a bill about Video Game Violence (that's the gist of the article). Based on this information, an AC decides he will no longer support Hillary. This looks more to me like a moderator quashing a viewpoint they don't agree with than a legitimate moderation.
Did Captain Kirk just hop on a Starship one day and start running the show? No he did not. He rose through the ranks of starfleet. Does Captain Kirk just takes his starship wherever he pleases? No, he gets orders from his superiors (even openended ones like seek out new life and new civilizations). Levelling can be a good thing for a Star Trek game if done properly.
"However, make it so that controlling a starship requires a team of players"
You're going to end up with a big problem. There are going to be a lot more people who want to be Captain Kirk than Mr. Checkov. And who wants to be that super-devoted engineering crewman from Star Trek II? He doesn't even get to hang out on the bridge and he dies 45 minutes into the film. he doesn't even get a decent Starfleet uniform. He looks more like a Stormtrooper.
What'll be more interesting is the scenario for changing your a la carte programming lineup. I could see picking up ESPN during the football season at $12 per month and then dropping it from my lineup immedeately after. If it weren't for subscription fees, I'd have my satellite during football season and drop it during the offseason. Instead, I just miss the Sunday night NFL game and the occasional Georgia game (on ESPN) and watch the rest through antennae. This will get tougher to do next year when Monday Night Football goes over to ESPN and NBC gets some NFL games (can't pick up NBC).
"Why do so many people think this is a good idea?" I think it's a good idea because I only watch 3-4 cable channels regularly. I'm sick of paying for 50 channels I don't watch. In fact, I dropped my dish entirely for this very reason. I'd pick it back up if I could get only the channels I want.
"What channels won't be included that would otherwise provide quality viewing? Who would pay for their provider to include PBS, the Discovery Channel, the History Channel, or CSPAN (besides me)?" If you're the only one watching, then you should be the only one paying. I'd consider picking up History out of your list but I'd certainly pass on the rest. Quality viewing is a subjective term. I hardly consider PBS quality viewing. Even it's educational value for kids can be found elsewhere nowadays.
"What incentive would stations have to put out quality programming any other time than prime-time?" The same incentives they have now to keep advertisers on an around the clock basis. Also, they'll have the added incentive of providing viewers with enough good programming that they actually keep the channel.
"Won't this narrow the market down to a few stations able to provide the most flash and sex?" I doubt the will be a huge dropoff, but I would think that less popular channels will have to be more expensive to offset the lack of viewership. Flash and sex will probably be cornerstones of the most popular channels but that is no different than it is now.
"A free market approach doesn't benefit the consumer if the consumer loses programs of artistic merit or education." A free market approach most certainly does benefit the consumer if the consumer doesn't watch programs you consider to have "artistic merit or education."
I for one would like to see a list of games unsuitable for minors provided they offer specifics on why they deem the game inappropriate. I agree parents do need to stay up to date with their children's activities but I don't see the point in reinventing the wheel if someone else has already carefully looked through the game for things that are inappropriate for kids and even reported on it in a handy dandy list format. If my kid wants to play a game while I'm doing something else, I'd like to know if anything inapporpriate is going on that might not be obvious from just reading the box or looking at a pigeonholed rating system.
Slashdot Mirror
I think you're looking back through some awfully rose-colored glasses. Sonic (1991) was NOT a 1st gen title for the Genesis (1989) and Phantasy Star (December 1987) was not a 1st gen title for the Master System (July 1986). They're both great games, but they each came out at least a year after the North American release of their respective console. Also, there are a TON of classic games that came out between Pong and Super Mario Brothers. Most of them were arcade titles (Pac-Man, Ms. Pac, Galaga, Donkey Kong, Joust, Defender, Centipede) but even the home releases of a lot of them were at least decent (as long as they weren't the 2600 versions).
The best early games for a console tend to come from in-house development. Microsoft did not release this console with a single game developed in-house from what I've seen.
"in-game advertising works on the traditional gamer demographic. From the eToyChest article: "The study was conducted among 1350 active male gamers ages 13 to 44.""
What advertising doesn't work on males ages 13 to 44? Success of advertising to that demographic is a big reason why it's such a target demographic.
hal2814
Rep ***
Gamescore 25
Zone Concentration
Status
Offline
On the toilet
"For example, for our next generation Wolfenstein game, which uses the Xbox 360 as it's primary development platform, we are developing technology that will change the way people play First Person games by doing away with the whole concept of 'levels', which has been the primary progression mechanic every first person game has used."
Ok, who's underwhelmed by this revolutionary idea. Looks to me like they're just taking a page from the GTA series. In fact, it looks to me like they're just latching onto the latest fad of openended gaming.
"Do you seriously think more people have seen Princess Diaries or GI Jane than own GTA or Madden?"
Maybe not, but that's an apples to oranges comparison. Games cost $60 to own when they first come out, but they drop in price rather quickly. Madden 2005 is as cheap as $7 now but last year at this time, it was fetching $40. It started at $50 - $55. I've seen Madden 2004 being sold for what it would cost to ship the thing. EA Sports has to throw another $X million into a new game every to keep the Madden franchise afloat. The typical game won't drop in price that quickly but you'll be hard pressed to find any game over 3 years old fetching more than $20. And most games that old tend to fall anywhere from $5 - $15.
A movie will start out at $20 - $30 on video but then after about a year it will drop to about $15 and stay there for a LONG time. Eventually, it might go down to $7 - $10 but typically only if it's not that great a movie. The same game over that period of time may very well be worthless. Also, don't forget that advertisers and pay TV stations will make money for a movie via TV stations paying broadcast rights over the course of many years. Video games simply do not have such an outlet yet (at least not a popular one).
Also, Companies A and B can only fix prices to a certain extent. The only reason there's not a Company C is because there isn't enough financial incentive for there to be a Company C. If the markup is too great from A and B, expect C and maybe even D-Z to come storming out of the gate.
Also forgot to mention that both Electronic Battleship and Electronic Stratego have video displays (though they are quite rudimentary).
Ah, but Yahtzee doesn't have a built-in compter whereas the Electronic Battleship and Stratego games do. Their computer insides are probably about as sophisticated as a Tiger handheld. Does that qualify? I imagine they count the Tiger handhelds in the definition of gamer. A game like Electronic Battleship (or even something like Simon) is certainly a grey area.
I didn't know it had a 3rd or 4th season. Did they move the day and time or something? My wife was the one who watched the show. Maybe she just decided to stop watching after the 2nd season. Thanks for clearing up my confusion about the actor and character name.
"How do you get a job if you don't already have a car and no employer is willing to give you hours compatible with the town's bus schedule (that is no nights, no Saturday evenings, and no Sundays or legal holidays)?"
Then I guess I'll be walking, biking, or doing whatever it takes to get to that job. I don't care what the conditions outside are. If I'm so far in the hole I can't even afford transportation to work, I'm going to find a way to get there. I'd try to do what I could to convince the town to broaden their schedule, but I sure wouldn't roll over and die just because the city won't cater to my work needs. I might even try to get the local paper to cover my story of making the daily trip to work without the bus. I could see a good sob story about a guy just trying to get to work putting pressure on the local politicians.
This article is about VIDEO gamers. If my kids play Yahtzee (with the cup and paper scorepad like God intended), they're not considered gamers by this report. However, if they fire up some fancy-schmancy computerized version of Yahtzee, they are gamers here. What about players of Electronic Battleship or Electronic Stratego? Are those folks "gamers?" They're just playing a console that only plays one game and doesn't need a television to connect to.
As long as people will pay $60 for games, games will sell for $60. If it makes you feel any better, just think of the official release as an early release especially for those who are willing to fork over extra money. For example, as far as I'm concerned, Madden 06 came out in early November for $28. There was an early release back in August for those dumb enough to pay $50 (and sometimes more) for it.
In Boston Public (an shortlived show about teachers on Fox), there was a character actually named Harvey Finkle. He was an older Jewish gentleman who was supposed to be the "old-school" teaacher from what I could tell.
No, but you can get away with having a lot of warriors and only a few shamen in WOW. On a starship (from what we've seen so far), you need at least two people for every Captain (Star Trek III as my source there). And that would leave the ship "bypassed like a Christmas Tree." Warriors and Paladins make up a LOT of the population of WOW from what I've seen. There can't be a fleet of 50% captains and 50% other crewmembers if you want to have a lot of variety in the positions available on a starship.
Leveling and grinding are two different things. MMOs use them both to the extent that it's easy to not be able to see one from the other. I can definately see a level structure where you have to have experience in various parts of the ship before they hand you over your own ship. It would be similar to ranking in the military. It would serve a purpose and it would have a point. Now if you have to sit there and play with the warp core in engineering for hours on end with no reprecussions to the outcome of the game just to get to that shiny new level, that would be a grind. That would not be a good thing.
"Whatever happens, the cable company will make it so you can't save money. I guarantee it."
No you can't guarantee it. I can always just stay away from the service. Right now I save a LOT of money a year because I don't have ESPN (or any cable/satellite for that matter). They can get $60 a year from me or they can get nothing.
Actually, it doesn't exist for College Football to nearly the extent it does for the NFL. ESPN College Gameday leaves out a LOT of games (probably due to contractual reasons). I'd want both if I'm going to fork over the cash for it.
touche
What part of this is offtopic? Senator Clinton introduces a bill about Video Game Violence (that's the gist of the article). Based on this information, an AC decides he will no longer support Hillary. This looks more to me like a moderator quashing a viewpoint they don't agree with than a legitimate moderation.
Did Captain Kirk just hop on a Starship one day and start running the show? No he did not. He rose through the ranks of starfleet. Does Captain Kirk just takes his starship wherever he pleases? No, he gets orders from his superiors (even openended ones like seek out new life and new civilizations). Levelling can be a good thing for a Star Trek game if done properly.
"However, make it so that controlling a starship requires a team of players"
You're going to end up with a big problem. There are going to be a lot more people who want to be Captain Kirk than Mr. Checkov. And who wants to be that super-devoted engineering crewman from Star Trek II? He doesn't even get to hang out on the bridge and he dies 45 minutes into the film. he doesn't even get a decent Starfleet uniform. He looks more like a Stormtrooper.
So now when I lose my sunglasses (which happens a LOT), I've also lost my 256MB mp3 player? No thanks.
I think not.
What'll be more interesting is the scenario for changing your a la carte programming lineup. I could see picking up ESPN during the football season at $12 per month and then dropping it from my lineup immedeately after. If it weren't for subscription fees, I'd have my satellite during football season and drop it during the offseason. Instead, I just miss the Sunday night NFL game and the occasional Georgia game (on ESPN) and watch the rest through antennae. This will get tougher to do next year when Monday Night Football goes over to ESPN and NBC gets some NFL games (can't pick up NBC).
"Why do so many people think this is a good idea?"
I think it's a good idea because I only watch 3-4 cable channels regularly. I'm sick of paying for 50 channels I don't watch. In fact, I dropped my dish entirely for this very reason. I'd pick it back up if I could get only the channels I want.
"What channels won't be included that would otherwise provide quality viewing? Who would pay for their provider to include PBS, the Discovery Channel, the History Channel, or CSPAN (besides me)?"
If you're the only one watching, then you should be the only one paying. I'd consider picking up History out of your list but I'd certainly pass on the rest. Quality viewing is a subjective term. I hardly consider PBS quality viewing. Even it's educational value for kids can be found elsewhere nowadays.
"What incentive would stations have to put out quality programming any other time than prime-time?"
The same incentives they have now to keep advertisers on an around the clock basis. Also, they'll have the added incentive of providing viewers with enough good programming that they actually keep the channel.
"Won't this narrow the market down to a few stations able to provide the most flash and sex?"
I doubt the will be a huge dropoff, but I would think that less popular channels will have to be more expensive to offset the lack of viewership. Flash and sex will probably be cornerstones of the most popular channels but that is no different than it is now.
"A free market approach doesn't benefit the consumer if the consumer loses programs of artistic merit or education."
A free market approach most certainly does benefit the consumer if the consumer doesn't watch programs you consider to have "artistic merit or education."
I for one would like to see a list of games unsuitable for minors provided they offer specifics on why they deem the game inappropriate. I agree parents do need to stay up to date with their children's activities but I don't see the point in reinventing the wheel if someone else has already carefully looked through the game for things that are inappropriate for kids and even reported on it in a handy dandy list format. If my kid wants to play a game while I'm doing something else, I'd like to know if anything inapporpriate is going on that might not be obvious from just reading the box or looking at a pigeonholed rating system.