That's kind of funny actually... I went while I was working at EB back in the day and I came back with more "this game is going to suck" and "where are all the good games?" in my head...lol
Yes, actually you do... are you for them or against them? Personally, I sure as hell don't mind looking at them...but really they're not necessary if you have a good game. A lot of female gamers I know are very turned off by them as well..so it helps keep down the female gaming population...which is a Bad thing.
You know what else is interesting... Why do random celebrities get invited to E3? There are tons of actors and bands that attend who have nothing at all to do with the game industry... I mean, it was really cool getting to meet Orgy back at the 2000 show, but do these guys really deserve to be at the show? Are they any more deserving than the average gamer? It's clearly part of the over marketing hypefest and has nothing to do with showing off an actual product.
In depth? You must be shitting me... Have you ever read a "real" gaming magazine like Next Generation? Not crap like GamePro and EGM...G4's coverage wasn't even as "in-depth" as what you'll find in those kiddy mags. I didn't RTF and dont' plan too, but the sentiment is correct. E3 is pointless, and has gone to shit. E3 has become way to flashy and trendy...it's no longer about who has the best games, but who has the best booth babes to draw in the losers who don't know how to talk to women. It's more about who has the flashiest booth with the loudest music blaring... Half the games aren't playable, and that's the whole reason to be there...otherwise they might as well just send out a DVD of video clips to all the media and be done with it. E3 used to mean something in that people didn't show off anything for the prior month or so till it. Now we already know about 99% of the games shown before the first day of the show. I went back in 2000 and wasn't too impressed. It was great getting to try out the new Xbox and Gamecube (by the way, the original controller was much better...bigger handles and a full sized d-pad), but after that...it was nothing I couldn't have done at home on the net. I know just as much as most attendees from video downloads and press releases online that there's no need for this show really. Not only that, but how many indy games from Kenetia Hall were shown off on the big sites like IGN and Gamespot? Can you think of two? Even one? The industry is becoming more and more about marketing glitz and hype **cough**killzone2**cough** than actual substance. Once again the quote posted from the article is right....I don't want to know what ABC news thinks about the games at the show, I want to know what real gamers think about it. E3 is worthless...agreed.
[/rant]
This is exactly true. If it were based on system performance, the PC would be number one... with Xbox second, Gamecube 3rd and PS2 dead last... but in all reality it's just about the exact opposite of that. PS2 has the majority of the games and also the majority of the market... I suppose thowing the PC in there is unfair, since it really is a whole different market than consoles since there are so many variations... I won't be buying any of the new consoles until all have been released and I have a real understanding of which ones gonna have the games I want.
I doubt it... the only reason we don't see open consoles already is the fact that Sony, MS and even the beloved Nintendo all make royalty checks and licencing fees off each game released for "their" system. If consoles became an open comodity they would only make money off the games they make themselves...which would hurt MS and Sony especially. None of the big boys are willing to give it up for the good of everyone else...not as long as they have a say.:/
It's a little different now though... back in the day with the NES and SNES all games were programmed in assembly and there weren't GPUs and whatnot. Now most games are programmed in higher levels like C++ so the understanding of how the system doesn't really matter like it used to. It'll be up to the compiler writers to get close with the hardware..not the developers. Although some still program in assembly (how do you think they pulled off the FFs on PS2?)...it's pretty rare.
Don't lump me in with the Nintendo fanboys...I bought an Xbox before I got a Gamecube and was a Sega kid during the 16 bit days.... I didn't change any rules for myself...this is the way I've always seen it. Anyone in the game industry just too make money is a complete waste of space to me.
There's just something nice about seeing a living breathing human doing the acting in person as compared to on a flat screen. I guess youre also not a big fan of live concert and perfer CDs?
All I have to say is score another one for Nintendo. The revolution's gonna play DVDs and CDs, but beyond that it's just a gaming system, plain and simple. I think Nintendo has proven that you don't have to be #1 in popularity and sales to remain successful. Of course that all depends on how you judge success... Some would say whoever makes the most money is more successful, I'd say the one who gets to make the games they want, the way they want and still be profitable with plenty of loving fans is more successful.
While I agree with most of what you say...you've got to be joking about the Stage Actors right? I mean, I appreciate it myself...but most Americans have never been to anything more than a high school play or something...
Yeah, I'd much rather get a good no name actor than a "decent" celebrity voice actor anyway. It's disgusting how people think you have to have popular celebs (not counting licenced games) as your main characters for it to be good...
You're partially right...this is greed off a successful industry. Publishers make way more than than their fair share of the profits. Every single person on the development team should get a portion of the profits. Flat fees are what's bloating the development cost of games these days. If all the programers, artists and whatnot got a little piece of the profits pie then you would have to pay them as much in the first place, but the publishers are willing to pay that larger upfront fee in hopes they make much more money if it's successful. It's a failing business model and hopefully people will start to realize it.
Slashdot Mirror
Open Cores, here we come...
Yeah, good thing I was already done buying Intel chips...I just hope AMD doesn't do the same.
That's kind of funny actually... I went while I was working at EB back in the day and I came back with more "this game is going to suck" and "where are all the good games?" in my head...lol
" Booth Babes, need I say more?"
Yes, actually you do... are you for them or against them? Personally, I sure as hell don't mind looking at them...but really they're not necessary if you have a good game. A lot of female gamers I know are very turned off by them as well..so it helps keep down the female gaming population...which is a Bad thing.
You know what else is interesting... Why do random celebrities get invited to E3? There are tons of actors and bands that attend who have nothing at all to do with the game industry... I mean, it was really cool getting to meet Orgy back at the 2000 show, but do these guys really deserve to be at the show? Are they any more deserving than the average gamer? It's clearly part of the over marketing hypefest and has nothing to do with showing off an actual product.
In depth? You must be shitting me... Have you ever read a "real" gaming magazine like Next Generation? Not crap like GamePro and EGM...G4's coverage wasn't even as "in-depth" as what you'll find in those kiddy mags. I didn't RTF and dont' plan too, but the sentiment is correct. E3 is pointless, and has gone to shit. E3 has become way to flashy and trendy...it's no longer about who has the best games, but who has the best booth babes to draw in the losers who don't know how to talk to women. It's more about who has the flashiest booth with the loudest music blaring... Half the games aren't playable, and that's the whole reason to be there...otherwise they might as well just send out a DVD of video clips to all the media and be done with it. E3 used to mean something in that people didn't show off anything for the prior month or so till it. Now we already know about 99% of the games shown before the first day of the show. I went back in 2000 and wasn't too impressed. It was great getting to try out the new Xbox and Gamecube (by the way, the original controller was much better...bigger handles and a full sized d-pad), but after that...it was nothing I couldn't have done at home on the net. I know just as much as most attendees from video downloads and press releases online that there's no need for this show really. Not only that, but how many indy games from Kenetia Hall were shown off on the big sites like IGN and Gamespot? Can you think of two? Even one? The industry is becoming more and more about marketing glitz and hype **cough**killzone2**cough** than actual substance. Once again the quote posted from the article is right....I don't want to know what ABC news thinks about the games at the show, I want to know what real gamers think about it. E3 is worthless...agreed.
[/rant]
Crap...did it again. affend should be offend....what I would give to be able to edit my comments on Slashdot.
they're = their....sorry, don't want to affend the English majors out there ;P
I imagine they're ditching .Net after the realization that mono is letting even more Windows apps come to Linux (they're only real threat).
They'll never beat Nada 3!
This is exactly true. If it were based on system performance, the PC would be number one... with Xbox second, Gamecube 3rd and PS2 dead last... but in all reality it's just about the exact opposite of that. PS2 has the majority of the games and also the majority of the market... I suppose thowing the PC in there is unfair, since it really is a whole different market than consoles since there are so many variations... I won't be buying any of the new consoles until all have been released and I have a real understanding of which ones gonna have the games I want.
I doubt it... the only reason we don't see open consoles already is the fact that Sony, MS and even the beloved Nintendo all make royalty checks and licencing fees off each game released for "their" system. If consoles became an open comodity they would only make money off the games they make themselves...which would hurt MS and Sony especially. None of the big boys are willing to give it up for the good of everyone else...not as long as they have a say. :/
It's a little different now though... back in the day with the NES and SNES all games were programmed in assembly and there weren't GPUs and whatnot. Now most games are programmed in higher levels like C++ so the understanding of how the system doesn't really matter like it used to. It'll be up to the compiler writers to get close with the hardware..not the developers. Although some still program in assembly (how do you think they pulled off the FFs on PS2?)...it's pretty rare.
Don't lump me in with the Nintendo fanboys...I bought an Xbox before I got a Gamecube and was a Sega kid during the 16 bit days.... I didn't change any rules for myself...this is the way I've always seen it. Anyone in the game industry just too make money is a complete waste of space to me.
There's just something nice about seeing a living breathing human doing the acting in person as compared to on a flat screen. I guess youre also not a big fan of live concert and perfer CDs?
All I have to say is score another one for Nintendo. The revolution's gonna play DVDs and CDs, but beyond that it's just a gaming system, plain and simple. I think Nintendo has proven that you don't have to be #1 in popularity and sales to remain successful. Of course that all depends on how you judge success... Some would say whoever makes the most money is more successful, I'd say the one who gets to make the games they want, the way they want and still be profitable with plenty of loving fans is more successful.
That's because the industry was too small to support that model yet, there's plenty of cash to go around now.
Nope I'm not.... b/c they only get paid that 200/hour for like one or two days...then they're back on the search for another job.
They can throw out the motion capture guys already, check out Endorphin. It looks better than mo-cap...
The programmers and artists SHOULD get paid based on success though...see my rant above.
While I agree with most of what you say...you've got to be joking about the Stage Actors right? I mean, I appreciate it myself...but most Americans have never been to anything more than a high school play or something...
"VAG" would be alot better than the "Film Actors Guild" from Team America (just saw it the other day) ;)
Yeah, I'd much rather get a good no name actor than a "decent" celebrity voice actor anyway. It's disgusting how people think you have to have popular celebs (not counting licenced games) as your main characters for it to be good...
You're partially right...this is greed off a successful industry. Publishers make way more than than their fair share of the profits. Every single person on the development team should get a portion of the profits. Flat fees are what's bloating the development cost of games these days. If all the programers, artists and whatnot got a little piece of the profits pie then you would have to pay them as much in the first place, but the publishers are willing to pay that larger upfront fee in hopes they make much more money if it's successful. It's a failing business model and hopefully people will start to realize it.
Plus these guys are freelance so they've got to make more money than the average joe b/c they don't know when they'll get their next gig.