To Quote the Darwin Awards Rules:
We are not talking about common stupidities such as falling asleep with a lit cigarette, or taking a bath with a radio. The fatal act must be of such idiotic magnitude that we shake our heads and thank our lucky stars that our descendants won't have to deal with, or heaven forbid, breed with descendants of the fool that set that hare-brained scheme in motion. The initial reaction is that it does not qualify for a Darwin Award. While it is commonly a "fun fact", the average Joe does not know that one can fatally overdose on water. However, because a nurse called an specifically warned the contestants about the dangers of consuming large amounts of water, it may qualify. On the other hand, its not something incredibly moronic, like if she had put a hose down her throat to win the contest faster and died as a result.
Unless someone wants to buy steam for a insane boatload of cash, it doesn't seem reasonable that Valve should sell steam.
First, spinning Steam onto a subsidiary isn't going to garner any more cash from other developers/distributors. The money still ends up in the same pockets, and Valve's games would still get preferential treatment.
Second, if they sold Steam they would probably have to pay the costs their clients are paying to have their games on it.
Third, if they sold Steam and it gains popularity by bringing on more games, Valve's games take up a smaller share of the library and be a smaller piece of the pie. They would lose that preferential treatment. If they don't get enough customers by creating HL2, the best FPS ever, the additional revenue they will garner will be marginal.
Oblivion is great in may aspects, but I don't like one thing: leveled items.
You know there are a ton of mids that allow you to change that right? While they didn't come up with the best leveling system, they did include the ability to do whatever you want with the game. Get a mod that puts that set of glass armor at your feet when you come out of the newbie cave. A cheat? Its no worse than the exploit you mentioned in morrowind.
Nope, its just plain heavy metal. Death metal is more gutteral and faster. That being said, I think they might accept a death metal song as long as the vocals were cleaner and the song wouldn't be a mess to put in the game.
While many of WoW's quests are lame and generic, I really liked the event in the Zul'Farrak instance at the temple. You're on the top of this tall incan(mayan?) temple and you rescue some people trapped in cages. They promise to reward you if you let them out, but once you do hundreds of savages fill the area below the temple and come at you relentlessly. Even with the prisoners' help, the battle goes on for something like ten minutes straight. Once you get to the bottom a pair of bosses await you and they pretty much get creamed.
But it's not over yet. If you talk to the leader of the prisoners, the arrogant SoB says he won't give you anything, and if you plead with him he attacks you! You now have to fight a warrior, healer, rogue, and mage. Pretty intense!
Half the people on the group will want to migrate, and the other half won't. And so the dynamics of the guild is screwed.
This, more likely than not, would never happen. Guilds communicate amongst themselves, and would decide on one server or the other to play on. The only exceptions are when someone migrates accidentally, or someone doesn't log on for a while, only to find their guild has migrated to the other server. Yeah it kinda stinks, but in the spirit of "Do What's Best for the Guild", it fits just fine.
The thought of time theft made me think, "What if 'time theft' was illegal?"
Think about the poor bastard who got into an accident in rush hour, causing hundreds if not thousands of people to waste time. He would get sued for all he's worth. Telemarketers would all be put out of business.
The only thing they could really say was theft was bandwidth, since it is the only thing that can really be monitarily quantified. CPU cycles? How many were used, and how much is one CPU cycle worth? Disk space? It wasn't stolen, the closest crime I can think of is littering.
There are only 2 settings, lightly held and pressed hard. I see them as an additional element of skill. They are by no means necessary, just something more. There was little reason to not include them save for cost.
Ermm... I'm pretty sure tons of people were eagerly awaiting Halo, and while disappointed by the platform changes, still were willing to play it at any cost. Halo helped sell the XBox more than anything. After playing Halo for the PC (it was so-so), I think it was the best move MS has made so far.
Don't write a game that rewards simple repetitive actions
Why is this exactly, so you can't have bots? In FPS's, most people agree that a headshot on a moving target is neither simple nor repetitive, yet can easily be accomplished by a bot (and can be rewarding by allowing the player to grief others.)
don't send the client data that the player shouldn't have
No offense, but you obviously don't have much knowledge of client-server game programming, the goal of which is to send as little data between the two as possible. But players NEED to know where enemies are, and they already know the world geometry. There is literally no way to design a system that cannot be automated by a bot program. Even if the server sends every rendered frame to the user, a very slow and expensive progress (yet one where no information is sent other than what the player sees onscreen), a client program could still intercept the images, scan them for enemies and world geometry, plan and make moves accordingly.
Now in FPS's, programs can be run to determine superhuman movements, but even still bot programs could be made that avoid being perfect in that aspect. The only 90% guaranteed way to detect hacks is to scan players' systems for running programs. And like Anti-Virus programs, they are reactive, meaning the initial uses of a new bot system may not be detected until the system is used more widely.
Read my post again. I didn't trash talk any of the items listed. I simply said that they weren't successful and industry-transforming, which I feel they weren't. I only brought up the possibility of the revolution controller being a failure, which could happen in a number of situations. Imagine if the thing breaks if you drop it or swing it too fast. Not that this WILL happen, it is only a possibility that could mean the failure of the device.
P.S. after like 5 posts of my ROB/robby and nintendo/mattel mistakes, I get the picture:P
Ah, for some reason I was thinking in terms of a gun-shooter (House of the Dead, Duck Hunt) which you have to aim at where you want to shoot on the screen as opposed to a FPS, where aiming is relative to where the controller is.
Can someone share with me how this is insightful? The only thing I see wrong with Rein's original assumption is that GC/PS2 owners would buy a cross-platform game for PS2 instead of the GC. Maybe the games he's talking about have online play, I don't know. But it is a valid insight to say that XBox/GC owners would probably buy a cross-platform game for the XBox over the GC.
I personally find the prospect of FPS with this controller rather exciting.
I agree, the only thing bothering me is the strain of holding my arm out for an extended period of time. I can't say for sure until I try an FPS with it.
To be the devil's advocate, Nintendo also came up with things like Robby the Robot, Virtual Boy, and the Power Glove. I just mean that even though Nintendo is the biggest innovator, it does not automatically translate to each of their innovations being successful and industry-transforming. While I am very interested in the Revolution controller, I can see it being an utter failure at the same time. Only time will tell.
It's pretty simple actually. If Epic makes a game only for the PS/XBox, they are only cutting themselves out of 10% of the market. The idea here is that while a number of people own a Gamecube, they can still buy the Epic non-Gamecube game for a system they own. Also, people are more likely to buy a game on the most powerful platform they own (GC would get overlooked for the XBox.)
Don't get me wrong though, that 10% number is complete BS.
For the next generation, what this really comes down to is whether the Revolution controller is better for FPSes than the XBox/PS one. If it isn't, then his thinking is on track, as most gamers would buy the game for their other system, instead of the Revolution. If it is, then his reasoning is bogus and the game would be profitable on the Revolution (assuming that the Revolution sells well).
Hey can you link me to a site which goes into more detail about this? I haven't heard anything about AA problems, and would like to see what it is all about.
It doesn't mean that they can figure it out down the line. Sure its not an ideal solution but when it comes down to it, whos to say that the PS3 won't have the same problems as well?
Slashdot Mirror
Unless someone wants to buy steam for a insane boatload of cash, it doesn't seem reasonable that Valve should sell steam.
First, spinning Steam onto a subsidiary isn't going to garner any more cash from other developers/distributors. The money still ends up in the same pockets, and Valve's games would still get preferential treatment.
Second, if they sold Steam they would probably have to pay the costs their clients are paying to have their games on it.
Third, if they sold Steam and it gains popularity by bringing on more games, Valve's games take up a smaller share of the library and be a smaller piece of the pie. They would lose that preferential treatment. If they don't get enough customers by creating HL2, the best FPS ever, the additional revenue they will garner will be marginal.
Oblivion is great in may aspects, but I don't like one thing: leveled items.
You know there are a ton of mids that allow you to change that right? While they didn't come up with the best leveling system, they did include the ability to do whatever you want with the game. Get a mod that puts that set of glass armor at your feet when you come out of the newbie cave. A cheat? Its no worse than the exploit you mentioned in morrowind.
Nope, its just plain heavy metal. Death metal is more gutteral and faster. That being said, I think they might accept a death metal song as long as the vocals were cleaner and the song wouldn't be a mess to put in the game.
Glitch or not, you can have her around for the rest of the game by simply not finishing the quest. So it's a moot point.
They'll still blame it on file sharing...
Step 2: Charge a monthly fee!
That may be true, but your guess is as good as mine whether Blizzard actually does such things.
You don't have to have a credit card to play WoW. You can play anonymously by buying a game card, and using a different email address.
did you read the post he replied to?
While many of WoW's quests are lame and generic, I really liked the event in the Zul'Farrak instance at the temple. You're on the top of this tall incan(mayan?) temple and you rescue some people trapped in cages. They promise to reward you if you let them out, but once you do hundreds of savages fill the area below the temple and come at you relentlessly. Even with the prisoners' help, the battle goes on for something like ten minutes straight. Once you get to the bottom a pair of bosses await you and they pretty much get creamed.
But it's not over yet. If you talk to the leader of the prisoners, the arrogant SoB says he won't give you anything, and if you plead with him he attacks you! You now have to fight a warrior, healer, rogue, and mage. Pretty intense!
Half the people on the group will want to migrate, and the other half won't. And so the dynamics of the guild is screwed.
This, more likely than not, would never happen. Guilds communicate amongst themselves, and would decide on one server or the other to play on. The only exceptions are when someone migrates accidentally, or someone doesn't log on for a while, only to find their guild has migrated to the other server. Yeah it kinda stinks, but in the spirit of "Do What's Best for the Guild", it fits just fine.
The thought of time theft made me think, "What if 'time theft' was illegal?"
Think about the poor bastard who got into an accident in rush hour, causing hundreds if not thousands of people to waste time. He would get sued for all he's worth. Telemarketers would all be put out of business.
The only thing they could really say was theft was bandwidth, since it is the only thing that can really be monitarily quantified. CPU cycles? How many were used, and how much is one CPU cycle worth? Disk space? It wasn't stolen, the closest crime I can think of is littering.
There are only 2 settings, lightly held and pressed hard. I see them as an additional element of skill. They are by no means necessary, just something more. There was little reason to not include them save for cost.
Ermm... I'm pretty sure tons of people were eagerly awaiting Halo, and while disappointed by the platform changes, still were willing to play it at any cost. Halo helped sell the XBox more than anything. After playing Halo for the PC (it was so-so), I think it was the best move MS has made so far.
I don't really see where you're going with this.
Don't write a game that rewards simple repetitive actions
Why is this exactly, so you can't have bots? In FPS's, most people agree that a headshot on a moving target is neither simple nor repetitive, yet can easily be accomplished by a bot (and can be rewarding by allowing the player to grief others.)
don't send the client data that the player shouldn't have
No offense, but you obviously don't have much knowledge of client-server game programming, the goal of which is to send as little data between the two as possible. But players NEED to know where enemies are, and they already know the world geometry. There is literally no way to design a system that cannot be automated by a bot program. Even if the server sends every rendered frame to the user, a very slow and expensive progress (yet one where no information is sent other than what the player sees onscreen), a client program could still intercept the images, scan them for enemies and world geometry, plan and make moves accordingly.
Now in FPS's, programs can be run to determine superhuman movements, but even still bot programs could be made that avoid being perfect in that aspect. The only 90% guaranteed way to detect hacks is to scan players' systems for running programs. And like Anti-Virus programs, they are reactive, meaning the initial uses of a new bot system may not be detected until the system is used more widely.
Read my post again. I didn't trash talk any of the items listed. I simply said that they weren't successful and industry-transforming, which I feel they weren't. I only brought up the possibility of the revolution controller being a failure, which could happen in a number of situations. Imagine if the thing breaks if you drop it or swing it too fast. Not that this WILL happen, it is only a possibility that could mean the failure of the device.
:P
P.S. after like 5 posts of my ROB/robby and nintendo/mattel mistakes, I get the picture
Ah, for some reason I was thinking in terms of a gun-shooter (House of the Dead, Duck Hunt) which you have to aim at where you want to shoot on the screen as opposed to a FPS, where aiming is relative to where the controller is.
Ok, my bad. I was 10 or 11 when I got that thing.
Can someone share with me how this is insightful? The only thing I see wrong with Rein's original assumption is that GC/PS2 owners would buy a cross-platform game for PS2 instead of the GC. Maybe the games he's talking about have online play, I don't know. But it is a valid insight to say that XBox/GC owners would probably buy a cross-platform game for the XBox over the GC.
I personally find the prospect of FPS with this controller rather exciting.
I agree, the only thing bothering me is the strain of holding my arm out for an extended period of time. I can't say for sure until I try an FPS with it.
To be the devil's advocate, Nintendo also came up with things like Robby the Robot, Virtual Boy, and the Power Glove. I just mean that even though Nintendo is the biggest innovator, it does not automatically translate to each of their innovations being successful and industry-transforming. While I am very interested in the Revolution controller, I can see it being an utter failure at the same time. Only time will tell.
It's pretty simple actually. If Epic makes a game only for the PS/XBox, they are only cutting themselves out of 10% of the market. The idea here is that while a number of people own a Gamecube, they can still buy the Epic non-Gamecube game for a system they own. Also, people are more likely to buy a game on the most powerful platform they own (GC would get overlooked for the XBox.)
Don't get me wrong though, that 10% number is complete BS.
For the next generation, what this really comes down to is whether the Revolution controller is better for FPSes than the XBox/PS one. If it isn't, then his thinking is on track, as most gamers would buy the game for their other system, instead of the Revolution. If it is, then his reasoning is bogus and the game would be profitable on the Revolution (assuming that the Revolution sells well).
Phantom Stock History
It's funny that they would want to include this on their website.
Hey can you link me to a site which goes into more detail about this? I haven't heard anything about AA problems, and would like to see what it is all about.
It doesn't mean that they can figure it out down the line. Sure its not an ideal solution but when it comes down to it, whos to say that the PS3 won't have the same problems as well?