But the Sim games have been doing this since the beginning of time (well, time as far as I can remember...). Heck, before the NES (or Apple II), most games made you play for high scores, not to reach the end. There simply wasn't enough space to give the players the necessary amounts of content. Remember Adventure for the Atari? It was a pretty short game.
Anyway, my point is, unlimited gameplay isn't a new phenomenon. Massive amounts of content is new, but, if you think about it, fighting tougher monsters who have the exact same combat tactics and just do more damage is something like fighting space invaders who have the exact same movement patterns but move much faster.
Actually, it's kind of an original concept. Most of the stalk-and-kill games involve creeping up and slashing guards' throats, sneaking further into a fortress, and doing it all over again. Thief, Metal Gear, Commandos, Desperados, they're all the same. Stalking people, then killing them, then worrying about the evidence, add some shootouts and narrow escapes from the cops... that'd be great! You could have a voice in your head telling you which victims to find ("Balding man between the ages of 30 and 45", "Young boy with dog") to act out repressed tresspasses on you. The police could follow your actions (for example, if you always kill in a 3 block radius, they'll step up patrols there), you could go on killing sprees, where you'd have to kill X people within X minutes, you could have slasher sections where you'd have to kill groups of cliche, dumb teenagers while dressed in a scary mask... A minigame where you have to invade a high school and take out as many people as possible. Killing with interesting weapons and devices ("Kill this guy by dragging him behind your car." "Kill this lady by setting her on fire.").
Call me deranged, but that sounds way more fun than GTA.
I've been seeing these McDonalds signs that say "i could go for something new" or "i'm lovin' it." I've also been noticing signs that say "CRAZY DAVES FIREWORKS."
I get really pissed off when I read those. I think I might be a nerd.
Actually, they want to open up the pharmaceutical patents and expand the privacy of Americans, too. So that's "healthcare wants to be less expensive" and "ourinformation wants to be private."
I'm not complaining about the inherent play value, and whether it's worth the money, I'm complaining about them killing the resell value of a game. It would be easy for them to go ahead and implement Steam and support the reselling of their software for free, while killing piracy. They want to discourage me from buying a used copy, since they don't get any of the money, which is underhanded. I wouldn't even complain if the software had originally had this 'feature', I just wouldn't have bought it (at least not used).
I see on your site that most of your games tend to sell for $19.95. I'm sure you've done the research, but have you considered lowering the price for your games to something more reasonable, like $5-10? If you were to do that, do you think you could make 2-4 times the sales? I'm wondering because I don't think a game like Geometry Wars would have sold well at $19.95. I've wanted a few indie games (Gish), but the relatively steep prices have kept me away (when you consider the play value twenty bucks will get you in used games). How much do you think piracy, if at all, hurts you? How much does it cost to create games like this, and how many copies do you sell?
I was thinking about buying Half-Life 2, but then I tried to register a copy of Half-Life that was purchased at a thrift store with Steam, and it had already been registered. So how do I get them to clear up the CD Key? Why, I pay them $10.00, of course. I was kind of bummed, since Half-Life only cost $1.00. Registering new products is fair, but removing functionality from already-purchased old products... that's just low.
Whoa. I saw the/. article and thought they were talking about the classics, and I was kind of bummed that the prices were that high. For new content, however, that's a whole new ballgame. Thanks for pointing that out.
"In this scene I was pretty much... yeah, I was just banging the lady. I was pretty into it. My motivation was... fucking her."
"Yeah, the guy who was fucking me in this scene was a real prick. A little insider secret here: I'm not really having an orgasm. That's right, I'm faking it. Movie Magic."
"Directing pornography is actually pretty easy. See, the thing is, there's only one script for pornography. We pretty much just dye the model's hair and give the guy a dorkier haircut. Just change the local, and you've got a whole new movie! Believe it or not, we shoot all of our footage in one day, and then just edit the hell out of it and trickle it through the market for the next ten years!"
I don't know what kind of robot he's programming there, or what its limitations are, but it seems to me that decreasing the pouring speed would fix that right up.
Or get a sense of humor, and appreciate the fans donating stuff to him. Kid gets an instant ticket to (in)fame, and he cries about it, because he's fat and awkward, and looks goofy. Ridiculous.
Like when you're playing a two-player game, and you stick the second controller in your pants, and then ram Player 1's car into Player 2's car, and....
Wow, you need to brush up on your American history. Americans were thieves (Boston Tea Party) and murderers (tarring and feathering tax collectors) before, during and after the war. The only reason most historians overlook this was because the British government never effectively set up a judicial system in the American colonies in the first place. (Salem Witch Trials anyone?)
In American culture, the rebels who decided to take over the Brittish colonies are portrayed as heroes. The Brittish royalty are portrayed as out of touch aristocrats. We learn these lessons from our history books, our TV shows, our currency... heck, even School House Rock glorifies the rebels. On the other hand, we cut off our trade with Cuba and scowl at Castro for taking over foreign-owned land and using it to better the situation of Cubans. I'm not saying the early American rebels weren't murderers and thieves, I'm saying Americans look on them as people to be respected and followed. Heck, now people are saying we should respect their view of the constitution. Like the founding fathers were any brighter or nobler than any of us? That's just unthinking nationalism.
Which Iraq war? If you mean the Gulf War of 1991, we were/still are portrayed as invading infidels for invading Iraq when the U.N. resolution was simply to throw Iraqi troops out of Kuwait. (Which is why we never entered Baghdad and overthrew Saddam then.) If you mean the 2003 Iraq War, we ARE being called invading infidels for invading without U.N. approval. Whats your point?
I was referring to the Iraq war we're currently fighting. While we, and our foreign policies, are despised by most of the world, it's not a moral outrage when a game focusing on America's wars against other coutries is released. Remember the outcry from Full Spectrum Warrior? There wasn't any. On the other hand, if a game was released where the players took the role of Iraqis waging a holy war against American good ol' boys and defending their homes with IEDs and RPGs, there would be a moral outcry. We're encouraged to play games where we defeat the onrushing Nazi troops, though. So is it okay to kill young German boys patriotically defending their nation and waging war against Americans, but denounce young Iraqi boys defending their home and religion against Right Wing Christian America's "Crusade"? It's not the same, I know, but it's close enough to draw a parallel Now, I'm not saying the Germans were right, or that it's okay to kill Americans. I just think we need to step back and take a look at ourselves, and whether our moral outrage is due to blind patriotism, or rational, educated, logical thinking.
Also, for the record, GTA is a harmless game for mature individuals, and I doubt its long-term effect even on younger players, but it's a fact that GTA encourages you to kill innocent people. Just yesterday, when I was supposed to be studying for a final, I was told to go take a camera from a tourist so that I could take photographs of city documents. The only way to do that is to kill one of them. Then I went to the city building, caused a distraction, went to the top floor, took the pictures, and then had to shoot my way through about a dozen (innocent) guards to get to the door. Then later I had to kill an innocent (well, maybe not so much) gimp before having sado-masochistic sex with a lady.
Slashdot Mirror
But the Sim games have been doing this since the beginning of time (well, time as far as I can remember...). Heck, before the NES (or Apple II), most games made you play for high scores, not to reach the end. There simply wasn't enough space to give the players the necessary amounts of content. Remember Adventure for the Atari? It was a pretty short game.
Anyway, my point is, unlimited gameplay isn't a new phenomenon. Massive amounts of content is new, but, if you think about it, fighting tougher monsters who have the exact same combat tactics and just do more damage is something like fighting space invaders who have the exact same movement patterns but move much faster.
Actually, it's kind of an original concept. Most of the stalk-and-kill games involve creeping up and slashing guards' throats, sneaking further into a fortress, and doing it all over again. Thief, Metal Gear, Commandos, Desperados, they're all the same.
Stalking people, then killing them, then worrying about the evidence, add some shootouts and narrow escapes from the cops... that'd be great! You could have a voice in your head telling you which victims to find ("Balding man between the ages of 30 and 45", "Young boy with dog") to act out repressed tresspasses on you. The police could follow your actions (for example, if you always kill in a 3 block radius, they'll step up patrols there), you could go on killing sprees, where you'd have to kill X people within X minutes, you could have slasher sections where you'd have to kill groups of cliche, dumb teenagers while dressed in a scary mask... A minigame where you have to invade a high school and take out as many people as possible. Killing with interesting weapons and devices ("Kill this guy by dragging him behind your car." "Kill this lady by setting her on fire.").
Call me deranged, but that sounds way more fun than GTA.
Makes it easier to hack.
I always preferred the away, downaway, down, downtoward, toward, Fierce Punch, followed by a late jumpkick.
The population of griefers will go up a hundredfold!
I've been seeing these McDonalds signs that say "i could go for something new" or "i'm lovin' it." I've also been noticing signs that say "CRAZY DAVES FIREWORKS."
I get really pissed off when I read those. I think I might be a nerd.
Is it possible that Nintendo is not manufacturing Microsoft Xbox 360s and their units/day capacity might also differ?
No.
It's actually, uh... it's really fun. You should totally go buy a copy and play it.
Trust me.
I thought you was trying to bust some BASIC out or something.
Actually, they want to open up the pharmaceutical patents and expand the privacy of Americans, too. So that's "healthcare wants to be less expensive" and "ourinformation wants to be private."
I'm not complaining about the inherent play value, and whether it's worth the money, I'm complaining about them killing the resell value of a game. It would be easy for them to go ahead and implement Steam and support the reselling of their software for free, while killing piracy. They want to discourage me from buying a used copy, since they don't get any of the money, which is underhanded. I wouldn't even complain if the software had originally had this 'feature', I just wouldn't have bought it (at least not used).
I wanted to ask you a few questions.
I see on your site that most of your games tend to sell for $19.95. I'm sure you've done the research, but have you considered lowering the price for your games to something more reasonable, like $5-10? If you were to do that, do you think you could make 2-4 times the sales? I'm wondering because I don't think a game like Geometry Wars would have sold well at $19.95. I've wanted a few indie games (Gish), but the relatively steep prices have kept me away (when you consider the play value twenty bucks will get you in used games).
How much do you think piracy, if at all, hurts you?
How much does it cost to create games like this, and how many copies do you sell?
Thanks.
I was thinking about buying Half-Life 2, but then I tried to register a copy of Half-Life that was purchased at a thrift store with Steam, and it had already been registered. So how do I get them to clear up the CD Key? Why, I pay them $10.00, of course. I was kind of bummed, since Half-Life only cost $1.00. Registering new products is fair, but removing functionality from already-purchased old products... that's just low.
Why is this not modded Funny? This is some great satire.
Whoa. I saw the /. article and thought they were talking about the classics, and I was kind of bummed that the prices were that high. For new content, however, that's a whole new ballgame.
Thanks for pointing that out.
What about commentary?
"In this scene I was pretty much... yeah, I was just banging the lady. I was pretty into it. My motivation was... fucking her."
"Yeah, the guy who was fucking me in this scene was a real prick. A little insider secret here: I'm not really having an orgasm. That's right, I'm faking it. Movie Magic."
"Directing pornography is actually pretty easy. See, the thing is, there's only one script for pornography. We pretty much just dye the model's hair and give the guy a dorkier haircut. Just change the local, and you've got a whole new movie! Believe it or not, we shoot all of our footage in one day, and then just edit the hell out of it and trickle it through the market for the next ten years!"
I don't know what kind of robot he's programming there, or what its limitations are, but it seems to me that decreasing the pouring speed would fix that right up.
Shows what you know. Preteen girls don't use commas.
It's perfectly harmless, as long as it doesn't fall on them.
"I bet they'll go for $250."
If they go for $250, it'd almost be worth it to import from Japan, if it's not region-locked, like the DS.
Don't be silly. Goombas don't have hands, so there's no way you could have typed that post!
Or get a sense of humor, and appreciate the fans donating stuff to him. Kid gets an instant ticket to (in)fame, and he cries about it, because he's fat and awkward, and looks goofy. Ridiculous.
Like when you're playing a two-player game, and you stick the second controller in your pants, and then ram Player 1's car into Player 2's car, and....
Wait. Nevermind.
Wow, you need to brush up on your American history. Americans were thieves (Boston Tea Party) and murderers (tarring and feathering tax collectors) before, during and after the war. The only reason most historians overlook this was because the British government never effectively set up a judicial system in the American colonies in the first place. (Salem Witch Trials anyone?)
In American culture, the rebels who decided to take over the Brittish colonies are portrayed as heroes. The Brittish royalty are portrayed as out of touch aristocrats. We learn these lessons from our history books, our TV shows, our currency... heck, even School House Rock glorifies the rebels. On the other hand, we cut off our trade with Cuba and scowl at Castro for taking over foreign-owned land and using it to better the situation of Cubans. I'm not saying the early American rebels weren't murderers and thieves, I'm saying Americans look on them as people to be respected and followed. Heck, now people are saying we should respect their view of the constitution. Like the founding fathers were any brighter or nobler than any of us? That's just unthinking nationalism.
Which Iraq war? If you mean the Gulf War of 1991, we were/still are portrayed as invading infidels for invading Iraq when the U.N. resolution was simply to throw Iraqi troops out of Kuwait. (Which is why we never entered Baghdad and overthrew Saddam then.) If you mean the 2003 Iraq War, we ARE being called invading infidels for invading without U.N. approval. Whats your point?
I was referring to the Iraq war we're currently fighting. While we, and our foreign policies, are despised by most of the world, it's not a moral outrage when a game focusing on America's wars against other coutries is released. Remember the outcry from Full Spectrum Warrior? There wasn't any. On the other hand, if a game was released where the players took the role of Iraqis waging a holy war against American good ol' boys and defending their homes with IEDs and RPGs, there would be a moral outcry. We're encouraged to play games where we defeat the onrushing Nazi troops, though. So is it okay to kill young German boys patriotically defending their nation and waging war against Americans, but denounce young Iraqi boys defending their home and religion against Right Wing Christian America's "Crusade"?
It's not the same, I know, but it's close enough to draw a parallel
Now, I'm not saying the Germans were right, or that it's okay to kill Americans. I just think we need to step back and take a look at ourselves, and whether our moral outrage is due to blind patriotism, or rational, educated, logical thinking.
Also, for the record, GTA is a harmless game for mature individuals, and I doubt its long-term effect even on younger players, but it's a fact that GTA encourages you to kill innocent people. Just yesterday, when I was supposed to be studying for a final, I was told to go take a camera from a tourist so that I could take photographs of city documents. The only way to do that is to kill one of them. Then I went to the city building, caused a distraction, went to the top floor, took the pictures, and then had to shoot my way through about a dozen (innocent) guards to get to the door. Then later I had to kill an innocent (well, maybe not so much) gimp before having sado-masochistic sex with a lady.
Plus the market's much larger.