I pay for anything I in turn use to make money. Anything else is pretty much fair game to me. So you're saying anything purely recreational has no value. So do you sneak your dates into the movies without buying tickets? I bet bartenders love it when you stiff them, eh?
If someone provides you with something you want, pay them for it. Compensate them for their time/effort/costs. Thinking that everyone else is obligated to entertain you for free is pretty self-centered, don't you think?
Artists deserve limited control over their work, otherwise there is very little incentive to create. Why am I going to bust my ass writing some musical materpiece when 5 minutes after it's finished every asshat on the internet has his own copy of it?
The fact that current copyright benefits the cartels instead of the artists isn't a problem with copyright. It's a problem with the way the industry is organized. If artists stopped giving the cartels the rights to their work, it would fix a whole hell of a lot.
We can tape music from radio, and we can record programs on tv with a VCR. What the fuck is the difference between that and downloading a song? There is NO DIFFERENCE. Umm radio and tv are legal broadcasts. Companies pay for the right to broadcast stuff. Noone paid for the right to put their CD collection up on bittorrent.
Also, the accessibility, scale, and quality of reproduction is significantly higher with downloadable content.
I can agree with all points there. Success is measured differently by different people. Personally, I think they could have given more people what they wanted without sacrificing others if they used a different setting.
And there is no question that SOE's handling of SWG was a travesty, regardless of choice of setting.
Well since Anakin supposedly brought balance to the force by killing palpatine and kicking the bucket shortly after, the 'big conflict' between light/dark is gone.
Although I don't know how much of the fiction written to take place after RotJ is considered canon, so I could be way off. I just think pre-trilogy is safer than post-trilogy.
What you need to realize is that some people don't play Star Wars games just to be jedis. And I think that group is a minority of the Star Wars fan base. Hell, lets not tie it to Jedi, and say that the majority of people played SWG to be hero (or villain) and take part in big battles reminiscent of the movies. They wanted to be Luke Skywalker, or Han Solo. Not a moisture farmer, stormtrooker TK421, or random master carbineer heroically taking out a nest of wamp rats.
The group of people you refer to wasn't big enough to sustain the subscription numbers that Sony expected. SWG was an excellent niche game when it launched. But it wasn't supposed to be a niche game. It was supposed to be the biggest MMO in the history of everything, and with Star Wars IP it could have been. The setting just made it difficult to deliver what a majority of their potential playerbase wanted.
You're missing one minor point, now that nintendo are allowing non-family oriented games (finally) onto their machine Finally? You do know that Conker's Bad Fur Day was originally a N64 title, right?
Actually, you nailed the issue with SWG. The developers thought everyone would be cool with being 'normal' people in the Star Wars universe. Not a very good assumption, as Jedi is the biggest draw to the franchise. To make matters worse, they set the game in a time period where Force user population was at it's lowest. According to canon, there were 3 educated force users in existance. Palpatine, Vader, and (arguably) Luke. No matter how rare you make player character force users, there are still too many to fit with canon. And if you make them really rare, then the playerbase bitches up a storm.
Basically, SWG was in an unwinnable situation. If they gave their playerbase what they wanted, they killed lore. If they stuck to lore, then people didn't like the game.
You seem to think that everyone playing mundane characters made the game good, and everyone being a Jedi/Sith would automatically make it bad. Why? Why can't the originally well done crafting system and economy work in a KOTOR setting? All the things that made the game good are not tied to the character archetypes available.
I was commenting on their use of their most recognizable characters to sell the game. Implying that the great unwashed was attracted to SWG by the possibility of interacting with such notable figures as Darth Vader.
That D'ni number puzzle broke my mental block dealing with number systems other than base-10. (Although I can't remember why now, need to pull that out again)
In psychology (hell, in science), the difference between coloration and causation is what you are taught on the very first day you go to class at university. So what, you're trying to say that black people are more violent? You're going to play the race card now? You disgusting bigot.
SWG set in the KotOR would have been perfect. Everyone could be some form of Jedi/Sith and it would fit the setting perfectly. They were just too hell-bent on using their recognizable charaters to sell the game. "ZOMG u cn tlak 2 VADAR!!1!"
I think Star Wars Galaxies qualifies, as it's set between two pre-existing movies.
I also think the fact that the story was already written was part of it's downfall. The developers had no room to work with because they would keep bumping into canon.
Which goes back to my original point. You can't have absolute freedom because so many things are mutually exclusive. My freedom ends where your freedom begins.
Cities, states, and nations are all communities of different scales. There are already variations from locality to locality. (The Death Penalty, for example, varies from state to state) However, to a degree some consistency throughout the nation is to be expected. If the standards of decency in Florida were significantly different from those in Alabama, problems would arise where the two populations mingle, and cooperation between the two states would be more difficult.
Hate replying to myself, but thought of a much better example.
Smoking
Person A likes smoking cigarettes. Person B does not.
Person A and B end up in the same restaurant, in adjacent booths. Person A exercises his freedom to use whatever chemicals he chooses, and lights up. Obviously the smoke generated is not confined to Person A, and affects B as well. So now we have two freedoms that are mutually exclusive. Respecting A's freedom to smoke eliminates B's freedom to NOT smoke, and vice versa.
So what do you do? The only thing you can do: Compromise.
Your definition of 'harmful' is the key to all this. Take dress code: Say you remove all laws relating to exposure and decency regarding clothing. People can wear (or not wear) whatever they want, anywhere they want. You would have everything ranging from full public nudity to highly offensive clothing. (Say, racist slogans or something) Many people would not be comfortable in such an environment, even threatened. Is their right to live in an non-offensive/threatening environment less valid than your right to wear what you want? When do your personal choices trump someone elses religious beliefs?
There is no such thing as true freedom. The phrase I've heard is 'Your freedom ends where my freedom begins.' There is a balance that must be found. I'm not saying we've found it, mind you, but you can't have total freedom like you describe.
Slashdot Mirror
If someone provides you with something you want, pay them for it. Compensate them for their time/effort/costs. Thinking that everyone else is obligated to entertain you for free is pretty self-centered, don't you think?
Artists deserve limited control over their work, otherwise there is very little incentive to create. Why am I going to bust my ass writing some musical materpiece when 5 minutes after it's finished every asshat on the internet has his own copy of it?
The fact that current copyright benefits the cartels instead of the artists isn't a problem with copyright. It's a problem with the way the industry is organized. If artists stopped giving the cartels the rights to their work, it would fix a whole hell of a lot.
Umm radio and tv are legal broadcasts. Companies pay for the right to broadcast stuff. Noone paid for the right to put their CD collection up on bittorrent.
Also, the accessibility, scale, and quality of reproduction is significantly higher with downloadable content.
I can agree with all points there. Success is measured differently by different people. Personally, I think they could have given more people what they wanted without sacrificing others if they used a different setting.
And there is no question that SOE's handling of SWG was a travesty, regardless of choice of setting.
Well since Anakin supposedly brought balance to the force by killing palpatine and kicking the bucket shortly after, the 'big conflict' between light/dark is gone. Although I don't know how much of the fiction written to take place after RotJ is considered canon, so I could be way off. I just think pre-trilogy is safer than post-trilogy.
You're right, I missed him. I hereby surrender my geek card.
I dunno, I defintiely think that UAC is an good idea 'Gong Wong'
The group of people you refer to wasn't big enough to sustain the subscription numbers that Sony expected. SWG was an excellent niche game when it launched. But it wasn't supposed to be a niche game. It was supposed to be the biggest MMO in the history of everything, and with Star Wars IP it could have been. The setting just made it difficult to deliver what a majority of their potential playerbase wanted.
If you don't like the price, don't buy the games. If enough people agree with you and do the same, then Nintendo will drop prices to increase volume.
"Medal of Honor: Jeeps of Glory" coming spring 2008
What if you want pvp in some genre besides FPS? (shocking, I know) MMO's are really your only choice.
Actually, you nailed the issue with SWG. The developers thought everyone would be cool with being 'normal' people in the Star Wars universe. Not a very good assumption, as Jedi is the biggest draw to the franchise. To make matters worse, they set the game in a time period where Force user population was at it's lowest. According to canon, there were 3 educated force users in existance. Palpatine, Vader, and (arguably) Luke. No matter how rare you make player character force users, there are still too many to fit with canon. And if you make them really rare, then the playerbase bitches up a storm.
Basically, SWG was in an unwinnable situation. If they gave their playerbase what they wanted, they killed lore. If they stuck to lore, then people didn't like the game.
You seem to think that everyone playing mundane characters made the game good, and everyone being a Jedi/Sith would automatically make it bad. Why? Why can't the originally well done crafting system and economy work in a KOTOR setting? All the things that made the game good are not tied to the character archetypes available.
I was commenting on their use of their most recognizable characters to sell the game. Implying that the great unwashed was attracted to SWG by the possibility of interacting with such notable figures as Darth Vader.
That D'ni number puzzle broke my mental block dealing with number systems other than base-10. (Although I can't remember why now, need to pull that out again)
Have you ever played Myst? That game made me violent with frustration on numerous occasions.
(Sorry, couldn't let that typo slip by)
SWG set in the KotOR would have been perfect. Everyone could be some form of Jedi/Sith and it would fit the setting perfectly. They were just too hell-bent on using their recognizable charaters to sell the game. "ZOMG u cn tlak 2 VADAR!!1!"
I think Star Wars Galaxies qualifies, as it's set between two pre-existing movies.
I also think the fact that the story was already written was part of it's downfall. The developers had no room to work with because they would keep bumping into canon.
Which goes back to my original point. You can't have absolute freedom because so many things are mutually exclusive. My freedom ends where your freedom begins.
"Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"
I think not living in a threatening/offensive environment would be covered by the third.
If I wear a t-shirt that states "I want to kill all niggers" you don't think people should feel offended/threatened by me?
Cities, states, and nations are all communities of different scales. There are already variations from locality to locality. (The Death Penalty, for example, varies from state to state) However, to a degree some consistency throughout the nation is to be expected. If the standards of decency in Florida were significantly different from those in Alabama, problems would arise where the two populations mingle, and cooperation between the two states would be more difficult.
Hate replying to myself, but thought of a much better example.
Smoking
Person A likes smoking cigarettes.
Person B does not.
Person A and B end up in the same restaurant, in adjacent booths. Person A exercises his freedom to use whatever chemicals he chooses, and lights up. Obviously the smoke generated is not confined to Person A, and affects B as well. So now we have two freedoms that are mutually exclusive. Respecting A's freedom to smoke eliminates B's freedom to NOT smoke, and vice versa.
So what do you do? The only thing you can do: Compromise.
Your definition of 'harmful' is the key to all this. Take dress code: Say you remove all laws relating to exposure and decency regarding clothing. People can wear (or not wear) whatever they want, anywhere they want. You would have everything ranging from full public nudity to highly offensive clothing. (Say, racist slogans or something) Many people would not be comfortable in such an environment, even threatened. Is their right to live in an non-offensive/threatening environment less valid than your right to wear what you want? When do your personal choices trump someone elses religious beliefs?
There is no such thing as true freedom. The phrase I've heard is 'Your freedom ends where my freedom begins.' There is a balance that must be found. I'm not saying we've found it, mind you, but you can't have total freedom like you describe.