Not all creatures you encounter are leveled. Wolves certainly are not. My level 47 Nord Spellsword can take out all manner of forest wildlife with a few swings (if not one swing) of his sword. A great deal of the enemies begin to appear when your character reaches a certain level (like Brown Bears) but do not get any stronger as the player continues to level. The enemies that I really need to watch out for are the ones that are actually leveled--clan/tribe leaders, Ogres, Minotaur Lords, et cetera.
Were Oblivion an online game where I would have to interface with other human players who would do nothing but summon Dremora Lords, cast a 10-second Paralyze on Target spell followed by spamming Enemies Explode, I would probably be in the same boat as you. In fact, that's one of the reasons I've recently given up on all MMO playing.
Oblivion gives me my own space to do what I want how and when I want to do it. It really is my world. On that note, I can safely say that if you don't love roleplaying, you don't love Oblivion.
Scenario 1: Pick a custom class with major skills of Sneak, Security, Speechcraft, Alchemy, Conjuration, Alteration and Illusion. As soon as you exit the sewers you can start using your skills as much as you can, increasing your levels really fast. In matter of 4-5 hours you can be a level 40 character. But the moment you exit the city you'll be totally obliterated by the first enemy you find.
Doesn't it make sense that this sort of character would be very weak in direct combat, assuming it only developed its major skills, even at level 40+?
I don't understand how that's a fault of the game. I love this aspect of the game because of the roleplaying opportunities such as those that the leveling system creates. Afterall, Oblivion is an RPG, not just some mediocre hack-and-slash. Most of the fun comes from immersing yourself in the experience by creating a character that can do what you want to do. Yes, not all of the skill lines are useful for combat, but combat is not the only component of the game.
If your "Scenario 1" character wanted to not get obliterated in direct combat, just pick up an axe or sword and a few pieces of heavy armor and start swinging away, using Sneak attacks, Shield spells from Alteration, and Paralysis spells from Illusion to help you. You can also make some really useful poisons/potions with a decent Alchemy rank. The next time you level up you'll be able to get nice, juicy bonuses to your Strength and Endurance thanks to your sword/axe-swinging, armor use, and blocking.
Perhaps you just don't like the direction Bethesda has taken the series and would prefer to be playing an FPS or JRPG?
Stop treating your customers like criminals. As a legitimate Windows XP user I find this treatment to be incredibly offensive, and it seriously makes me want to stop using Windows. I'm tired of this crap getting shoved down my throat, and if they expect me to shell out for Vista they can think again.
I realize that requiring WGA is meaningless in the long run, since WGA has already been cracked and any changes to it will also be cracked, but it really goes to show how much Microsoft trusts their users and how inept they are at actually combating software piracy.
Look at what word-of-mouth has done for Sega. It's all but killed them.
The point of advertising is to get the product's name out there. People aren't going to buy something if they've never heard of its maker or its brand before. Decision-making isn't always as easy as going to the electronics store and doing a side-by-side comparison of various TVs. Sometimes it just comes down to what you've heard of.
"Rely on word-of-mouth" sounds great on paper, and it would probably work out if EVERY company decided to do it, but that's not realistic. Companies want you to know that they exist and that they want you to buy their products, and they're clearly willing to pay out the ass to do it.
That said, viral marketing and (realistic) product placement is the future. As you've said, forcing people to watch ads not only annoys potential customers, but the company paying for the advertising might be pissing money away, since you can just not look at an ad in a magazine and you can skip past TV commercials with TiVo.
I'm all for freedom of speech--it's great that all of these companies want me to know about their products--just as long as they do it in a way that isn't annoying.
It looks like Moore's comments were so damaging that Microsoft has started implementing damage control in order to show that they're actually committed to continuing to expand the 360's backwards-compatibility.
It sounds to me like Microsoft needs a smarter, more committed, and more confident leader at the helm of their entertainment department.
The Xbox 360's selective backwards-compatibility is one of several reasons I chose not to invest in one. Sure, I can play Halo on my 360, but what if I want to play more obscure games like Otogi and JSRF? I have to haul out the Xbox.
Seriously, everyone has a handful of older and less-well-known games in their collection that they like to come back to now and then, but having to haul an entire console out of storage and hooking it up to the TV is a hassle. Sony is aware of this and made the PS2/PS3 backwards-compatible with all games, and have done the best job of it out of all of the major consoles. Nintendo is sensitive to retro-gamers to a lesser extent (it's not just a coincidense that the SNES, N64, and GameCube all have the exact same RCA cable/plug,) and now the Wii will be able to play GameCube games and will introduce the virtual console. Microsoft missed the boat on this one--backwards-compatibility is an extremely convenient feature, and the way it's been halfassed on the 360 is next to worthless compared to what the competition is offering.
I'm going to be entering college in the fall and living in a dorm room with 1-2 other guys. Obviously, space is commodity, and backwards-compatibility saves space. Is backwards-compatibility a make-or-break feature? No, but it's still part of the whole, and in my view, it demonstrates Microsoft's commitment to Xbox owners is limited to those who only bought topselling games.
Sorry Microsoft, your unenthusiastic attitude towards backwards compatibility is another decision that's tipping the scales against the 360.
Yes, there are different audiences amongst the different consoles, but to generalize, people want to play fun games and save money. From a purely commercial standpoint, Nintendo's major franchises are perceived as being fun games, and their console is going to be cheaper than the competition by a significant but as-of-yet unknown margin. Remember, this is the games industry--regrettably, games based on original IP generally don't sell well (with huge exceptions like Fable,) but a well-known franchise is bound to do well no matter how good/bad it is. Look at Psychonauts--fun game with original IP that got many GOTY 2005 awards, but was a commercial flop. By lining up a cheap(er) and unique console with all of its major franchises, Nintendo stands ready to make a ton of money this holiday season and beyond.
But about Moore, my point was that his statements are self-serving. When asked what he thinks about the price of the PS3, if he held overwhelming confidence in the 360 he would have said, "You can get a 360 and 3-4 games for the price of a PS3!" instead of, "You can get a Wii and 360 for the price of a PS3!" I'm not saying that he's wrong for complementing Nintendo by any stretch, he's just doing it in a way that makes him seem less than fully confident in the 360.
Peter Moore wouldn't be saying all of these positive things about the Wii if he wasn't scared to death of what it could do to Xbox 360 sales.
The Wii could conceivably cost half as much as the 360 Premium Package, and Nintendo has announced a Wii title in nearly all (or maybe all?) of its major franchises. If I were Peter Moore, I'd be scared too.
Moore's trying to create a "Wii + 360 > PS3" equation in people's minds, and I'm not saying he's wrong, but I don't think that he'd be saying anything positive about Nintendo or the Wii if he thought that the Xbox 360 could become the #1 new console in its own right.
After this year's E3, I've decided that I'll be purchasing a Wii in 2007 when a lot of the non-launch games have come out, and that I just don't care about what the 360 has to offer for the amount of money I have to spend on one, especially since I can already do all of that media center stuff on my PC. There you have it--Microsoft lost at least one potential 360 customer (myself) after E3 2006. How many more people must be out there that have feelings similar to my own?
People like me are the reason Peter Moore is complementing the Wii. He wants me, and everybody like me, to get the 360 by creating the illusion that there's a copasetic relationship between the Wii and 360 just because they're not made by Sony. However, just because I can get a Wii and 360 for roughly the price of a PS3 doesn't mean that I should buy an entire other console just because I haven't blown $600 on hardware.
Some people are saying that Nintendo isn't trying to compete with MS and Sony since they've taken such a different approach to their new console, but honestly, I think that Nintendo has become more competitive than ever. The Wii is small, backwards-compatible, online-ready, much cheaper than the 360 and PS3, and most importantly, it's unique and inspired. Hats off to Nintendo for truly bringing a revolution to console gaming.
Peter Moore wouldn't be saying all of these positive things about the Wii if he wasn't scared to death of what it could do to Xbox 360 sales.
The Wii could conceivably cost half as much as the 360 Premium Package, and Nintendo has announced a Wii title in nearly all (or maybe all?) of its major franchises. If I were Peter Moore, I'd be scared too.
Moore's trying to create a "Wii + 360 > PS3" equation in people's minds, and I'm not saying he's wrong, but I don't think that he'd be saying anything positive about Nintendo or the Wii if he thought that the Xbox 360 could become the #1 new console in its own right.
After this year's E3, I've decided that I'll be purchasing a Wii in 2007 when a lot of the non-launch games have come out, and that I just don't care about what the 360 has to offer for the amount of money I have to spend on one, especially since I can already do all of that media center stuff on my PC. There you have it--Microsoft lost at least one potential 360 customer (myself) after E3 2006. How many more people must be out there that have feelings similar to my own?
People like me are the reason Peter Moore is complementing the Wii. He wants me, and everybody like me, to get the 360 by creating the illusion that there's a copasetic relationship between the Wii and 360 just because they're not made by Sony. However, just because I can get a Wii and 360 for roughly the price of a PS3 doesn't mean that I should buy an entire other console just because I haven't blown $600 on hardware.
Some people are saying that Nintendo isn't trying to compete with MS and Sony since they've taken such a different approach to their new console, but honestly, I think that Nintendo has become more competitive than ever. The Wii is small, backwards-compatible, online-ready, much cheaper than the 360 and PS3, and most importantly, it's unique and inspired. Hats off to Nintendo for truly bringing a revolution to console gaming.
I doubt we'll still be using magnetic storage in 2000 years, but is it at all possible that a switch in the earth's polarity would damage/erase any data stored on a magnetic hard drive anywhere in the world? Anybody know enough about how hard drives work to provide an answer?
Not that they're the only ones who are guilty of screwing early adopters--what company doesn't?
This article, A Fanboy Intervention, talks pessimistically about the Revolution, but really it can be applied to any new console. See step 10: No console is worth buying on launch day. Or, as the case would see, launch year.
All of the angst over the new generation of consoles makes me want to buy a PS2 and pretend it's still 2002.
Microsoft probably has the best marketing people in the world working for them. Regardless of the quality of their products, they can sell them. *nix, generally speaking, does not have this luxury.
Really, how much time a game takes to produce has no relationship with the overall experience the game provides. It depends on the developer.
Exhibit A: Blizzard and Nintendo. All of Blizzard's games are high-quality because the developers basically dictate their own schedule. Diablo II and obviously WoW have huge followings because they put so many things into the game to keep people coming back. Their releases are few and far between, but you can bet they'll all be worth your money--every time. The same can be said for developers like Nintendo and BioWare.
Exhibit B: Bungie, Rare, and Lionhead. Games like Fable, Perfect Dark Zero, and most notably Halo 2 could have been much more than they are. Fable was in development for at least six years, and was being hyped as the perfect RPG, but instead ended up being a 20-hour, linear hand-and-slash. Bungie wasted countless hours and manpower coding the Halo 2 engine, which fundamentally added nothing to the gameplay.
Bottom-line: Some developers do better by having more freedom, and others need to be kept on a leash.
In all seriousness, I think that it's common knowledge by now that you're pretty much compromising your right to pricacy when you connect to the Internet. I like how Apple can hire a private company to snoop BitTorrent traffic for the OSX86 hack circulating around a few months back and throw around cease and decist letters and it's considered acceptable, but when the government monitors net traffic it's an abomination and the end of the universe.
All of you privacy-obsessed slashdotters out there have two options: 1. Don't connect to the Internet. 2. Use encrypted connections, read your ISP's privacy policy, and only do business with sites you trust. Maybe even donate to OSS projects that help protect your online privacy, or write to your congressmen about your concerns.
Bottom line: it is your responsibility to protect your online privacy. Encrypt your login sessions. Use reputable sites. Don't distribute personal information. Don't post nude pictures on MySpace. It's really that simple.
This is great news for multi-platform users like me who play PC games. When I finally buy a MacBook of some kind (probably when Leopard is released and Boot Camp comes standard) I'll be able to play games like Guild Wars on the go. If I decide to be crazy, I could even try to run Half-Life 2 and its derivatives.
Mac gaming isn't for hardcore PC gamers who upgrade their machines every 3 months. It's for everybody else.
Hats off to Apple for supporting Windows XP on their machines. They're one step closer to having a platform that everybody can use.
This is a financial situation where I can only see that both Sony screws itself over.
(For the sake of argument, let's say the PS3 costs $600 USD.)
1. Sony scares people away based on price point alone. 2. Sony is going to take a gigantic loss per console sold, and must compensate by matching or surpassing the already unacceptable price of Xbox 360 games, scaring even more people away.
Casual gamers who just buy Madden and GTA year after year (read: the majority of the market) will be able to do so on the 360, let alone the possibility of Madden getting on the Revolution. I'm not sure what Sony is trying to prove by making their product the most expensive. Whatever it is, I hope it doesn't work. This uptrend in the cost of games and console hardware is one that has to stop.
Long live Nintendo--innovation and reasonable price points for all.
Seriously, games are a new entertainment medium, and as history has told us, all new mediums are resisted by the older generations and are gradually accepted overtime.
I'm glad to see that this is happening sooner rather than later. Good news on/. for a change...who'd have thought?
Slashdot Mirror
"The main gripe is that the result of the 'levelled everything'..."
I stopped reading there, because not everything is leveled.
Straw man logical fallacy.
Not all creatures you encounter are leveled. Wolves certainly are not. My level 47 Nord Spellsword can take out all manner of forest wildlife with a few swings (if not one swing) of his sword. A great deal of the enemies begin to appear when your character reaches a certain level (like Brown Bears) but do not get any stronger as the player continues to level. The enemies that I really need to watch out for are the ones that are actually leveled--clan/tribe leaders, Ogres, Minotaur Lords, et cetera.
Were Oblivion an online game where I would have to interface with other human players who would do nothing but summon Dremora Lords, cast a 10-second Paralyze on Target spell followed by spamming Enemies Explode, I would probably be in the same boat as you. In fact, that's one of the reasons I've recently given up on all MMO playing.
Oblivion gives me my own space to do what I want how and when I want to do it. It really is my world. On that note, I can safely say that if you don't love roleplaying, you don't love Oblivion.
Scenario 1: Pick a custom class with major skills of Sneak, Security, Speechcraft, Alchemy, Conjuration, Alteration and Illusion. As soon as you exit the sewers you can start using your skills as much as you can, increasing your levels really fast. In matter of 4-5 hours you can be a level 40 character. But the moment you exit the city you'll be totally obliterated by the first enemy you find.
Doesn't it make sense that this sort of character would be very weak in direct combat, assuming it only developed its major skills, even at level 40+?
I don't understand how that's a fault of the game. I love this aspect of the game because of the roleplaying opportunities such as those that the leveling system creates. Afterall, Oblivion is an RPG, not just some mediocre hack-and-slash. Most of the fun comes from immersing yourself in the experience by creating a character that can do what you want to do. Yes, not all of the skill lines are useful for combat, but combat is not the only component of the game.
If your "Scenario 1" character wanted to not get obliterated in direct combat, just pick up an axe or sword and a few pieces of heavy armor and start swinging away, using Sneak attacks, Shield spells from Alteration, and Paralysis spells from Illusion to help you. You can also make some really useful poisons/potions with a decent Alchemy rank. The next time you level up you'll be able to get nice, juicy bonuses to your Strength and Endurance thanks to your sword/axe-swinging, armor use, and blocking.
Perhaps you just don't like the direction Bethesda has taken the series and would prefer to be playing an FPS or JRPG?
*acknowledges inevitable downvote*
Stop treating your customers like criminals. As a legitimate Windows XP user I find this treatment to be incredibly offensive, and it seriously makes me want to stop using Windows. I'm tired of this crap getting shoved down my throat, and if they expect me to shell out for Vista they can think again.
I realize that requiring WGA is meaningless in the long run, since WGA has already been cracked and any changes to it will also be cracked, but it really goes to show how much Microsoft trusts their users and how inept they are at actually combating software piracy.
It's very obvious. The Xbox 360's power brick is bigger than the entire PS1.
Look at what word-of-mouth has done for Sega. It's all but killed them.
The point of advertising is to get the product's name out there. People aren't going to buy something if they've never heard of its maker or its brand before. Decision-making isn't always as easy as going to the electronics store and doing a side-by-side comparison of various TVs. Sometimes it just comes down to what you've heard of.
"Rely on word-of-mouth" sounds great on paper, and it would probably work out if EVERY company decided to do it, but that's not realistic. Companies want you to know that they exist and that they want you to buy their products, and they're clearly willing to pay out the ass to do it.
That said, viral marketing and (realistic) product placement is the future. As you've said, forcing people to watch ads not only annoys potential customers, but the company paying for the advertising might be pissing money away, since you can just not look at an ad in a magazine and you can skip past TV commercials with TiVo.
I'm all for freedom of speech--it's great that all of these companies want me to know about their products--just as long as they do it in a way that isn't annoying.
He hasn't Fucking Kill(TM)ed everybody on his Fucking Kill(TM) list yet!
It looks like Moore's comments were so damaging that Microsoft has started implementing damage control in order to show that they're actually committed to continuing to expand the 360's backwards-compatibility.
It sounds to me like Microsoft needs a smarter, more committed, and more confident leader at the helm of their entertainment department.
The Xbox 360's selective backwards-compatibility is one of several reasons I chose not to invest in one. Sure, I can play Halo on my 360, but what if I want to play more obscure games like Otogi and JSRF? I have to haul out the Xbox.
Seriously, everyone has a handful of older and less-well-known games in their collection that they like to come back to now and then, but having to haul an entire console out of storage and hooking it up to the TV is a hassle. Sony is aware of this and made the PS2/PS3 backwards-compatible with all games, and have done the best job of it out of all of the major consoles. Nintendo is sensitive to retro-gamers to a lesser extent (it's not just a coincidense that the SNES, N64, and GameCube all have the exact same RCA cable/plug,) and now the Wii will be able to play GameCube games and will introduce the virtual console. Microsoft missed the boat on this one--backwards-compatibility is an extremely convenient feature, and the way it's been halfassed on the 360 is next to worthless compared to what the competition is offering.
I'm going to be entering college in the fall and living in a dorm room with 1-2 other guys. Obviously, space is commodity, and backwards-compatibility saves space. Is backwards-compatibility a make-or-break feature? No, but it's still part of the whole, and in my view, it demonstrates Microsoft's commitment to Xbox owners is limited to those who only bought topselling games.
Sorry Microsoft, your unenthusiastic attitude towards backwards compatibility is another decision that's tipping the scales against the 360.
Perhaps this is Google's response to the recent news regarding Microsoft's interest in acquiring eBay, which owns PayPal.
Personally, I wouldn't be surprised to see a new google channel that directly competes with eBay's online marketplace in the near future.
Yes, there are different audiences amongst the different consoles, but to generalize, people want to play fun games and save money. From a purely commercial standpoint, Nintendo's major franchises are perceived as being fun games, and their console is going to be cheaper than the competition by a significant but as-of-yet unknown margin. Remember, this is the games industry--regrettably, games based on original IP generally don't sell well (with huge exceptions like Fable,) but a well-known franchise is bound to do well no matter how good/bad it is. Look at Psychonauts--fun game with original IP that got many GOTY 2005 awards, but was a commercial flop. By lining up a cheap(er) and unique console with all of its major franchises, Nintendo stands ready to make a ton of money this holiday season and beyond.
But about Moore, my point was that his statements are self-serving. When asked what he thinks about the price of the PS3, if he held overwhelming confidence in the 360 he would have said, "You can get a 360 and 3-4 games for the price of a PS3!" instead of, "You can get a Wii and 360 for the price of a PS3!" I'm not saying that he's wrong for complementing Nintendo by any stretch, he's just doing it in a way that makes him seem less than fully confident in the 360.
double post...my bad
Peter Moore wouldn't be saying all of these positive things about the Wii if he wasn't scared to death of what it could do to Xbox 360 sales.
The Wii could conceivably cost half as much as the 360 Premium Package, and Nintendo has announced a Wii title in nearly all (or maybe all?) of its major franchises. If I were Peter Moore, I'd be scared too.
Moore's trying to create a "Wii + 360 > PS3" equation in people's minds, and I'm not saying he's wrong, but I don't think that he'd be saying anything positive about Nintendo or the Wii if he thought that the Xbox 360 could become the #1 new console in its own right.
After this year's E3, I've decided that I'll be purchasing a Wii in 2007 when a lot of the non-launch games have come out, and that I just don't care about what the 360 has to offer for the amount of money I have to spend on one, especially since I can already do all of that media center stuff on my PC. There you have it--Microsoft lost at least one potential 360 customer (myself) after E3 2006. How many more people must be out there that have feelings similar to my own?
People like me are the reason Peter Moore is complementing the Wii. He wants me, and everybody like me, to get the 360 by creating the illusion that there's a copasetic relationship between the Wii and 360 just because they're not made by Sony. However, just because I can get a Wii and 360 for roughly the price of a PS3 doesn't mean that I should buy an entire other console just because I haven't blown $600 on hardware.
Some people are saying that Nintendo isn't trying to compete with MS and Sony since they've taken such a different approach to their new console, but honestly, I think that Nintendo has become more competitive than ever. The Wii is small, backwards-compatible, online-ready, much cheaper than the 360 and PS3, and most importantly, it's unique and inspired. Hats off to Nintendo for truly bringing a revolution to console gaming.
Peter Moore wouldn't be saying all of these positive things about the Wii if he wasn't scared to death of what it could do to Xbox 360 sales.
The Wii could conceivably cost half as much as the 360 Premium Package, and Nintendo has announced a Wii title in nearly all (or maybe all?) of its major franchises. If I were Peter Moore, I'd be scared too.
Moore's trying to create a "Wii + 360 > PS3" equation in people's minds, and I'm not saying he's wrong, but I don't think that he'd be saying anything positive about Nintendo or the Wii if he thought that the Xbox 360 could become the #1 new console in its own right.
After this year's E3, I've decided that I'll be purchasing a Wii in 2007 when a lot of the non-launch games have come out, and that I just don't care about what the 360 has to offer for the amount of money I have to spend on one, especially since I can already do all of that media center stuff on my PC. There you have it--Microsoft lost at least one potential 360 customer (myself) after E3 2006. How many more people must be out there that have feelings similar to my own?
People like me are the reason Peter Moore is complementing the Wii. He wants me, and everybody like me, to get the 360 by creating the illusion that there's a copasetic relationship between the Wii and 360 just because they're not made by Sony. However, just because I can get a Wii and 360 for roughly the price of a PS3 doesn't mean that I should buy an entire other console just because I haven't blown $600 on hardware.
Some people are saying that Nintendo isn't trying to compete with MS and Sony since they've taken such a different approach to their new console, but honestly, I think that Nintendo has become more competitive than ever. The Wii is small, backwards-compatible, online-ready, much cheaper than the 360 and PS3, and most importantly, it's unique and inspired. Hats off to Nintendo for truly bringing a revolution to console gaming.
I doubt we'll still be using magnetic storage in 2000 years, but is it at all possible that a switch in the earth's polarity would damage/erase any data stored on a magnetic hard drive anywhere in the world? Anybody know enough about how hard drives work to provide an answer?
Not that they're the only ones who are guilty of screwing early adopters--what company doesn't?
This article, A Fanboy Intervention, talks pessimistically about the Revolution, but really it can be applied to any new console. See step 10: No console is worth buying on launch day. Or, as the case would see, launch year.
All of the angst over the new generation of consoles makes me want to buy a PS2 and pretend it's still 2002.
If I had mod points I would mod this insightful.
Microsoft probably has the best marketing people in the world working for them. Regardless of the quality of their products, they can sell them. *nix, generally speaking, does not have this luxury.
Linux users seem to be AMD's most avid fans
Don't forget the gamers. All of the hardcore PC gamers I know wouldn't be caught dead with an Intel CPU in their gaming rig.
Really, how much time a game takes to produce has no relationship with the overall experience the game provides. It depends on the developer.
Exhibit A: Blizzard and Nintendo. All of Blizzard's games are high-quality because the developers basically dictate their own schedule. Diablo II and obviously WoW have huge followings because they put so many things into the game to keep people coming back. Their releases are few and far between, but you can bet they'll all be worth your money--every time. The same can be said for developers like Nintendo and BioWare.
Exhibit B: Bungie, Rare, and Lionhead. Games like Fable, Perfect Dark Zero, and most notably Halo 2 could have been much more than they are. Fable was in development for at least six years, and was being hyped as the perfect RPG, but instead ended up being a 20-hour, linear hand-and-slash. Bungie wasted countless hours and manpower coding the Halo 2 engine, which fundamentally added nothing to the gameplay.
Bottom-line: Some developers do better by having more freedom, and others need to be kept on a leash.
If I don't pay for Vista, I don't have to put up with the bloated interface? Somebody give me a torrent!
In all seriousness, I think that it's common knowledge by now that you're pretty much compromising your right to pricacy when you connect to the Internet. I like how Apple can hire a private company to snoop BitTorrent traffic for the OSX86 hack circulating around a few months back and throw around cease and decist letters and it's considered acceptable, but when the government monitors net traffic it's an abomination and the end of the universe.
All of you privacy-obsessed slashdotters out there have two options:
1. Don't connect to the Internet.
2. Use encrypted connections, read your ISP's privacy policy, and only do business with sites you trust. Maybe even donate to OSS projects that help protect your online privacy, or write to your congressmen about your concerns.
Bottom line: it is your responsibility to protect your online privacy. Encrypt your login sessions. Use reputable sites. Don't distribute personal information. Don't post nude pictures on MySpace. It's really that simple.
This is great news for multi-platform users like me who play PC games. When I finally buy a MacBook of some kind (probably when Leopard is released and Boot Camp comes standard) I'll be able to play games like Guild Wars on the go. If I decide to be crazy, I could even try to run Half-Life 2 and its derivatives.
Mac gaming isn't for hardcore PC gamers who upgrade their machines every 3 months. It's for everybody else.
Hats off to Apple for supporting Windows XP on their machines. They're one step closer to having a platform that everybody can use.
This is a financial situation where I can only see that both Sony screws itself over.
(For the sake of argument, let's say the PS3 costs $600 USD.)
1. Sony scares people away based on price point alone.
2. Sony is going to take a gigantic loss per console sold, and must compensate by matching or surpassing the already unacceptable price of Xbox 360 games, scaring even more people away.
Casual gamers who just buy Madden and GTA year after year (read: the majority of the market) will be able to do so on the 360, let alone the possibility of Madden getting on the Revolution. I'm not sure what Sony is trying to prove by making their product the most expensive. Whatever it is, I hope it doesn't work. This uptrend in the cost of games and console hardware is one that has to stop.
Long live Nintendo--innovation and reasonable price points for all.
...inevitability.
/. for a change...who'd have thought?
Seriously, games are a new entertainment medium, and as history has told us, all new mediums are resisted by the older generations and are gradually accepted overtime.
I'm glad to see that this is happening sooner rather than later. Good news on
Didn't they already make Outlook Express?