Entirely true, but then satire always suffers from this vulnerability.
Because it requires just a little bit of actual intelligence to realise that something is a joke, there will always be some people who miss the point. Those few people, whether themselves or via third parties with anti-games agendas, cause a disproportionate amount of trouble.
It's a valid point, of course. But then I doubt anyone would buy a PS3 on the strength of its current showing alone. It's a question of the entire life cycle of the machine and which titles are expected to end up where. Expectations are set relative to the PS2 and XBox lineups, so those expectations may prove wrong.
Let's put it this way - if most of the important games turn out to be cross platform across this generation then that's terrible for Sony and they effectively cede the top spot to Microsoft as a consequence.
Further to this, it was pretty obvious even to a casual observer that Microsoft bought Blue Dragon onto the platform. One title doesn't make that much difference. XBox 360 is still of relatively little interest to anyone who doesn't care about FPS games (at least that's how I feel about it, being in that category myself).
Well to start with, if the game maker wanted to make a serious point he could have chosen a better title. I haven't played the game, but I have a lot of sympathy for the idea that Slamdance needed to do something simply because of the impression the title gives.
Of course what we ought to see happening is consumers punishing Sony for their poor attitude.
What happens in practice is that people like me go out any buy Sony systems and games anyway because game content trumps loading delays. Which is a shame, because it's not like I really enjoy loading delays, but perhaps I only have myself to blame.
Can't help wondering how durable the resulting storage solution will prove to be. Maybe it's just me, but I'm always wary of solutions that use things for purposes they weren't designed for.
So as a result of all this, you got to play the games far more cheaply.
This is the other problem games face (which Greg Costikyan has discussed extensively before): games titles are discounted far too rapidly. A game might eventually sell copies based on its good reputation but it can never make much money that way.
That wasn't half as negative as it might've been. He complains about a bunch of missing features, but then says he likes the games. No XBox 360 titles receive a favourable comparison.
If that was the only review I'd read I'd still be quite tempted to buy one, since I preferred the PS2 to the XBox for the games.
Which is why anybody in the UK who can afford private health insurance has it...
So given that I am living in London and working with the actual people you're making these statements about, on what basis are you attempting to "correct" me?
As you'd know if you'd bothered to research the subject before posting, the adoption rate here is actually very low. The figure comes out to approximately 10% of the population including people covered automatically by their employer.
You're correct about dentistry (aside from comedy exaggeration), but that's covered by a different system. Dentists' surgeries are independently run businesses. From an economics perspective this is the worst of both worlds since individual surgeries are run on a for-profit basis but market forces cannot adapt prices (paid mostly by the government) to supply and demand.
The government healthcare system here in the UK is actually good, particularly if you happen to live in the South East. The idea of "less money for private health care" is pure comedy. Why would I want private healthcare?
This IT screw up is unfortunately typical, but that's actually because the government's contracting out of IT functions is consistently terrible. A new system actually is badly needed... they just had no idea how to go about buying one.
this is Microsoft's last chance to persuade any on-the-fence PS3 fans
Absolute rubbish. That implies that the release of the PS3 will remove all inclination to purchase an XBox 360. In reality, the opposite is true. I didn't like the Xbox much at all, so wasn't expecting to like the 360. As things stand, it looks somewhat better for my gaming needs than I expected. I did expect to want a PS3 (since I love my PS2), but right now it's worrying me more than enthusing me.
There's no way I'm buying an XBox 360 before the PS3 comes out, but once it is out it has to start proving itself worthwhile. If it doesn't then that's when I'll be looking to the 360.
When discussing digital downloads I would have thought supply was essentially unlimited?
This being the case, applying the classical economic theories of scarcity to the games themselves seems wrong.
I have some time I want to spend being entertained and I will choose a game from the many on offer based on some combination of how entertaining it looks and how much it costs. I don't have time to play every game or money to buy every game. Depending on my choices either my time or my budget may be the limiting factor for my purchases. Games should (from the seller's perspective) therefore be priced to maximise revenue across the market as a whole given that each player has differing financial resources and differing amounts of free time.
So the key question is: how much less entertaining are older games? Greg Costikyan asserts that the answer is "not much less entertaining". In reality, of course, it varies from game to game. Had I not played Final Fantasy VII I would still happily pay full price for it today. Had I not played Quake I wouldn't want to pay as much as a dollar to play it today. (Your mileage may vary in both cases.)
The issue which really puzzles me about vim and emacs is not people preferring one or the other it's experienced programmers who use neither. That's like trying to program without caffeine!
It reminds me of a conversation with a friend. He was going on and on about how he wished the government would tax him more so that the government could do good and give his money to those in need. Sadly, it never crossed his mind to give to private cherity.
Are you assuming this, or did you actually ask him?
Personally I think your friend has the right idea. Yes, he as one individual could choose to use the money to give to good causes. But what about those who choose not to do so? Superficially, we can use words like "liberty" to describe their freedom to do what they like with their money. But what's really going on is that people like your friend are choosing to pay for the things that need doing in the world and are, in effect, subsidising those who choose not to.
After however many thousand years, I think it's reasonable to give up on human nature changing very much any time soon. Taxes are what we have because, regrettably, some people are assholes who don't properly understand their moral responsibilities. The freedom to behave like an asshole is not anyone's right and is not a freedom I care to protect.
Indeed, my (cynical?) view would be that Google are doing this stuff because too many people are assholes and therefore no government ever has a democratic mandate to do the right thing. That's sad.
That isn't really a "what if". We're there already - it's just that you don't hear much about it.
I live in the UK. Here we have a system of publically funded healthcare (the NHS) which a high proportion of the population uses. Sometimes treatments are developed - particularly expensive drugs - then not approved for NHS use because the benefits are not felt to justify the cost.
Now of course as an individual who would benefit from such a drug you have the option in some cases to "go private" and receive the treatment. Obviously this is only really an option if you can afford the cost, which means that what we have here is a lot like the scenario you describe. (And I imagine something similar happens in the US but I don't know enough about the arcane complexities of your healthcare systems to work out the details.)
There's also the fact that this is the only issue he has ever felt worthy of comment since signing up for his account.
I dunno, you think Linden would have enough money to shell out for a professional sockpuppeting service. It's not like they've been spending all their money on server security!
The point is not that I think CGI contact is evil (I don't). The difference is that your site says right on the front page who you actually are. Whoever is behind paypalsucks has gone to considerable lengths to hide their identity.
Now possibly they're just paranoid and believe that PayPal would care enough to hunt them down and wee on their lawn, but will be stopped by these sorts of measures (ho ho).
Personally, I'm more inclined to conclude it's shady business. You don't see Microsoft's detractors hiding their identities, do you?
Slashdot Mirror
Entirely true, but then satire always suffers from this vulnerability.
Because it requires just a little bit of actual intelligence to realise that something is a joke, there will always be some people who miss the point. Those few people, whether themselves or via third parties with anti-games agendas, cause a disproportionate amount of trouble.
Who gets a game to that stage of development without the approval of the copyright holders?!
Even if they cut some kind of deal now it's going to cost them a fortune.
Hehe!
It's a valid point, of course. But then I doubt anyone would buy a PS3 on the strength of its current showing alone. It's a question of the entire life cycle of the machine and which titles are expected to end up where. Expectations are set relative to the PS2 and XBox lineups, so those expectations may prove wrong.
Let's put it this way - if most of the important games turn out to be cross platform across this generation then that's terrible for Sony and they effectively cede the top spot to Microsoft as a consequence.
Further to this, it was pretty obvious even to a casual observer that Microsoft bought Blue Dragon onto the platform. One title doesn't make that much difference. XBox 360 is still of relatively little interest to anyone who doesn't care about FPS games (at least that's how I feel about it, being in that category myself).
Well to start with, if the game maker wanted to make a serious point he could have chosen a better title. I haven't played the game, but I have a lot of sympathy for the idea that Slamdance needed to do something simply because of the impression the title gives.
Given the nature of Slashdot's readership, any roundup of the year really needs to include Armadillo Run.
If you haven't heard of it, go and check out the site and (if you have access to a Windows machine) download the demo.
Most fun I've had with a 1-player game since the original Lemmings.
Of course what we ought to see happening is consumers punishing Sony for their poor attitude.
What happens in practice is that people like me go out any buy Sony systems and games anyway because game content trumps loading delays. Which is a shame, because it's not like I really enjoy loading delays, but perhaps I only have myself to blame.
Can't help wondering how durable the resulting storage solution will prove to be. Maybe it's just me, but I'm always wary of solutions that use things for purposes they weren't designed for.
Absolutely. For Twisted Metal World Tour alone David Jaffe will always make my game developers A-list.
No, his (real) name is not Jenova. It's Xinghan Chen.
Possibly he didn't realise "Jenova" was girl's name when he picked it as his tag. Or possibly he did and he's trying to tell us something...
So as a result of all this, you got to play the games far more cheaply.
This is the other problem games face (which Greg Costikyan has discussed extensively before): games titles are discounted far too rapidly. A game might eventually sell copies based on its good reputation but it can never make much money that way.
That wasn't half as negative as it might've been. He complains about a bunch of missing features, but then says he likes the games. No XBox 360 titles receive a favourable comparison.
If that was the only review I'd read I'd still be quite tempted to buy one, since I preferred the PS2 to the XBox for the games.
As you'd know if you'd bothered to research the subject before posting, the adoption rate here is actually very low. The figure comes out to approximately 10% of the population including people covered automatically by their employer.
You're correct about dentistry (aside from comedy exaggeration), but that's covered by a different system. Dentists' surgeries are independently run businesses. From an economics perspective this is the worst of both worlds since individual surgeries are run on a for-profit basis but market forces cannot adapt prices (paid mostly by the government) to supply and demand.
You aren't American by any chance?
The government healthcare system here in the UK is actually good, particularly if you happen to live in the South East. The idea of "less money for private health care" is pure comedy. Why would I want private healthcare?
This IT screw up is unfortunately typical, but that's actually because the government's contracting out of IT functions is consistently terrible. A new system actually is badly needed... they just had no idea how to go about buying one.
Next week: 1UP compares apples with oranges!
this is Microsoft's last chance to persuade any on-the-fence PS3 fans
Absolute rubbish. That implies that the release of the PS3 will remove all inclination to purchase an XBox 360. In reality, the opposite is true. I didn't like the Xbox much at all, so wasn't expecting to like the 360. As things stand, it looks somewhat better for my gaming needs than I expected. I did expect to want a PS3 (since I love my PS2), but right now it's worrying me more than enthusing me.
There's no way I'm buying an XBox 360 before the PS3 comes out, but once it is out it has to start proving itself worthwhile. If it doesn't then that's when I'll be looking to the 360.
This isn't Microsoft's last chance at anything.
When discussing digital downloads I would have thought supply was essentially unlimited?
This being the case, applying the classical economic theories of scarcity to the games themselves seems wrong.
I have some time I want to spend being entertained and I will choose a game from the many on offer based on some combination of how entertaining it looks and how much it costs. I don't have time to play every game or money to buy every game. Depending on my choices either my time or my budget may be the limiting factor for my purchases. Games should (from the seller's perspective) therefore be priced to maximise revenue across the market as a whole given that each player has differing financial resources and differing amounts of free time.
So the key question is: how much less entertaining are older games? Greg Costikyan asserts that the answer is "not much less entertaining". In reality, of course, it varies from game to game. Had I not played Final Fantasy VII I would still happily pay full price for it today. Had I not played Quake I wouldn't want to pay as much as a dollar to play it today. (Your mileage may vary in both cases.)
Emacs and vi won't get that sort of language integration ever, I think.
Can't speak for vim, but there is at least one Java refactoring tool for emacs.
Not too surprising if you think about it. The whole point of emacs is that it's extensible. If there's something you want - write it!
The issue which really puzzles me about vim and emacs is not people preferring one or the other it's experienced programmers who use neither. That's like trying to program without caffeine!
Endorsement of government taxation as a social mechanism does not imply approval of any particular government's spending or taxation policies.
For example (and getting back on topic) I'd like to see the present US administration doing more to encourage environmentally friendly transport.
It reminds me of a conversation with a friend. He was going on and on about how he wished the government would tax him more so that the government could do good and give his money to those in need. Sadly, it never crossed his mind to give to private cherity.
Are you assuming this, or did you actually ask him?
Personally I think your friend has the right idea. Yes, he as one individual could choose to use the money to give to good causes. But what about those who choose not to do so? Superficially, we can use words like "liberty" to describe their freedom to do what they like with their money. But what's really going on is that people like your friend are choosing to pay for the things that need doing in the world and are, in effect, subsidising those who choose not to.
After however many thousand years, I think it's reasonable to give up on human nature changing very much any time soon. Taxes are what we have because, regrettably, some people are assholes who don't properly understand their moral responsibilities. The freedom to behave like an asshole is not anyone's right and is not a freedom I care to protect.
Indeed, my (cynical?) view would be that Google are doing this stuff because too many people are assholes and therefore no government ever has a democratic mandate to do the right thing. That's sad.
That isn't really a "what if". We're there already - it's just that you don't hear much about it.
I live in the UK. Here we have a system of publically funded healthcare (the NHS) which a high proportion of the population uses. Sometimes treatments are developed - particularly expensive drugs - then not approved for NHS use because the benefits are not felt to justify the cost.
Now of course as an individual who would benefit from such a drug you have the option in some cases to "go private" and receive the treatment. Obviously this is only really an option if you can afford the cost, which means that what we have here is a lot like the scenario you describe. (And I imagine something similar happens in the US but I don't know enough about the arcane complexities of your healthcare systems to work out the details.)
There's also the fact that this is the only issue he has ever felt worthy of comment since signing up for his account.
I dunno, you think Linden would have enough money to shell out for a professional sockpuppeting service. It's not like they've been spending all their money on server security!
Passwords aren't generally stored except in encrypted form (and as I understand it that's what was done here) so that shouldn't make a difference.
The point is not that I think CGI contact is evil (I don't). The difference is that your site says right on the front page who you actually are. Whoever is behind paypalsucks has gone to considerable lengths to hide their identity.
Now possibly they're just paranoid and believe that PayPal would care enough to hunt them down and wee on their lawn, but will be stopped by these sorts of measures (ho ho).
Personally, I'm more inclined to conclude it's shady business. You don't see Microsoft's detractors hiding their identities, do you?