Newspapers are not the same by a long shot. When you buy a newspaper, it's yours. The newspaper company has absolutely no way of know if you even read any of the advertisements. Once the sale is done, it's done.
The way that it would most likely work is similar to what others have tried in the past. Yes, you get the PC; but in order to grant you the PC in a "free status, it has to signal back to the mother ship that it's still there and still receiving advertisements. If it does not signal back or it determines that it is not displaying the advertising, you will be considered to be in violation of the terms of the agreement and will be charged the full price of the PC. Chances are that it will also require you to allow the sofwtare to upgrade itself as necessary. A failure to upgrade means a potential breach of contract.
I remember clearly reading this in the Ts&Cs of one of the failed "free PC" companies a few years ago. You were forbidden from installing another OS; you were forbidden to upgrade the hard drive because they're not about to give you the software to report back; all repairs had to be done through them to verify that you're still in compliance; you had to allow the software to report back. This is exactly why I threw the ad away. Sort of smells of the recent WGA fiasco.
So, no, you can't do with the PC what you want -- unless you want to be billed the full cost of it for violating your terms and conditions for the purchase.
Personally, I think that this is a great idea, not so much because of the concept itself, but it might at least make the current kid generation think a bit more about the science behind it. As soon as I read the summary, without even going into the article itself, I thought back about the rechargeable racing cars that I had when I was a kid -- put two D batteries in the charger, plug the cable into the little racing car, hold the button for one minute to charge the car, put it on the plastic Hot Wheels track, and let it speed along. It always fascinated me how I could recharge the car over and over again. Granted, this was the early 1980s, but it was one of those things that got me interested in science -- how the hell does this silly car work?
Now rechargeable batteries are the norm. But "rechargable" hydrogen? I can see where the kids of today (and maybe even some adults) would take an interest in this and think about getting involved in expanding it on a larger scale. I even like the thought about how this technology could be used to reduce the amount of batteries that get thrown into landfills every year.
Of course, having worked with hydrolysis in 7th grade, science class might give me a bit more interest in this than it would most people.
I am a hard-core AMD and nVidia fan. I don't have any Intel PCs in my house except those that I got as freebies, and I've never had good luck with *any* ATI card. I cringe in fear at what would (or at least could) happen to my gaming systems of the future if ATI and AMD merge. Yes, I can see some type of exclusivity where ATI cards are going to somehow be more advantageous than nVidia when it comes to gaming hardware for reasons other than plain, old competition.
I am so sick and tired of hearing that this is a "truth-in-labeling" violation! This was nothing more than a "protect the children" witch hunt!
The segment in question was included but was never meant to be accessed! It took someone else's hack, which might or might not have been in violation of the game's EULA, to release it. Therefore, the accessibility to that whole section of code was not authorized by Take Two or Rockstar. Yet they were made the scapegoat in nothing more that a politically-charged witch hunt. There was abosultely NO REASON for Take Two/Rockstar to disclose that information because they had NO EXPECTATION that it would ever been seen by any customer.
For example, let's say that I included the following type of code in a huge program that I'm writing. (No comments about the Perl. I'm just making an example.)
$ESRB = "Neutral";
if ($ESRB eq "Evil") {
print "The ESRB is a bunch of fucking, holier-than-thou, moralistic morons.\n";
print "And you're mother's ugly, too.\n";
}
Obviously, that code is never meant to be seen because $ESRB is being explicity set to bypass the if statement. So, I compile the whole program, with the code that was never meant to be seen, get a "T" rating for the whole program, and release the program. In my EULA is an explicit statement that no one is allowed to modify the code.
Then some moron sees it in the compiled code and releases an unauthorized hack to change $ESRB to "Evil". Suddenly, there's a big bruhaha because it should have been "M" due to the language of the code.
Now the ESRB and Thompson are on my case for not revealing the code that was in there. WHY? The code was never meant to be seen - not even as an Easter egg. There is no reasonable expectation of me letting the ESRB know that the code was in there because there was no reasonable expectation that it would ever be seen. Someone went in without my permission and modified the code to see something that was never meant to be seen.
There is no reason why Take Two/Rockstar should be held accountable for the release of something that was never meant to be available in the first place. This was nothing close to a "truth-in-labeling" violation. It was a do-gooder, "for the sake of the children", witch hunt. Rockstar took the high road and just let it slide, which was probably the best PR they could have done, but they were nothing more than a scapegoat.
I see nothing wrong with episodic content as long as its applicable to the game. I don't think that most games would do well in an episodic format, but for some games it might work, depending on the genre, cost, and time between releases. Graphic adventures are probably the best suited to this.
Small developers certainly can use episodic releases to their advantage. For example, if a small developer waited to release the whole thing and the game was releases with a ton of bugs or other issues that gamers don't like, the company is dead, and the customer is pissed that he spent $50 on a bug-ridden piece of shit, e.g. Ultima: Ascension. (I'm not saying that U:A would have worked in an episodic format, mind you. NOTHING could have saved it from the completely irresponsible ways that EA managed that project.)
At least with episodic content, the developers can get a bit of money up front to keep them going and the gamers get the opportunity to say, "Well, here's where you had problems" or "I didn't like..." and the developers can fix the issue or make changes based on user feedback into the next episode. Meanwhile, the customer only spent $15 or so. So the remaining episodes could be tweaked to implement the fixes/changes with less egg on the developers' faces than if they released the whole game with the same bugs and problems for 3x the price or more.
Personally, the anti-episodic attitudes that I read about seem to stem more from a selfish "I want it and I want it ALL NOW!!!" attitude that doesn't help anyone.
And need I remind you that PJ's Lord of the Rings trilogy was episodic with two books released in movie format every year. (LotR was actually six books, not three.) Yet no one seemed to bitch about how that was handled. I never heard anyone complain that PJ should have finished all three, then released them. But video games, which are no more or less of an entertainment medium, are held to a completely different standard. Interesting.
And therefore it is his responsibility to LEARN that he made that mistake and be cautious not to make it again. It is NOT his responsibility to say, "Hey, I can't (or don't want to) learn that, so I expect you to treat my spelling as accurate!" That's what this whole thing is about, isn't it?
Come back and see all of us when you achieve perfection in all things. Considering that you don't even have the balls to post with your real account, I'm guessing that you won't be claiming perfection any time soon.
Mod points! Mod points! My kingdom for some mod points!
Translation: People are looking for an excuse to become irresponsible and stupid. Our parents, grandparents, etc. had no problem with the language, yet for some reason our generation is (somehow) too stupid to learn the language, so we need to dumb it down, which should not be encouraged.
Yes, the adventure genre had its golden hour back in the Sam and Max/Monkey Island days, but there are still companies that are dedicated to the genre. For example, I can't wait for the guys at TellTale to release their first Sam and Max episode. (This is the company that was formed by those who were on the Sam and Max sequel team when LucasArts idiotically abandoned their Sam and Max development when it was estimated to be 90% finished.)
You're not going to make a successful adventure game for $10 million. But you can certainly make successful one for one or $2 million.
This really sums up the problem with the current video game industry. The big wigs apparently have this ridiculous attitude that spending more will mean earning more, but only with certain genres. Otherwise, it's just not worth it because they apparently believe that they "have" to spend big bucks. Look at how many licenses are purchased every year, particularly from sports organizations. You can't tell me that in all circumstances changing the offical logos, changing the names of the players, getting very talented voice actors who sound like the real announcers but cost 1/10th a much, but keeping the exact same game play suddenly means death for the game. People want games that they can play and enjoy. Changing a name from NFL to "Pro-Football" thereby saving who knows how many millions in licensing costs might turn a few narrow-minded morons away, but if the game is really good, people will buy it. History has shown that time and time again. A probably-now-forgotten company originally called "Apogee" comes to mind.
And that brings up another question. Does he really need a publisher? With electronic distributions as popular as they are, the increase in the number of people who have broadband, and the increasing popularity of delivery methods like Steam, does any game company really need a distributor to hold them back from at least an initial release - just enough to get the word spreading about the games that he releases? Again, look at Apgoee and its associated company iD, both of which were very popular from the electronic/shareware release method. No, it won't work with all types of games, but in this world of broadband and the Internet, where we only had dial-up and BBSes, I think that electronic distributin has a much better opportunity for success than ever.
You only view people as disliking WGA only if they have something to hide. Screw principle. People who don't like it obviously fear it, right? What does that say about you, besides stating the obvious fact that you're a flamebaiting troll?
I don't think that the summary was accurate to the article itself. The article talked about the need to have a level of satisfaction when our expectations are met from having an immersive environment. That's not restricted to the horror genre of games as the summary implies. Every genre of games requires a level of satisfaction when our expectations are met or the game will get panned by players and critics. I use that abomination of Ultima: Ascension as the prime example of a game that completely failed to meet expectations and therefore generated no satisfaction. That article also mentions GTA. I wouldn't exactly call that a horror game.
There are some classic games that are so much fun, not so much from a playability standpoint but from an entire experience. I am a great fan of the Max Payne, Thief, and Splinter Cell series. Lots of great suspense and dark gameplay, but they pulled you into their environments, which is one of the key factors in the success of games of that nature.
Honestly, I think that the editors need to be a bit more accurate in the description of the articles. I was about to go on a huge rant about the bullsh*t that we need to be scared in order to derive pleasure from games until I actually RTFA.
I'll grant you that. Regardless, Reagan was very much anti-big government. He bashed the notion of bigger government and warned of the problems associated with bigger government, such as interference in areas where they don't belong and the devaluing of individual freedoms, very often. That's primarily what I was referring to because the current administration doesn't give a flying fsck about individual freedoms. I voted for Dr. Jekyl not realizing until too late that Mr. Hyde was just beneath the surface. Bastard.
I'll grant you that, but they still should not be punished by having their market potential slashed if they don't submit, and you know that they will. If anything, they should be given PR credit for submitting, but they should not be punished for not submitting, and that's just around the corner, I'm sure, if it's not already here.
Sadly, the Reagan Republican movement, which stressed smaller government, died with Reagan.
And to those who are just looking for an excuse to spout anti-Republican diatribes, don't bother. We are all aware that Slashdot is a bastion of liberalism who loves nothing more than a good Republican bashing, but nowadays there is really nothing that separates the two parties. They're all the same except for their extremist fringes. The point that I'm making is that the Republicans that are inside of the Washington beltway are no longer Republicans except in name. Sadly, I don't know what they are anymore because they've all abandoned the principles that should be guiding the Republican party. Mod me off-topic. I don't care. That doesn't make what I've said any less true.
Someone also needs to slap the parents across the face and stop them from buying these games for their kids if they disagree with the content.
That, however, is sickeningly true. You need to be modded +1 If Only We Could for that line.
Vance says the ESRB has the power to enforce up to $1 million in monetary fines for the 'most egregious offenses,'
I really hate that non-government entities have the power to place massive fines. Really. The ESRB is a voluntary rating system. No game company is required by any law that I'm aware of to submit their games to any ratings system. Ah, but then the game company is given bad public relations if they don't submit because of the likelihood of extremist, "pro-family" organizations and activist lawmakers like Tompson (and possibly the ESRB itself) accusing them of having something to hide even they have nothing to hide but don't want to submit to a rating on principle.
The ESRB is now no different than the MPAA. No legal bindings; a completely voluntary system. But if you don't submit your material for ratings you risk getting banned by the outlets that you would depend on for selling your products. And of course by submitting your material you agree to be subjected to any fines that the ratings boards feels it can place upon you.
The ESRB is starting to join the RIAA and MPAA in their mob-like demeanor. {Don Corleone voice} You either submit your material for us to place our beloved rating or else you won't work again in this town. This is an offer that you really can't refuse. {/voice}
*sigh* Money and power. Ba-a-a-a-d combination. Sadly, the MPAA, RIAA, and now ESRB have both.
To allay early community concerns that the process of getting external code contributions accepted was taking too long,
You're kidding, right? Solaris is one of the most mature operating systems out there. It runs some of the most powerful servers on the face of the planet. It is the core for a number of institutions, especially in the financial sector. I am not over-dramatizing when I say that Solaris runs a hell of a lot of crucial systems that make our lives easier in a lot of different ways.
That being the case, do these people really think that Sun is just going to say, "Oh, I see. You tested it in a limited fashion and we tested it in a limited fashion in the matter of a few months. Okay, we'll release it to the customers who run massive databases and financial applications on our servers because of a few months of limited testing." I would much prefer Sun take a year if need be to make sure that any modifications will be completely compatible with as many of their customers and equipment as possible, particularly the higher-end systems and major corporate environments.
I understand and share a lot of the aggravation that people feel when it comes to the lack of features, particularly device drivers, in Solaris. This is the one of the main reasons wy I think that Solaris has become so niche, particularly on the x86 side of things. If we're talking about modification to a common tool or enhancements to a graphical interface, okay, I don't see why it would take a year. But if Sun needs a year to make sure that a new device driver doesn't crash a SunFire 25K running a clustered Oracle server during end-of-month, transaction processing, then I'll grant Sun that year.
But it did. If you played through the game the way that Rockstar had intended and the way that the released the code, you never would have seen it. It wasn't even there as an Easter Egg. It was abandoned code that was deactivated and reactivated only by a third party, unauthorized hack. Why is that possibly considered to be false advertising when it was code that would never have been accessible?
How does this crap get modded up? This was the FTC, not the FCC that dealt with Howard Stern.
All right! All right! I already admitted that I goofed up on that one! Brother!
No. You are wrong. The right to not be deceived by false advertising is a right, not a privilege. If a product advertises a certain feature, it better well have it. In this case, the producers of the game made certain statements about their product, which led to the rating they received, which turned out to be false. The game did not comply with the standards for the advertised rating.
Bull! That code was never meant to be an accessible part of the game by anything that the user would have done through normal means! It was inaccessible when using the game as intended. Only by a third party hack without the approval of Rockstar was it even made available!
I've used the example before and I still stand behind it! If I made a program that as intended is a family game, but I have vulgar code comments that got compiled into the executable and some hacker releases the comment through an unauthorized hack. I advertisied the game as a family game, which is was, but some hacker makes a hack that makes it not-so-family-friendly. It wasn't meant to be an accessible part of the game, so there was no reason whatsoever to advertise it. How does that possibly mean that I am somehow responsible for false advertising?!
Exactly how was that false advertising? There was a segment in there that was never meant to be used that was exploited by code that was not authorized by Rockstar!
Let's say that I make a family game that's rated "E" that if played as is has nothing offensive, but in the code are some comments with vulgarities in them. Some hacker makes an unauthorized mod that uncomments those comments. Now that vulgarity is available and can be displayed even though it was commented out. Yet I submitted my game to the ESRB, told them what it was about, gave them copies to rate it, and it cleary deserved "E". How can it possibly considered to be "false advertising" that someone without my authorization hacked my code to make a comment seen that was never supposed to be seen?
As I said in my reply to myself, I'm in need of more late-afternoon caffeine. I realized small errors (cough) like that after I hit "Submit". Oh, well.
But in reality they're not all that different when it comes to this kid of issue. Both are government agencies that are responsible for various aspect of in this case communication. One handles the regulation of media over the airwaves; the other handles in this case the regulation of over physical goods.
I still think that this was a major CYA on their part.
Christ! If that's not an indication that I need to buy more Penguin Mints, I don't know what is. If anyone can translate that for me, I'd appreciate it. I think I meant to say "actually", but upon looking at that, I'm not quite sure.:)
As indicated above, this is a slap on the wrists. Considering the Nazi-like ways that the FTC has handled "oscenity" issues in the past, like Howard Stern, this is mild! I wonder if this is more becuase they're covering their asses. Let's face facts. They got a ton of criticism because of the way that they handled this. That wasn't a Rockstar release. It was a third party hack. Lots of games have third party hacks that allow this. That doesn't mean that it was done with the approval of the game maker. If a programmer puts an inappropriate comment in a program that will never be displayed but someone gets offended when trying to illegally hack the code, should the company be sued?
Antucally, this kind of ruling sets a precedence that almost makes it seem like a possible marketing tactic: Hey, if we don't announce this and someone finds out, we could make a huge increase in sales from the publicity and only pay an $11,000 fine! It's costs more to advertize in major gaming magazines!
I will take exception with one this that was said (emphasis mine):
Parents have the right to rely on the accuracy of the entertainment rating system.
Bullsh*t. Parents have the privilege to rely on the accuracy of the entertainment rating system. Just like the movie rating system, these rating are not enacted by laws. They are not legal rights as the ESRB is not an institution that was empowered by a government act! Stop calling them "rights"!! Sorry,folks. Pet peeve, but there is a major difference between a right and a privilege... at least for now.
A friend of mine lives over in Verizon-land on the other side of town and he just got FIOS at 5Mbps for about half the cost of cable. I got a notice in the mail yesterday saying that Comcast was upgrading the cable broadband to 6Mbps.
Wait a minute... Comcast is upgrading cable to 6 MB? Please check the postmark on that envelope. Comcast has been touting 6Mbps as their base speed for well over a year even on their internal newsgroups. Their new speed boost, trial runs in New England are now experimenting with 12Mbps for their basic broadband subscriptions and 16Mbps for their premium subscriptions. Are you sure that you're being upgraded to 6Mbps?
Slashdot Mirror
Newspapers are not the same by a long shot. When you buy a newspaper, it's yours. The newspaper company has absolutely no way of know if you even read any of the advertisements. Once the sale is done, it's done.
The way that it would most likely work is similar to what others have tried in the past. Yes, you get the PC; but in order to grant you the PC in a "free status, it has to signal back to the mother ship that it's still there and still receiving advertisements. If it does not signal back or it determines that it is not displaying the advertising, you will be considered to be in violation of the terms of the agreement and will be charged the full price of the PC. Chances are that it will also require you to allow the sofwtare to upgrade itself as necessary. A failure to upgrade means a potential breach of contract.
I remember clearly reading this in the Ts&Cs of one of the failed "free PC" companies a few years ago. You were forbidden from installing another OS; you were forbidden to upgrade the hard drive because they're not about to give you the software to report back; all repairs had to be done through them to verify that you're still in compliance; you had to allow the software to report back. This is exactly why I threw the ad away. Sort of smells of the recent WGA fiasco.
So, no, you can't do with the PC what you want -- unless you want to be billed the full cost of it for violating your terms and conditions for the purchase.
Personally, I think that this is a great idea, not so much because of the concept itself, but it might at least make the current kid generation think a bit more about the science behind it. As soon as I read the summary, without even going into the article itself, I thought back about the rechargeable racing cars that I had when I was a kid -- put two D batteries in the charger, plug the cable into the little racing car, hold the button for one minute to charge the car, put it on the plastic Hot Wheels track, and let it speed along. It always fascinated me how I could recharge the car over and over again. Granted, this was the early 1980s, but it was one of those things that got me interested in science -- how the hell does this silly car work?
Now rechargeable batteries are the norm. But "rechargable" hydrogen? I can see where the kids of today (and maybe even some adults) would take an interest in this and think about getting involved in expanding it on a larger scale. I even like the thought about how this technology could be used to reduce the amount of batteries that get thrown into landfills every year.
Of course, having worked with hydrolysis in 7th grade, science class might give me a bit more interest in this than it would most people.
I am a hard-core AMD and nVidia fan. I don't have any Intel PCs in my house except those that I got as freebies, and I've never had good luck with *any* ATI card. I cringe in fear at what would (or at least could) happen to my gaming systems of the future if ATI and AMD merge. Yes, I can see some type of exclusivity where ATI cards are going to somehow be more advantageous than nVidia when it comes to gaming hardware for reasons other than plain, old competition.
Damn. This worries me
The definition of "witch hunt" in this case is far more accurate than you might think.
From Answers.com (emphasis mine):
witch-hunt also witch hunt (wch'hnt') n.
An investigation carried out ostensibly to uncover subversive activities but actually used to harass and undermine those with differing views.
witchhunter witch'-hunt'er n.
witchhunting witch'-hunt'ing adj. & n.
Mind telling again me how this is not an accurate term?
*sigh* And of course, "you're" is supposed to be "your". Oh, well. It's late on a Friday afternoon. That can forgive a lot. :)
Then again, such misspellings are the norm around here anyway. >:)
I am so sick and tired of hearing that this is a "truth-in-labeling" violation! This was nothing more than a "protect the children" witch hunt!
The segment in question was included but was never meant to be accessed! It took someone else's hack, which might or might not have been in violation of the game's EULA, to release it. Therefore, the accessibility to that whole section of code was not authorized by Take Two or Rockstar. Yet they were made the scapegoat in nothing more that a politically-charged witch hunt. There was abosultely NO REASON for Take Two/Rockstar to disclose that information because they had NO EXPECTATION that it would ever been seen by any customer.
For example, let's say that I included the following type of code in a huge program that I'm writing. (No comments about the Perl. I'm just making an example.)
$ESRB = "Neutral";
if ($ESRB eq "Evil") {
print "The ESRB is a bunch of fucking, holier-than-thou, moralistic morons.\n";
print "And you're mother's ugly, too.\n";
}
Obviously, that code is never meant to be seen because $ESRB is being explicity set to bypass the if statement. So, I compile the whole program, with the code that was never meant to be seen, get a "T" rating for the whole program, and release the program. In my EULA is an explicit statement that no one is allowed to modify the code.
Then some moron sees it in the compiled code and releases an unauthorized hack to change $ESRB to "Evil". Suddenly, there's a big bruhaha because it should have been "M" due to the language of the code.
Now the ESRB and Thompson are on my case for not revealing the code that was in there. WHY? The code was never meant to be seen - not even as an Easter egg. There is no reasonable expectation of me letting the ESRB know that the code was in there because there was no reasonable expectation that it would ever be seen. Someone went in without my permission and modified the code to see something that was never meant to be seen.
There is no reason why Take Two/Rockstar should be held accountable for the release of something that was never meant to be available in the first place. This was nothing close to a "truth-in-labeling" violation. It was a do-gooder, "for the sake of the children", witch hunt. Rockstar took the high road and just let it slide, which was probably the best PR they could have done, but they were nothing more than a scapegoat.
I see nothing wrong with episodic content as long as its applicable to the game. I don't think that most games would do well in an episodic format, but for some games it might work, depending on the genre, cost, and time between releases. Graphic adventures are probably the best suited to this.
Small developers certainly can use episodic releases to their advantage. For example, if a small developer waited to release the whole thing and the game was releases with a ton of bugs or other issues that gamers don't like, the company is dead, and the customer is pissed that he spent $50 on a bug-ridden piece of shit, e.g. Ultima: Ascension. (I'm not saying that U:A would have worked in an episodic format, mind you. NOTHING could have saved it from the completely irresponsible ways that EA managed that project.)
At least with episodic content, the developers can get a bit of money up front to keep them going and the gamers get the opportunity to say, "Well, here's where you had problems" or "I didn't like..." and the developers can fix the issue or make changes based on user feedback into the next episode. Meanwhile, the customer only spent $15 or so. So the remaining episodes could be tweaked to implement the fixes/changes with less egg on the developers' faces than if they released the whole game with the same bugs and problems for 3x the price or more.
Personally, the anti-episodic attitudes that I read about seem to stem more from a selfish "I want it and I want it ALL NOW!!!" attitude that doesn't help anyone.
And need I remind you that PJ's Lord of the Rings trilogy was episodic with two books released in movie format every year. (LotR was actually six books, not three.) Yet no one seemed to bitch about how that was handled. I never heard anyone complain that PJ should have finished all three, then released them. But video games, which are no more or less of an entertainment medium, are held to a completely different standard. Interesting.
And therefore it is his responsibility to LEARN that he made that mistake and be cautious not to make it again. It is NOT his responsibility to say, "Hey, I can't (or don't want to) learn that, so I expect you to treat my spelling as accurate!" That's what this whole thing is about, isn't it?
Come back and see all of us when you achieve perfection in all things. Considering that you don't even have the balls to post with your real account, I'm guessing that you won't be claiming perfection any time soon.
Mod points! Mod points! My kingdom for some mod points! Translation: People are looking for an excuse to become irresponsible and stupid. Our parents, grandparents, etc. had no problem with the language, yet for some reason our generation is (somehow) too stupid to learn the language, so we need to dumb it down, which should not be encouraged.
Yes, the adventure genre had its golden hour back in the Sam and Max/Monkey Island days, but there are still companies that are dedicated to the genre. For example, I can't wait for the guys at TellTale to release their first Sam and Max episode. (This is the company that was formed by those who were on the Sam and Max sequel team when LucasArts idiotically abandoned their Sam and Max development when it was estimated to be 90% finished.)
You're not going to make a successful adventure game for $10 million. But you can certainly make successful one for one or $2 million.
This really sums up the problem with the current video game industry. The big wigs apparently have this ridiculous attitude that spending more will mean earning more, but only with certain genres. Otherwise, it's just not worth it because they apparently believe that they "have" to spend big bucks. Look at how many licenses are purchased every year, particularly from sports organizations. You can't tell me that in all circumstances changing the offical logos, changing the names of the players, getting very talented voice actors who sound like the real announcers but cost 1/10th a much, but keeping the exact same game play suddenly means death for the game. People want games that they can play and enjoy. Changing a name from NFL to "Pro-Football" thereby saving who knows how many millions in licensing costs might turn a few narrow-minded morons away, but if the game is really good, people will buy it. History has shown that time and time again. A probably-now-forgotten company originally called "Apogee" comes to mind.
And that brings up another question. Does he really need a publisher? With electronic distributions as popular as they are, the increase in the number of people who have broadband, and the increasing popularity of delivery methods like Steam, does any game company really need a distributor to hold them back from at least an initial release - just enough to get the word spreading about the games that he releases? Again, look at Apgoee and its associated company iD, both of which were very popular from the electronic/shareware release method. No, it won't work with all types of games, but in this world of broadband and the Internet, where we only had dial-up and BBSes, I think that electronic distributin has a much better opportunity for success than ever.
Just my two cents.
You only view people as disliking WGA only if they have something to hide. Screw principle. People who don't like it obviously fear it, right? What does that say about you, besides stating the obvious fact that you're a flamebaiting troll?
I don't think that the summary was accurate to the article itself. The article talked about the need to have a level of satisfaction when our expectations are met from having an immersive environment. That's not restricted to the horror genre of games as the summary implies. Every genre of games requires a level of satisfaction when our expectations are met or the game will get panned by players and critics. I use that abomination of Ultima: Ascension as the prime example of a game that completely failed to meet expectations and therefore generated no satisfaction. That article also mentions GTA. I wouldn't exactly call that a horror game.
There are some classic games that are so much fun, not so much from a playability standpoint but from an entire experience. I am a great fan of the Max Payne, Thief, and Splinter Cell series. Lots of great suspense and dark gameplay, but they pulled you into their environments, which is one of the key factors in the success of games of that nature.
Honestly, I think that the editors need to be a bit more accurate in the description of the articles. I was about to go on a huge rant about the bullsh*t that we need to be scared in order to derive pleasure from games until I actually RTFA.
I'll grant you that. Regardless, Reagan was very much anti-big government. He bashed the notion of bigger government and warned of the problems associated with bigger government, such as interference in areas where they don't belong and the devaluing of individual freedoms, very often. That's primarily what I was referring to because the current administration doesn't give a flying fsck about individual freedoms. I voted for Dr. Jekyl not realizing until too late that Mr. Hyde was just beneath the surface. Bastard.
I'll grant you that, but they still should not be punished by having their market potential slashed if they don't submit, and you know that they will. If anything, they should be given PR credit for submitting, but they should not be punished for not submitting, and that's just around the corner, I'm sure, if it's not already here.
Sadly, the Reagan Republican movement, which stressed smaller government, died with Reagan.
And to those who are just looking for an excuse to spout anti-Republican diatribes, don't bother. We are all aware that Slashdot is a bastion of liberalism who loves nothing more than a good Republican bashing, but nowadays there is really nothing that separates the two parties. They're all the same except for their extremist fringes. The point that I'm making is that the Republicans that are inside of the Washington beltway are no longer Republicans except in name. Sadly, I don't know what they are anymore because they've all abandoned the principles that should be guiding the Republican party. Mod me off-topic. I don't care. That doesn't make what I've said any less true.
Someone also needs to slap the parents across the face and stop them from buying these games for their kids if they disagree with the content.
That, however, is sickeningly true. You need to be modded +1 If Only We Could for that line.
Vance says the ESRB has the power to enforce up to $1 million in monetary fines for the 'most egregious offenses,'
I really hate that non-government entities have the power to place massive fines. Really. The ESRB is a voluntary rating system. No game company is required by any law that I'm aware of to submit their games to any ratings system. Ah, but then the game company is given bad public relations if they don't submit because of the likelihood of extremist, "pro-family" organizations and activist lawmakers like Tompson (and possibly the ESRB itself) accusing them of having something to hide even they have nothing to hide but don't want to submit to a rating on principle.
The ESRB is now no different than the MPAA. No legal bindings; a completely voluntary system. But if you don't submit your material for ratings you risk getting banned by the outlets that you would depend on for selling your products. And of course by submitting your material you agree to be subjected to any fines that the ratings boards feels it can place upon you.
The ESRB is starting to join the RIAA and MPAA in their mob-like demeanor. {Don Corleone voice} You either submit your material for us to place our beloved rating or else you won't work again in this town. This is an offer that you really can't refuse. {/voice}
*sigh* Money and power. Ba-a-a-a-d combination. Sadly, the MPAA, RIAA, and now ESRB have both.
To allay early community concerns that the process of getting external code contributions accepted was taking too long,
You're kidding, right? Solaris is one of the most mature operating systems out there. It runs some of the most powerful servers on the face of the planet. It is the core for a number of institutions, especially in the financial sector. I am not over-dramatizing when I say that Solaris runs a hell of a lot of crucial systems that make our lives easier in a lot of different ways.
That being the case, do these people really think that Sun is just going to say, "Oh, I see. You tested it in a limited fashion and we tested it in a limited fashion in the matter of a few months. Okay, we'll release it to the customers who run massive databases and financial applications on our servers because of a few months of limited testing." I would much prefer Sun take a year if need be to make sure that any modifications will be completely compatible with as many of their customers and equipment as possible, particularly the higher-end systems and major corporate environments.
I understand and share a lot of the aggravation that people feel when it comes to the lack of features, particularly device drivers, in Solaris. This is the one of the main reasons wy I think that Solaris has become so niche, particularly on the x86 side of things. If we're talking about modification to a common tool or enhancements to a graphical interface, okay, I don't see why it would take a year. But if Sun needs a year to make sure that a new device driver doesn't crash a SunFire 25K running a clustered Oracle server during end-of-month, transaction processing, then I'll grant Sun that year.
But it did. If you played through the game the way that Rockstar had intended and the way that the released the code, you never would have seen it. It wasn't even there as an Easter Egg. It was abandoned code that was deactivated and reactivated only by a third party, unauthorized hack. Why is that possibly considered to be false advertising when it was code that would never have been accessible?
How does this crap get modded up? This was the FTC, not the FCC that dealt with Howard Stern.
All right! All right! I already admitted that I goofed up on that one! Brother!
No. You are wrong. The right to not be deceived by false advertising is a right, not a privilege. If a product advertises a certain feature, it better well have it. In this case, the producers of the game made certain statements about their product, which led to the rating they received, which turned out to be false. The game did not comply with the standards for the advertised rating.
Bull! That code was never meant to be an accessible part of the game by anything that the user would have done through normal means! It was inaccessible when using the game as intended. Only by a third party hack without the approval of Rockstar was it even made available!
I've used the example before and I still stand behind it! If I made a program that as intended is a family game, but I have vulgar code comments that got compiled into the executable and some hacker releases the comment through an unauthorized hack. I advertisied the game as a family game, which is was, but some hacker makes a hack that makes it not-so-family-friendly. It wasn't meant to be an accessible part of the game, so there was no reason whatsoever to advertise it. How does that possibly mean that I am somehow responsible for false advertising?!
Exactly how was that false advertising? There was a segment in there that was never meant to be used that was exploited by code that was not authorized by Rockstar!
Let's say that I make a family game that's rated "E" that if played as is has nothing offensive, but in the code are some comments with vulgarities in them. Some hacker makes an unauthorized mod that uncomments those comments. Now that vulgarity is available and can be displayed even though it was commented out. Yet I submitted my game to the ESRB, told them what it was about, gave them copies to rate it, and it cleary deserved "E". How can it possibly considered to be "false advertising" that someone without my authorization hacked my code to make a comment seen that was never supposed to be seen?
Sheesh.
As I said in my reply to myself, I'm in need of more late-afternoon caffeine. I realized small errors (cough) like that after I hit "Submit". Oh, well.
But in reality they're not all that different when it comes to this kid of issue. Both are government agencies that are responsible for various aspect of in this case communication. One handles the regulation of media over the airwaves; the other handles in this case the regulation of over physical goods.
I still think that this was a major CYA on their part.
Antucally
:)
Christ! If that's not an indication that I need to buy more Penguin Mints, I don't know what is. If anyone can translate that for me, I'd appreciate it. I think I meant to say "actually", but upon looking at that, I'm not quite sure.
As indicated above, this is a slap on the wrists. Considering the Nazi-like ways that the FTC has handled "oscenity" issues in the past, like Howard Stern, this is mild! I wonder if this is more becuase they're covering their asses. Let's face facts. They got a ton of criticism because of the way that they handled this. That wasn't a Rockstar release. It was a third party hack. Lots of games have third party hacks that allow this. That doesn't mean that it was done with the approval of the game maker. If a programmer puts an inappropriate comment in a program that will never be displayed but someone gets offended when trying to illegally hack the code, should the company be sued?
... at least for now.
Antucally, this kind of ruling sets a precedence that almost makes it seem like a possible marketing tactic: Hey, if we don't announce this and someone finds out, we could make a huge increase in sales from the publicity and only pay an $11,000 fine! It's costs more to advertize in major gaming magazines!
I will take exception with one this that was said (emphasis mine):
Parents have the right to rely on the accuracy of the entertainment rating system.
Bullsh*t. Parents have the privilege to rely on the accuracy of the entertainment rating system. Just like the movie rating system, these rating are not enacted by laws. They are not legal rights as the ESRB is not an institution that was empowered by a government act! Stop calling them "rights"!! Sorry,folks. Pet peeve, but there is a major difference between a right and a privilege
...which means that Verizon will be more than happy to charge $xx per hour to run a new cable or splice together the old cable.
Hey, buddy, if youz wanna sell your house, youz gonna have ta ante up to get dat cable run to you house again, capisce?
A friend of mine lives over in Verizon-land on the other side of town and he just got FIOS at 5Mbps for about half the cost of cable. I got a notice in the mail yesterday saying that Comcast was upgrading the cable broadband to 6Mbps.
... Comcast is upgrading cable to 6 MB? Please check the postmark on that envelope. Comcast has been touting 6Mbps as their base speed for well over a year even on their internal newsgroups. Their new speed boost, trial runs in New England are now experimenting with 12Mbps for their basic broadband subscriptions and 16Mbps for their premium subscriptions. Are you sure that you're being upgraded to 6Mbps?
Wait a minute