.. that only people in a shirt and tie or similar "professional" dress are capable of performing their assigned duties to which they agreed when they signed the employment contract. After all, how many of us completely lose the mental faculties (alcohol not withstanding) to do our jobs as soon as we get home and get the jeans and t-shirt on? Come on, raise your hands! { watching tumbleweed blow by }
So, basicaly what the author of the original article is saying is the following:
open source + casual dress = no credibility regardless of the quality of work
open source + "professional" dress = complete credibility regardless of the quality of work
Someone needs to do a study on this. I'm fascinated by the attitiude that some people have that the design of the cotton on the outside of our skin somehow has a direct correlation on the ability for us to maintain our servers through open source. It must be some kind of intellectually stimulating chemical that is weaved into the fibers of "professional" clothing that we absorb through our skin whereas casual dress does the opposite.
I don't know if your statement about not being marketable was just a quip or not, but it's completely wrong. 3D was a huge sensation in the 1950s, so it certainly can be marketable.
The problem nowadays is that 3D production suffers from several things:
Right now, 3D is relegated to crap movies or movies to kids. Look at the titles that have been produced in 3D in the past 20 years: Friday the 13th, part 3 - Oh, yeah. Great family film. Jaws 3 - A 3D turd. Spy Kids - Cheesy kid flick
and a few others, primarily for kids.
I am not including 3D IMAX movies because those are not in the same realm as traditional theatrical movies, and IMAX movies are not available in every city or town like general cinemas are.
The second problem is that the 3D method that is most often used is red/blue anaglyph, which is known to cause headaches in many people and is not a very effective means on producing 3D, although the technology for red/blue has actually improved over the past 10 years.
The most effective methods are the original IMAX alternating LED glasses, but that technology is very expensive, or polarization where the glasses look like regular, clear glasses. Polarization is by far the most effective method and VERY cheap comparatively speaking. All that the theatres need is a special dual-lens adapter for the projector to project a regular frame and a polarized frame onto the same screen. (At least that's what the theatre that I once worked for used.)
What has been slowing 3D down is that it is not cheap to produce; however, with the advent of digital technology I find that this reason is growing to be more and more specious. When 3D was done on film, yes, you would need twice as much film, twice as much editing, and so forth. With digital technology, you need twice as many hard drive storage (if recorded that way) with a dual-lens camera. There are plenty of softare products out there to do red/blue, 3D conversion based on two separate images. Just apply that same technology to the frames of synchronized movie files instead of an individual picture to create a red/blue frame or to create a split frame to be used with polarizing projector lenses.
Going back to previously-made, 2D movies and converting them could probably be done with some inventive technologies, but still requires a great deal of manual work. A human will have to sit down, set the depth of field, isolate the various depths for each element in the scene, and so forth. It can be done, it's just immensely time consuming. I don't doubt that software can be written to do it, though, if it doesn't already exist. If Photoshop can isolate an section of a frame based on specified critera, like color, I'm sure that an algorithm could be written for the same thing in movies. If the isolated section gets bigger, bring the object closer, and so forth.
With today's technology, 3D movies would be *very* easy to do - much easier to do than ever before. Unfortunately, 3D has been unfairly relegated to cheesy kid flicks, pathetic "horror" flicks, or limited-interest movies for IMAX. But 3D could make a huge return if the movie makers really wanted it to.
That being said, I think that 3D sports is an excellent idea. The only drawbacks are that it's not in your own home and the extra costs. Otherwise, you've got a REALLY big screen, surround sound in most theatres, if the 3D is done properly you could have a better view of the game than the people in the stadium, you don't have to fight with stadium traffic, and you don't have to walk 1/2 mile to go to the bathroom.
The janitorial staff will deserve a huge raise, however.
This is one of the silliest things I've heard in a long time for a multitude of reasons.
First, it assumes that companies are willing to share their gaming technology and infrastructure. That alone cancels it out. Do people really think that EA is going to make the server and game specifications, possibly the source code itself, for Battlefield 2020 available to be licensed by competing gaming companies so that Diablo VII can interact with it - and vice versa? After all, if you're going to cross into another games' realm, that realm would have to look as though you were playing it through the other game for it to be convincing.
Also, would all of the worlds in this "common architecture" and their graphical components (models, textures, and so forth) have to be loaded on my system or will I have to wait while several hundreds of GB are downloaded? I personally don't want to see "Now integrated with Common Architecture(TM)! Comes on seven BluRay discs with all of the components of other Common Architecture(TM) games right on your system!" This would of course require the necessary system requirements of 400 GB of hard drive space.
Then comes the corporate politics of who will be responsible for connectivity between the various games. "Well, it's not our problem that our game servers are not communicating. Contact the other company." "No, our network is running fine! It's a connectivity problem on their end."
Of course, the cost of development must come into play. Does it make sense to have to disparate games that communicate together and effectively end up looking and playing the game and risk the inter-corporate political BS that will undoubtedly ensue?
But on a more practical level, if I want to play a Star Wars game, I obviously want that kind of environment! To even suggest that I'd want to take a Star Wars character and interact with an EverQuest character is nonsense! If I want EverQuest, I'll load EverQuest.
And shall we guess how a bug in one developer's coding might disrupt the gameplay of the other developers' products?
I can understand perhaps bridging the gap between play systems, such as allowing players of the same game on the PS3, Xbox, and PC game together. In fact, EA is already exploring that possibility based on a few customer surveys I've received from them. I can even understand different games from different developers under the same publisher, but only as a fun, side benefit that does not encompass the entire game.
But bridging the gap between games and companies in order to form a "common architecture"? I'd rather just have a "common artchitecture" under one game company with the inherent benefits (and drawbacks) of only having to deal with that company instead of the massive potential for the blame game to kick in. Otherwise, how is this "common architecture" going to be nothing more than the same damned game from different publishers?
No, thanks. I'll pass. I don't know what the author of the article was smoking, but that must be some really good shit.
An UltraSPARK? Don't be daft, man! It's the flash you get from plugging a 220V power cable into a 120V peripheral that's mounted within a Sun rack/cabinet.
Er... not that I've... ever... done such a thing... mind you... *ahem*
And for up-to-the-minute, insightful news and commentary from a highly reputable and credible source, I highly recommend this site. It is almost as credible as physics911 when it comes to political conspiracies and those who thrive on them.
It's unbelievably sad that you're so desperate to show your hatred for the Bush administration that you'll consider physics911 to actually be credible when several other sites, not the least of which include Snopes, have debunked these ridiculous conspiracies numerous times.
No, he apparently gets paid to proselytize that if you are against DRM in any way for any reason, you're a low-life, scumbag pirate who wrings your hands wondering from your waking hour how you can steal money from the artists' pockets. This also includes reasons that are 100% legal and are not meant to deprive artists of their rightful due, such as making backups for personal use. Doesn't matter. If you're against DRM, you're a pirate in his eyes.
Think that's flamebait? Look at ANY post that he makes regarding DRM. He's a pro-DRM extremist and if you gdon't agree with him, he does everything that he can to label you a thief.
Um... economics. Don't spend money if you don't have to. Making DVDs is a lot more than just the cost of the glass master and replication. Distribution, packaging, marketing, middle-man mark-ups, not to mention remastering the disc contents themselves.
Too many people see the costs of manufacturing DVDs, and that's it. That's a fraction of the cost just to get the disc to the manufacturing phase.
That's all the more reason why Warner made bad choices. Those three movies will not get anywhere close to the returns that other movies, like those I mentioned, would have. For example, we all know fanatics who would rush to buy HD-DVD if The Lord of the Rings was the first movie on HD-DVD. How many fanatics do you know who will do the same thing for Million Dollar Baby?
I honestly don't know why I'm even bothering to reply to an extremist like you, particularly since it won't mean a thing. But I really am fed up with extemists in the DRM argument -- on both sides. Both paint with huge brushes; both act like what the other side it doing is on par with genocide; both are incredibly narrow-minded in their views.
All of the audio CDs in my car are duplicates of CDs that I purchased so that I don't have to expose my originals to unnecessary risk, whether it's from temperature extremes in the car or from someone breaking into my car. My originals are safely tucked away in my CD rack at home. When I travel, I convert whatever movies I might want to watch to Divx, put them on a CD or DVD, and leave my originals at home - safe and sound. God forbid that I want to take the same care with the next generation of DVD.
Yet, thanks to arrogant extremists like you, the studios are convinced that the only reason for me to dislike obtrusive DRM is for piracy. Your incompetence really knows no bounds.
Between the unethical morons who refuse to pay for anything if they can download it and the unethical morons like you who auomatically equate any dislike towards DRM with a desire to pirate, it's no wonder that the people who only want to be able to use material that they purchased as they want for their personal use are the ones who keep getting screwed in the DRM battle.
HD-DVD has been coming out for a long time now, and when I last checked Warner owns the largest CD and DVD manufacturing plant in the United States, located just outside of Scranton, PA. Assuming that they do still own that facility, they could very well have done whatever is necessary to get more product out if they really wanted to.
Additionally, I can't imagine that anyone would spend the money to purchase equipment with movies that they very likely will not want just for the sake of having that movie in HD, especially with a format war on the horizon. That attitude goes against the vast majority of early technology adopters. Bleeding-edge videophiles want something, yes, but they want something to show off their new technology. None of those movies would really be adequate to do that IMHO. Sci-fi, action, fantasy, and other movies that depend on richly-detailed and highly colorful visuals would be far more appropriate. Okay, perhaps The Last Samurai might fit that category, but I still don't think that that movie has a broad and fnaatical fan base to warrant people buying an HD-DVD player just for that one movie.
But Million Dollar Baby? Hell, they might as well release The NeverEnding Story!
Um... The Star Wars franchise is owned by 20th Century Fox, which is owned by Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation. Warner Brothers is owned by Time Warner.
The studio will now release just three initial HD-DVD titles on April 18: Clint Eastwood's Best Pic Oscar winner 'Million Dollar Baby,' the Tom Cruise starrer 'The Last Samurai' and the big-budget screen update of 'The Phantom of the Opera.' Each title will have a retail list price of $28.98.
The three that you mention are supposed to be available "in the coming weeks" but "no street date has been set". Don't count on anything coming out until you get the official press release. And don't be surprised that those movies are not released for a long time if HD-DVD acceptance is lukewarm or colder.
I'm as big a movie fan and geek as anyone. I've got my HD-ready 55" widescreen TV that is aching to take advantage of 720p or 1080i in native resolution, not scaled-up DVD resolution. But frankly I am in no rush for either format to come out for several reasons, not the least of which is the DRM that they're trying to push.
Could it be that perhaps Warner is worried about falling into the same trap that Microsoft fell into by rushing the Xbox 360 to market? Any failings during the official release HD-DVD will be fodder for Sony. If Warner releases their movies and HD-DVD bombs, that's obviously their lost money. They're feeling the water of HD-DVD because, let's face it, Blu-Ray appears to have the most popularity from both a technical and exposure perspective. Sony's recent statement that they will no longer force analog down-converting also helps to bolster their high-def DVD position.
What I'm surprised at is that Warner is releasing movies that really should not be on the forefront of high-def showcasing. If you want a format to succeed, you support it with movies that not only show off what the format can do but also are what have a large fan base! Warner is not doing HD-DVD any service with the titles they're releasing. Million Dollar Baby? The Last Samurai? Phantom of the Opera? Oh my f**king God!!! What the HELL is Warner thinking?!
The people who would buy HD-DVD are those who are movie aficionados, technical geeks, or both. The Matrix should be first and foremost one of the top three HD-DVD releases if Warner really wants to help to push the HD-DVD format into people's homes! Come on! Warner owns New Line Cinema! Why for the love of Pete is the Lord of the Rings trilogy not one of the first releases!
Warner might be delaying to feel the HD-DVD water before taking a dive, but with movies like those three, that's water's going to be REALLY cold, and they're obviously not helping to warm it up! With the movies they're releasing, they're not going to convince anyone to spend the money for HD-DVD.
HA! And now you're so upset that you made me a foe? That's funny! Oh, please grow up. If you can't take an opposing view, what the hell are you doing on Slashdot? Yeah, watch me lose sleep because you're acting like a spoiled child.
I you feel the need to make such a RIDICULOUS statement, you obviously have never assumed the Commander role in BF2, which is pretty much required in single-player mode.
I've heard that from a lot of people, but I've never played Baldur's Gate, so I have no basis for comparison. I enjoyed NWN a great deal and spent many an hour going through that, trying to complete every subquest. YMMV, of course.
People don't like to play against bots because they suck.
That's your opinion - not undisputed fact. If you don't like it, then don't use it! Just because you don't like it doesn't mean that it sucks nor does it mean that others who DO like it should be deprived of the ability to play it that way.
The fun and challenge of Battlefield 2 is the coordination and teamplay required to be sucessful.
R-i-i-i-i-ight. Because there is absolutely no need for coordination or team play in the single-player mode or any potential LAN team mode against bots. Nuh uh. Nope. None at all.
{ roll eyes }
At least computer opponents don't bunny hop*, dolphin dive*, base camp, intentionally team kill, punish for completely accidental team kills, or hover over the enemy helicopter pad for the sole purpose of blowing up the enemy helicopter the instant that it appears. Yessir-ee! Lots of successful, team coordination there, boy.
And you wonder why some people actually prefer bots from time to time?
* Removed or severely hampered in recent patches -- thankfully.
It's somewhat ironic that you say that because every Saturday (for the past two or three years) I've been playing "us vs. bots" Ghost Recon (the original version plus Desert Siege/Island Thunder and various mod packs) with my nephew and a friend of mine in North Carolina. Strategic team play vs. bots (plus respawn) is exactly why we keep going for GR, rather than try to find a BF2 server that can fit all three of us and hope beyond hopes that we all somehow end up on the same team. Screw that.
Ghost Recon gives us a strategic FPS that lets the gameplay be "us versus the rest of the world", which is exactly what we like. Hopefully, GR:Advanced Warfighter will continue that trend. Otherwise, it will sit on the shelf as far as the three of us are concerned.
Glad to see that I'm not the only one who (horrors!! ) actually likes team play other than deathmatch.
He echoed exactly what I've been completely frustrated with for YEARS. He is absolutely right that there are few, quality single-player games out there of recent release. Yes, I can always go "back" to games like NeverWinter Nights, the Splinter Cell or Thief series for first-player immersion, but there have not been a lot of games as of late that are single-player and provide the depth of games like the single-player games of the past.
If I may somewhat add to his statements, however, I am particularly frustrated by the notion that somehow it has become impossible to allow human team vs. bots in multiplayer. I really was frustrated by this with Return to Castle Wolfenstein and more recently Battlefield 2. The notion that multiplayer in a LAN environment where it's just you and friends on a team versus a number of bots seems to be an anathema in gaming circles any more. Apparently, the rest of the gaming community wants deathmatch or team deathmatch against other humans, and that's all - or so the developers seem to think.
It's ridiculous to me that a game like Battlefield 2 will allow me to go single player, which is made of me and my team bots vs. enemy bots; but God forbid that anyone would have thought to allow me and my human team against enemy bots in a BF2 LAN session*. No, no! No one ever does that any more! And don't tell me that programming the AI is an issue. Games have been allowing team LAN for over a decade. If the enemy AI can go after one person (me) and my team bots, I can't believe that it's so difficult to add another human target for the enemy to go after.
* Actually, you can get limited LAN play in BF2 by starting a single-player game and having other LAN members connect directly to the "server" via the Connect to IP function. Works fairly well. That doesn't explain why such a feature was never officially supported by EA.
So, he really hit two critical points with me: the lack of immersive, single-player games and half-thought-out multiplayer games that do not provide the full options that multipler games should have. It's so nice to hear a heavy-hitter in the industry say what I've been saying for years. Maybe that will give the issues some credibility with game designers.
They're RIGHT! Violence in video games does translate to violence in real life!
Why, just yesterday I flew a Cobra attack helicopter in real life against MEC foes! Not only did BF2 cause me to learn how to fly Cobra attack helicopters, it also helped me to learn racism against Middle Easterns and Chinese! Damned foreigners keep trying to take my fu*king base! Die, die, DIE!!
My hatred for minotaurs and other such creatures has SOARED because of so many times playing NeverWinter Nights. My +2 Longsword (nothing to do with Viagara, thank you) should be in in a few days, and if it's not I'll slash the delivery person with it when it finally arrives. If he's Chinese or Middle Eastern, he's really in trouble.
Of course, my absolute hatred for Nazis was at its peak during the days of Castle Wolfenstein. I want to kill all of them because of that game. In fact, my flight to Brazil leaves in a few days. I found out that some survivors are hiding down there and my Wolfenstein-induced blood rage is starting to take over. Grrrrr....
And you don't know how many people died in my neighborhood with a crowbar after I played HL and HL2.
So, I'm quite certain that when I play Bully I'll want to go to the local high school and just beat the sh*t out of the kids until there's nothing but a pasty, red film on the basketball court. And, hey, with violent video games as my scapegoat, I'll get off with a warning while the Bully developers go to jail!
No, that's not my right eyelid twinging. It's your imagination. { wiping drool off of chin }
Disclaimer: To Jack Thompson and the DHS, this is what's called "sarcasm". Look it up.
I never said or implied that they couldn't defend themselves. They just better be prepared for attacks because of their guild and not act surprised or demand special treatment because of their guild code. Political history is loaded with people getting "in your face" then turning around when there's a backlash against their attitude and claiming that they're being persecuted because of some kind of "-ism" (racism, sexism) or "-phobia".
All I'm saying is that if they're going to get in people's faces, they need to be prepared for the consequences and responsibilities of doing such. As long as they don't get in people's faces, no big deal as far as I'm concerned.
So, you can lower your defense shields now. I wasn't attacking. Sheesh.
Definite agreement here. There must be responsibility on the part of any guild who would do such a thing. Honestly, how would any guild advertise something that goes against many people's societal norms and NOT expect to be targeted for it? I personally don't care as long as they don't pull an "in your face" attitude about their guild; but we all know, whether from experience or reading of others' experiences, that there are people out there who will cause problems anyway. Just being realistic here, folks.
Blizzard did the right thing by backtracking the way they did, but that doesn't mean that guilds should go advertising thier "differences" given this Blizzard reversal. They'll just be trouble magnets for less scrupulous people, particularly those that can now hide behind the anonymity of the Internet. Sadly, I would not be surprised if there are guilds in formation now with the sole purpose of targeting any openly gay guild.
This is so deserving. Richard Garriot almost single-handedly brought fantasy out of the closet spaces of D&D fans into the mainstream gaming realm. Back when most computer games were text adventures or side-scrollers, he brought fantasy gameplay that could last thousands of hours in incredibly detailed and story-rich worlds.
I remember when Ultima V came out for the Commodore 64. If you booted the same discs on a Commodore 128, you got to listen to music throughout the game. Even small things like that helped to impress me more.
I still have the boxed editions for several versions of the Ultima series, not only because I just can't seem to part with them (in some vain idea that I might play them again) but because he also included those extras that helped to bring the game to the real world. The cloth map that came with the later Ultima games was unheard of 15 or 20 years ago, and the trinket that was somehow tied to the story always added to the "coolness" factor.
Even now, two of the ringtones on my phone are the theme from Ultima V/ VI and Stones, which is probably the most memorable of all of the Ultima songs.
Now, if only EA would give Garriott the honor of letting him go back and redo Ultima: Ascension so that it could live up to its Ultima legacy, instead of being the rushed-to-market, bug-ridden, obviously-taken-over-by-corporate-a**holes piece of crap at it was.
Congrats, Richard! We miss the stories of the Avatar!
What is this "ulterior motive" crap? That summary screams "Conspiracy!!"
I've been a gamer since the Commodore 64 days. Why do I play them? Because they're fun, perhaps? So many of these articles act like it's shocking that those who grew up gaming are (shocking!) still gaming and (more shocking!) getting their kids involved with gaming.
Why would I play games with my daughter? Because it's something that we can do together without the rigamarole of Want to play this?No.Want to play that?No. We know what games we like to play as a family, and it's at least better time than just sitting around watching TV.
Having been a gamer for 20+ years and having a wife who's really not into gaming, this is a great way for me to finally have a gaming partner. Sure, I'm not about to let my 6-year-old play Battlefield 2 (not that she could anyway), but even something as simple as Mario Kart 64 is still fun!
But for me there's an even more important aspect. Those who don't have kids - and even some parents, unfortunately - might have difficulty understanding that kids want their parents' attention. Yes, I want my BF2 time, but if given the choice between BF2 or some N64 game with my kids, the N64 will win every time. I get to have fun; my kids get to have fun; and I get to show my kids that I'm willing to spend my time doing things with them. That means a hell of a lot more to me (and my kids, I'm sure) than getting a Veteran Support Badge while my kids sit watching TV.
Slashdot Mirror
.. that only people in a shirt and tie or similar "professional" dress are capable of performing their assigned duties to which they agreed when they signed the employment contract. After all, how many of us completely lose the mental faculties (alcohol not withstanding) to do our jobs as soon as we get home and get the jeans and t-shirt on? Come on, raise your hands! { watching tumbleweed blow by }
So, basicaly what the author of the original article is saying is the following:
open source + casual dress = no credibility regardless of the quality of work
open source + "professional" dress = complete credibility regardless of the quality of work
Someone needs to do a study on this. I'm fascinated by the attitiude that some people have that the design of the cotton on the outside of our skin somehow has a direct correlation on the ability for us to maintain our servers through open source. It must be some kind of intellectually stimulating chemical that is weaved into the fibers of "professional" clothing that we absorb through our skin whereas casual dress does the opposite.
I don't know if your statement about not being marketable was just a quip or not, but it's completely wrong. 3D was a huge sensation in the 1950s, so it certainly can be marketable.
The problem nowadays is that 3D production suffers from several things:
Right now, 3D is relegated to crap movies or movies to kids. Look at the titles that have been produced in 3D in the past 20 years:
Friday the 13th, part 3 - Oh, yeah. Great family film.
Jaws 3 - A 3D turd.
Spy Kids - Cheesy kid flick
and a few others, primarily for kids.
I am not including 3D IMAX movies because those are not in the same realm as traditional theatrical movies, and IMAX movies are not available in every city or town like general cinemas are.
The second problem is that the 3D method that is most often used is red/blue anaglyph, which is known to cause headaches in many people and is not a very effective means on producing 3D, although the technology for red/blue has actually improved over the past 10 years.
The most effective methods are the original IMAX alternating LED glasses, but that technology is very expensive, or polarization where the glasses look like regular, clear glasses. Polarization is by far the most effective method and VERY cheap comparatively speaking. All that the theatres need is a special dual-lens adapter for the projector to project a regular frame and a polarized frame onto the same screen. (At least that's what the theatre that I once worked for used.)
What has been slowing 3D down is that it is not cheap to produce; however, with the advent of digital technology I find that this reason is growing to be more and more specious. When 3D was done on film, yes, you would need twice as much film, twice as much editing, and so forth. With digital technology, you need twice as many hard drive storage (if recorded that way) with a dual-lens camera. There are plenty of softare products out there to do red/blue, 3D conversion based on two separate images. Just apply that same technology to the frames of synchronized movie files instead of an individual picture to create a red/blue frame or to create a split frame to be used with polarizing projector lenses.
Going back to previously-made, 2D movies and converting them could probably be done with some inventive technologies, but still requires a great deal of manual work. A human will have to sit down, set the depth of field, isolate the various depths for each element in the scene, and so forth. It can be done, it's just immensely time consuming. I don't doubt that software can be written to do it, though, if it doesn't already exist. If Photoshop can isolate an section of a frame based on specified critera, like color, I'm sure that an algorithm could be written for the same thing in movies. If the isolated section gets bigger, bring the object closer, and so forth.
With today's technology, 3D movies would be *very* easy to do - much easier to do than ever before. Unfortunately, 3D has been unfairly relegated to cheesy kid flicks, pathetic "horror" flicks, or limited-interest movies for IMAX. But 3D could make a huge return if the movie makers really wanted it to.
That being said, I think that 3D sports is an excellent idea. The only drawbacks are that it's not in your own home and the extra costs. Otherwise, you've got a REALLY big screen, surround sound in most theatres, if the 3D is done properly you could have a better view of the game than the people in the stadium, you don't have to fight with stadium traffic, and you don't have to walk 1/2 mile to go to the bathroom.
The janitorial staff will deserve a huge raise, however.
This is one of the silliest things I've heard in a long time for a multitude of reasons.
First, it assumes that companies are willing to share their gaming technology and infrastructure. That alone cancels it out. Do people really think that EA is going to make the server and game specifications, possibly the source code itself, for Battlefield 2020 available to be licensed by competing gaming companies so that Diablo VII can interact with it - and vice versa? After all, if you're going to cross into another games' realm, that realm would have to look as though you were playing it through the other game for it to be convincing.
Also, would all of the worlds in this "common architecture" and their graphical components (models, textures, and so forth) have to be loaded on my system or will I have to wait while several hundreds of GB are downloaded? I personally don't want to see "Now integrated with Common Architecture(TM)! Comes on seven BluRay discs with all of the components of other Common Architecture(TM) games right on your system!" This would of course require the necessary system requirements of 400 GB of hard drive space.
Then comes the corporate politics of who will be responsible for connectivity between the various games. "Well, it's not our problem that our game servers are not communicating. Contact the other company." "No, our network is running fine! It's a connectivity problem on their end."
Of course, the cost of development must come into play. Does it make sense to have to disparate games that communicate together and effectively end up looking and playing the game and risk the inter-corporate political BS that will undoubtedly ensue?
But on a more practical level, if I want to play a Star Wars game, I obviously want that kind of environment! To even suggest that I'd want to take a Star Wars character and interact with an EverQuest character is nonsense! If I want EverQuest, I'll load EverQuest.
And shall we guess how a bug in one developer's coding might disrupt the gameplay of the other developers' products?
I can understand perhaps bridging the gap between play systems, such as allowing players of the same game on the PS3, Xbox, and PC game together. In fact, EA is already exploring that possibility based on a few customer surveys I've received from them. I can even understand different games from different developers under the same publisher, but only as a fun, side benefit that does not encompass the entire game.
But bridging the gap between games and companies in order to form a "common architecture"? I'd rather just have a "common artchitecture" under one game company with the inherent benefits (and drawbacks) of only having to deal with that company instead of the massive potential for the blame game to kick in. Otherwise, how is this "common architecture" going to be nothing more than the same damned game from different publishers?
No, thanks. I'll pass. I don't know what the author of the article was smoking, but that must be some really good shit.
An UltraSPARK? Don't be daft, man! It's the flash you get from plugging a 220V power cable into a 120V peripheral that's mounted within a Sun rack/cabinet.
... not that I've ... ever ... done such a thing ... mind you ... *ahem*
Er
And for up-to-the-minute, insightful news and commentary from a highly reputable and credible source, I highly recommend this site. It is almost as credible as physics911 when it comes to political conspiracies and those who thrive on them.
It's unbelievably sad that you're so desperate to show your hatred for the Bush administration that you'll consider physics911 to actually be credible when several other sites, not the least of which include Snopes, have debunked these ridiculous conspiracies numerous times.
No, he apparently gets paid to proselytize that if you are against DRM in any way for any reason, you're a low-life, scumbag pirate who wrings your hands wondering from your waking hour how you can steal money from the artists' pockets. This also includes reasons that are 100% legal and are not meant to deprive artists of their rightful due, such as making backups for personal use. Doesn't matter. If you're against DRM, you're a pirate in his eyes.
Think that's flamebait? Look at ANY post that he makes regarding DRM. He's a pro-DRM extremist and if you gdon't agree with him, he does everything that he can to label you a thief.
Um ... economics. Don't spend money if you don't have to. Making DVDs is a lot more than just the cost of the glass master and replication. Distribution, packaging, marketing, middle-man mark-ups, not to mention remastering the disc contents themselves.
Too many people see the costs of manufacturing DVDs, and that's it. That's a fraction of the cost just to get the disc to the manufacturing phase.
That's all the more reason why Warner made bad choices. Those three movies will not get anywhere close to the returns that other movies, like those I mentioned, would have. For example, we all know fanatics who would rush to buy HD-DVD if The Lord of the Rings was the first movie on HD-DVD. How many fanatics do you know who will do the same thing for Million Dollar Baby?
I honestly don't know why I'm even bothering to reply to an extremist like you, particularly since it won't mean a thing. But I really am fed up with extemists in the DRM argument -- on both sides. Both paint with huge brushes; both act like what the other side it doing is on par with genocide; both are incredibly narrow-minded in their views.
All of the audio CDs in my car are duplicates of CDs that I purchased so that I don't have to expose my originals to unnecessary risk, whether it's from temperature extremes in the car or from someone breaking into my car. My originals are safely tucked away in my CD rack at home. When I travel, I convert whatever movies I might want to watch to Divx, put them on a CD or DVD, and leave my originals at home - safe and sound. God forbid that I want to take the same care with the next generation of DVD.
Yet, thanks to arrogant extremists like you, the studios are convinced that the only reason for me to dislike obtrusive DRM is for piracy. Your incompetence really knows no bounds.
Between the unethical morons who refuse to pay for anything if they can download it and the unethical morons like you who auomatically equate any dislike towards DRM with a desire to pirate, it's no wonder that the people who only want to be able to use material that they purchased as they want for their personal use are the ones who keep getting screwed in the DRM battle.
Fair enough. :)
Oh, please.
HD-DVD has been coming out for a long time now, and when I last checked Warner owns the largest CD and DVD manufacturing plant in the United States, located just outside of Scranton, PA. Assuming that they do still own that facility, they could very well have done whatever is necessary to get more product out if they really wanted to.
Additionally, I can't imagine that anyone would spend the money to purchase equipment with movies that they very likely will not want just for the sake of having that movie in HD, especially with a format war on the horizon. That attitude goes against the vast majority of early technology adopters. Bleeding-edge videophiles want something, yes, but they want something to show off their new technology. None of those movies would really be adequate to do that IMHO. Sci-fi, action, fantasy, and other movies that depend on richly-detailed and highly colorful visuals would be far more appropriate. Okay, perhaps The Last Samurai might fit that category, but I still don't think that that movie has a broad and fnaatical fan base to warrant people buying an HD-DVD player just for that one movie.
But Million Dollar Baby? Hell, they might as well release The NeverEnding Story!
Um ... The Star Wars franchise is owned by 20th Century Fox, which is owned by Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation. Warner Brothers is owned by Time Warner.
You need to read the article more closely.
The studio will now release just three initial HD-DVD titles on April 18: Clint Eastwood's Best Pic Oscar winner 'Million Dollar Baby,' the Tom Cruise starrer 'The Last Samurai' and the big-budget screen update of 'The Phantom of the Opera.' Each title will have a retail list price of $28.98.
The three that you mention are supposed to be available "in the coming weeks" but "no street date has been set". Don't count on anything coming out until you get the official press release. And don't be surprised that those movies are not released for a long time if HD-DVD acceptance is lukewarm or colder.
I'm as big a movie fan and geek as anyone. I've got my HD-ready 55" widescreen TV that is aching to take advantage of 720p or 1080i in native resolution, not scaled-up DVD resolution. But frankly I am in no rush for either format to come out for several reasons, not the least of which is the DRM that they're trying to push.
Could it be that perhaps Warner is worried about falling into the same trap that Microsoft fell into by rushing the Xbox 360 to market? Any failings during the official release HD-DVD will be fodder for Sony. If Warner releases their movies and HD-DVD bombs, that's obviously their lost money. They're feeling the water of HD-DVD because, let's face it, Blu-Ray appears to have the most popularity from both a technical and exposure perspective. Sony's recent statement that they will no longer force analog down-converting also helps to bolster their high-def DVD position.
What I'm surprised at is that Warner is releasing movies that really should not be on the forefront of high-def showcasing. If you want a format to succeed, you support it with movies that not only show off what the format can do but also are what have a large fan base! Warner is not doing HD-DVD any service with the titles they're releasing. Million Dollar Baby? The Last Samurai? Phantom of the Opera? Oh my f**king God!!! What the HELL is Warner thinking?!
The people who would buy HD-DVD are those who are movie aficionados, technical geeks, or both. The Matrix should be first and foremost one of the top three HD-DVD releases if Warner really wants to help to push the HD-DVD format into people's homes! Come on! Warner owns New Line Cinema! Why for the love of Pete is the Lord of the Rings trilogy not one of the first releases!
Warner might be delaying to feel the HD-DVD water before taking a dive, but with movies like those three, that's water's going to be REALLY cold, and they're obviously not helping to warm it up! With the movies they're releasing, they're not going to convince anyone to spend the money for HD-DVD.
HA! And now you're so upset that you made me a foe? That's funny! Oh, please grow up. If you can't take an opposing view, what the hell are you doing on Slashdot? Yeah, watch me lose sleep because you're acting like a spoiled child.
I you feel the need to make such a RIDICULOUS statement, you obviously have never assumed the Commander role in BF2, which is pretty much required in single-player mode.
Next time, know of something before you speak it.
I've heard that from a lot of people, but I've never played Baldur's Gate, so I have no basis for comparison. I enjoyed NWN a great deal and spent many an hour going through that, trying to complete every subquest. YMMV, of course.
People don't like to play against bots because they suck.
That's your opinion - not undisputed fact. If you don't like it, then don't use it! Just because you don't like it doesn't mean that it sucks nor does it mean that others who DO like it should be deprived of the ability to play it that way.
The fun and challenge of Battlefield 2 is the coordination and teamplay required to be sucessful.
R-i-i-i-i-ight. Because there is absolutely no need for coordination or team play in the single-player mode or any potential LAN team mode against bots. Nuh uh. Nope. None at all.
{ roll eyes }
At least computer opponents don't bunny hop*, dolphin dive*, base camp, intentionally team kill, punish for completely accidental team kills, or hover over the enemy helicopter pad for the sole purpose of blowing up the enemy helicopter the instant that it appears. Yessir-ee! Lots of successful, team coordination there, boy.
And you wonder why some people actually prefer bots from time to time?
* Removed or severely hampered in recent patches -- thankfully.
It's somewhat ironic that you say that because every Saturday (for the past two or three years) I've been playing "us vs. bots" Ghost Recon (the original version plus Desert Siege/Island Thunder and various mod packs) with my nephew and a friend of mine in North Carolina. Strategic team play vs. bots (plus respawn) is exactly why we keep going for GR, rather than try to find a BF2 server that can fit all three of us and hope beyond hopes that we all somehow end up on the same team. Screw that.
Ghost Recon gives us a strategic FPS that lets the gameplay be "us versus the rest of the world", which is exactly what we like. Hopefully, GR:Advanced Warfighter will continue that trend. Otherwise, it will sit on the shelf as far as the three of us are concerned.
Glad to see that I'm not the only one who (horrors!! ) actually likes team play other than deathmatch.
He echoed exactly what I've been completely frustrated with for YEARS. He is absolutely right that there are few, quality single-player games out there of recent release. Yes, I can always go "back" to games like NeverWinter Nights, the Splinter Cell or Thief series for first-player immersion, but there have not been a lot of games as of late that are single-player and provide the depth of games like the single-player games of the past.
If I may somewhat add to his statements, however, I am particularly frustrated by the notion that somehow it has become impossible to allow human team vs. bots in multiplayer. I really was frustrated by this with Return to Castle Wolfenstein and more recently Battlefield 2. The notion that multiplayer in a LAN environment where it's just you and friends on a team versus a number of bots seems to be an anathema in gaming circles any more. Apparently, the rest of the gaming community wants deathmatch or team deathmatch against other humans, and that's all - or so the developers seem to think.
It's ridiculous to me that a game like Battlefield 2 will allow me to go single player, which is made of me and my team bots vs. enemy bots; but God forbid that anyone would have thought to allow me and my human team against enemy bots in a BF2 LAN session*. No, no! No one ever does that any more! And don't tell me that programming the AI is an issue. Games have been allowing team LAN for over a decade. If the enemy AI can go after one person (me) and my team bots, I can't believe that it's so difficult to add another human target for the enemy to go after.
* Actually, you can get limited LAN play in BF2 by starting a single-player game and having other LAN members connect directly to the "server" via the Connect to IP function. Works fairly well. That doesn't explain why such a feature was never officially supported by EA.
So, he really hit two critical points with me: the lack of immersive, single-player games and half-thought-out multiplayer games that do not provide the full options that multipler games should have. It's so nice to hear a heavy-hitter in the industry say what I've been saying for years. Maybe that will give the issues some credibility with game designers.
They're RIGHT! Violence in video games does translate to violence in real life!
Why, just yesterday I flew a Cobra attack helicopter in real life against MEC foes! Not only did BF2 cause me to learn how to fly Cobra attack helicopters, it also helped me to learn racism against Middle Easterns and Chinese! Damned foreigners keep trying to take my fu*king base! Die, die, DIE!!
My hatred for minotaurs and other such creatures has SOARED because of so many times playing NeverWinter Nights. My +2 Longsword (nothing to do with Viagara, thank you) should be in in a few days, and if it's not I'll slash the delivery person with it when it finally arrives. If he's Chinese or Middle Eastern, he's really in trouble.
Of course, my absolute hatred for Nazis was at its peak during the days of Castle Wolfenstein. I want to kill all of them because of that game. In fact, my flight to Brazil leaves in a few days. I found out that some survivors are hiding down there and my Wolfenstein-induced blood rage is starting to take over. Grrrrr....
And you don't know how many people died in my neighborhood with a crowbar after I played HL and HL2.
So, I'm quite certain that when I play Bully I'll want to go to the local high school and just beat the sh*t out of the kids until there's nothing but a pasty, red film on the basketball court. And, hey, with violent video games as my scapegoat, I'll get off with a warning while the Bully developers go to jail!
No, that's not my right eyelid twinging. It's your imagination. { wiping drool off of chin }
Disclaimer: To Jack Thompson and the DHS, this is what's called "sarcasm". Look it up.
I never said or implied that they couldn't defend themselves. They just better be prepared for attacks because of their guild and not act surprised or demand special treatment because of their guild code. Political history is loaded with people getting "in your face" then turning around when there's a backlash against their attitude and claiming that they're being persecuted because of some kind of "-ism" (racism, sexism) or "-phobia".
All I'm saying is that if they're going to get in people's faces, they need to be prepared for the consequences and responsibilities of doing such. As long as they don't get in people's faces, no big deal as far as I'm concerned.
So, you can lower your defense shields now. I wasn't attacking. Sheesh.
Definite agreement here. There must be responsibility on the part of any guild who would do such a thing. Honestly, how would any guild advertise something that goes against many people's societal norms and NOT expect to be targeted for it? I personally don't care as long as they don't pull an "in your face" attitude about their guild; but we all know, whether from experience or reading of others' experiences, that there are people out there who will cause problems anyway. Just being realistic here, folks.
:/
Blizzard did the right thing by backtracking the way they did, but that doesn't mean that guilds should go advertising thier "differences" given this Blizzard reversal. They'll just be trouble magnets for less scrupulous people, particularly those that can now hide behind the anonymity of the Internet. Sadly, I would not be surprised if there are guilds in formation now with the sole purpose of targeting any openly gay guild.
What a wonderful world.
This is so deserving. Richard Garriot almost single-handedly brought fantasy out of the closet spaces of D&D fans into the mainstream gaming realm. Back when most computer games were text adventures or side-scrollers, he brought fantasy gameplay that could last thousands of hours in incredibly detailed and story-rich worlds.
I remember when Ultima V came out for the Commodore 64. If you booted the same discs on a Commodore 128, you got to listen to music throughout the game. Even small things like that helped to impress me more.
I still have the boxed editions for several versions of the Ultima series, not only because I just can't seem to part with them (in some vain idea that I might play them again) but because he also included those extras that helped to bring the game to the real world. The cloth map that came with the later Ultima games was unheard of 15 or 20 years ago, and the trinket that was somehow tied to the story always added to the "coolness" factor.
Even now, two of the ringtones on my phone are the theme from Ultima V/ VI and Stones, which is probably the most memorable of all of the Ultima songs.
Now, if only EA would give Garriott the honor of letting him go back and redo Ultima: Ascension so that it could live up to its Ultima legacy, instead of being the rushed-to-market, bug-ridden, obviously-taken-over-by-corporate-a**holes piece of crap at it was.
Congrats, Richard! We miss the stories of the Avatar!
Yeah. Heaven forbid that I have my priorities straight. :)
What is this "ulterior motive" crap? That summary screams "Conspiracy!!"
I've been a gamer since the Commodore 64 days. Why do I play them? Because they're fun, perhaps? So many of these articles act like it's shocking that those who grew up gaming are (shocking!) still gaming and (more shocking!) getting their kids involved with gaming.
Why would I play games with my daughter? Because it's something that we can do together without the rigamarole of Want to play this? No. Want to play that? No. We know what games we like to play as a family, and it's at least better time than just sitting around watching TV.
Having been a gamer for 20+ years and having a wife who's really not into gaming, this is a great way for me to finally have a gaming partner. Sure, I'm not about to let my 6-year-old play Battlefield 2 (not that she could anyway), but even something as simple as Mario Kart 64 is still fun!
But for me there's an even more important aspect. Those who don't have kids - and even some parents, unfortunately - might have difficulty understanding that kids want their parents' attention. Yes, I want my BF2 time, but if given the choice between BF2 or some N64 game with my kids, the N64 will win every time. I get to have fun; my kids get to have fun; and I get to show my kids that I'm willing to spend my time doing things with them. That means a hell of a lot more to me (and my kids, I'm sure) than getting a Veteran Support Badge while my kids sit watching TV.