Being forced into re-loading a web page just to close a frame every time you click a link from a site is a pain in the arse. There was no need for these frames on sites like digg, which already have high traffic and vast numbers of users. A total waste of time and effort, helping nobody and annoying most.
Just because the project and OS are open source doesn't mean Google's Marketplace have to be. Anyone who's used the phone knows it's incredibly simple to install apps from the web without using the marketplace at all. Banning it from the marketplace isn't banning it from the phone, it's merely Google's way of saying they're not condoning this type of use. It's still possible to tether.
Any library I've used has designated 'study' or 'quiet' areas for people looking for silence. Not saying the vocal searching is a good idea, but the fact it's a library hardly makes it any less useful.
I think generally most people who are producing web games are doing so less to make money in the short term and more for the experience that it gives them. Producing a web game lets people test it quickly and you'll get a fast response as to whether they like it or not.
Seems like most people I know producing games online do so to expand their personal work portfolios.
As for facebook, it's not exactly a great cross section of the average web user.
Haha. It bugs me when people talk like you do. Surely you don't really believe that every new game is utter crap, or indeed that every older game is fantastic? There were just as many absolutely terrible games back then as there are now. You've just conveniently forgotten about them.
It might end up suffering if the console versions have been made simultaneously alongside the PC version, and causing them to give it a 'dumbed-down' control scheme.
Am I the only one skeptical about how well this game would control on a console?
Ah well, so long as the PC version doesn't suffer because of a simplified system for consoles, it doesn't bother me.
There is already the ratings on games, there might as well be a law enforcing it. If I were to live in California, I might feel differently, as I'm a teenager myself, but I don't see any problems with this. Restricting minors to this is a good thing, as for every mature minor, you get 3 that are very influenced by what the see around them, and are pretty immature.
What we really need to sort is why in this society it is bad for a child to see something that occurs naturally, and is necessary for reproduction is, but it is okay for them to see people getting shot, blown-up, and cut to pieces.
This isn't the same with Nintendo. They have told their fans that they are going to "Revolutionize" gaming. They say they are taking a totally different approach. They told us the Mario and Zelda games, which have been the same way for so long, are going to go in a completely different direction. They could dissapoint many people here.
Also, Nintendo fans are some of the most ardent around. They WILL get hyped up about this, whether Nintendo wants them to or not. And they could still be very much dissapointed.
Here is where you hit the nail on the head. When they start charging us extra for in-game SINGLE player content. That is when I get angry. Why should I have to pay $10 extra to get a new character? Why wasn't this character in the regular version of the game? It would not have cost them extra to put this character in both versions. This is the point where it starts to be another money-making scheme.
I see nothing wrong with this. Is someone wants to pay extra so that they can have some artwork, demos, developers notes, previews or "The making of:" videos, let them. If someone wants to leave all that stuff out, and just enjoy a game, that's fine.
Re:Nintendo should be worried
on
Satisfying Sequels
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
A valid point Nintendo should be worried. They have released so little information on their console, I am worried that by the time they tell everyone what is so great about it, everyone will be vastly dissapointed. A case of "Well...is that it?"
Yeah, SC: Pandora Tomorrow had some content that had to be payed for too. A real bummer, I couldnt get onto my live account before i bought it. Seems kind of unfair, really.
This is a much needed expansion. The old maps do get a bit boring after playing on them so long. I think I might just wait out the maps that aren't free, especially if they're going to become free anyway.
How many more collectable rip off's can people come up with? Honestly, why would anyone buy POKER chips, to throw onto a table pointlessly? Poker chips are for playing, funnily enough, poker. Leave the collectable's to kids.
So, you expect people to carry around bags of liquid? Im sure that in theory this would be a great idea that would work well, but I just don't think that people will carry bags of liquid with them wherever they go. A nice idea, but one that i dont think would ever work.
I'm a teenager myself, and i find that games ratings don't really seem to matter. No games store i have ever bought something in has asked my age, and i don't think they care. Neither of my parents ever check what games i buy, and its the same for all of my friends, will it really make that much of a difference?
Slashdot Mirror
In the same post you say devs are king, and attracting them is key, then go on to say that posting on /. is a bad idea.
Contradicting yourself much?
Software Update is reporting my 10.5.7 patch to be 286MB in size. Where did the parent article get it's numbers?
Palm's new smartphone has made me bump into a few new members. It's disturbing.
Being forced into re-loading a web page just to close a frame every time you click a link from a site is a pain in the arse. There was no need for these frames on sites like digg, which already have high traffic and vast numbers of users. A total waste of time and effort, helping nobody and annoying most.
Just because the project and OS are open source doesn't mean Google's Marketplace have to be. Anyone who's used the phone knows it's incredibly simple to install apps from the web without using the marketplace at all. Banning it from the marketplace isn't banning it from the phone, it's merely Google's way of saying they're not condoning this type of use. It's still possible to tether.
Any library I've used has designated 'study' or 'quiet' areas for people looking for silence. Not saying the vocal searching is a good idea, but the fact it's a library hardly makes it any less useful.
I think generally most people who are producing web games are doing so less to make money in the short term and more for the experience that it gives them. Producing a web game lets people test it quickly and you'll get a fast response as to whether they like it or not. Seems like most people I know producing games online do so to expand their personal work portfolios. As for facebook, it's not exactly a great cross section of the average web user.
Haha. It bugs me when people talk like you do. Surely you don't really believe that every new game is utter crap, or indeed that every older game is fantastic? There were just as many absolutely terrible games back then as there are now. You've just conveniently forgotten about them.
It might end up suffering if the console versions have been made simultaneously alongside the PC version, and causing them to give it a 'dumbed-down' control scheme.
Am I the only one skeptical about how well this game would control on a console? Ah well, so long as the PC version doesn't suffer because of a simplified system for consoles, it doesn't bother me.
At least they caught the problem before it got too out of hand. I trust the new adapters will be free of charge?
There is already the ratings on games, there might as well be a law enforcing it. If I were to live in California, I might feel differently, as I'm a teenager myself, but I don't see any problems with this. Restricting minors to this is a good thing, as for every mature minor, you get 3 that are very influenced by what the see around them, and are pretty immature. What we really need to sort is why in this society it is bad for a child to see something that occurs naturally, and is necessary for reproduction is, but it is okay for them to see people getting shot, blown-up, and cut to pieces.
This isn't the same with Nintendo. They have told their fans that they are going to "Revolutionize" gaming. They say they are taking a totally different approach. They told us the Mario and Zelda games, which have been the same way for so long, are going to go in a completely different direction. They could dissapoint many people here. Also, Nintendo fans are some of the most ardent around. They WILL get hyped up about this, whether Nintendo wants them to or not. And they could still be very much dissapointed.
Here is where you hit the nail on the head. When they start charging us extra for in-game SINGLE player content. That is when I get angry. Why should I have to pay $10 extra to get a new character? Why wasn't this character in the regular version of the game? It would not have cost them extra to put this character in both versions. This is the point where it starts to be another money-making scheme.
Congratulations Microsoft! You just made yourself the target of every console hacker on the planet.
I see nothing wrong with this. Is someone wants to pay extra so that they can have some artwork, demos, developers notes, previews or "The making of:" videos, let them. If someone wants to leave all that stuff out, and just enjoy a game, that's fine.
A valid point Nintendo should be worried. They have released so little information on their console, I am worried that by the time they tell everyone what is so great about it, everyone will be vastly dissapointed. A case of "Well...is that it?"
Yeah, SC: Pandora Tomorrow had some content that had to be payed for too. A real bummer, I couldnt get onto my live account before i bought it. Seems kind of unfair, really.
This is a much needed expansion. The old maps do get a bit boring after playing on them so long. I think I might just wait out the maps that aren't free, especially if they're going to become free anyway.
How many more collectable rip off's can people come up with? Honestly, why would anyone buy POKER chips, to throw onto a table pointlessly? Poker chips are for playing, funnily enough, poker. Leave the collectable's to kids.
So, you expect people to carry around bags of liquid? Im sure that in theory this would be a great idea that would work well, but I just don't think that people will carry bags of liquid with them wherever they go. A nice idea, but one that i dont think would ever work.
I'm a teenager myself, and i find that games ratings don't really seem to matter. No games store i have ever bought something in has asked my age, and i don't think they care. Neither of my parents ever check what games i buy, and its the same for all of my friends, will it really make that much of a difference?