I think a lot of people laughed at Bill Gates when he claimed Microsoft was winning the console war. While what he said is rather hard to argue against, it seems rather premature to claim victory when the race has really just started.
However, it has been noted time and time again that while the Wii can coexist with the 360, the PS3, or both the same can not readily be said of the 360 and the PS3. While it is possible they both will survive and even do well this generation, it is just as if not more likely that one will effectively crush the other.
Taking that into consideration sheds some extra light on Gates' jubilation. A 10 million console head start, and the greatest threat to your success fails to live up to expectations. It is even possible, if unlikely, that Sony will be forced to drop out of consoles altogether (perhaps after a PS4), leaving Microsoft as one of two clear giants of the industry.
Quite simply, the position the Xbox 360 is in now is a very, very strong one. They've already sold a number of consoles equal to half what Nintendo's previous offering achieved. I'd be in a state of euphoria myself were I Gates. It would have been very difficult to imagine after the launch a little over a year ago that everything would go so well for Microsoft. The only thing the could go better would be a catastrophic explosion or meteoric impact at Sony HQ.
The 360 went from ~8 million worldwide to ~10 million worldwide in the period following the launch. Nintendo went from 0 to ~4 million worldwide. If the 2:1 ratio and current sales rate continue, we'll see Nintendo as the worldwide leader before long.
If he was claiming there was an abundance if Wii's available, that would be one thing. However, he's claiming there is an abundance of production. Nintendo's production rate appears to be approximately 1 million a month, which is quite abundant. How quickly that abundance of production is eaten up or demanded only affects the abundance of the Wii itself, and not of its production.
The reason is that to Sports Gamers the roster is a big feature.
Technically oriented people, including me, have a hard time understanding this because we know enough about the mechanics of the games to know what is and isn't difficult developement. Aside from completely new faces, and removing retirees, the amount of work that goes into updating the rosters is trivial. We don't see something any of us could finish the majority of in at most a week as something worth $60.
However, the common Sports Gamer doesn't know this, and doesn't care. These people follow the batting statistics throughout the year, know how many yards a receiver has run, how many free throws a player has missed. The statistics are half the game to them, which is why the rosters are so important.
Is this being abused at the expense of the Sports Gamers? Yes. Do they know? Probably not. Do they care? Unlikely.
As fearful as we may be that this model of developement will creep out into other genres, I think we're safe.
It is true that over the years there have been many new features added to the Madden series. However, the number of features added each new year is small. This is not to say that they are bad features, but that alone they don't seem to be worth another $60 investment.
What worries us is the success of this model. If developers get the message that they can release minor updates as full blown games, the possibilities for abuse and mediocrity are numerous. Imagine Microsoft releasing Halo 3 each year, adding a couple more levels and some small number of new features included. The mere prospect is horrific.
It may be that only the more hardcore or well invested casual players care, but it shakes us to think that developers might see the Madden series and think, "Why am I taking 2-3 years to make a sequel to my game, when obviously players are more than happy to pay exactly the same price for far less new product!"
Part of the issue may be that "nerds" as it were, see new rosters as a very trivial feature while many of the principle buyers of Madden see it as a very big one. This is possibly because the nerds see the rosters as merely slightly different statistics and barely more than gameplay tweaks, while understanding how simple it is to take players already existing in the game and change their numbers.
Regardless, Madden and other sports titles aren't the only series that do this. Koei's Dynasty Warriors series has some variation or other that hits the market every year.
I'm afraid Hokkaido is 2 orders of magnitude smaller than Alaska, while still constituting 22% of Japan's landmass. Alaska is more than 500% bigger than all of Japan, and is only 18% of the total landmass of the United States.
If Hokkaido is "roughly" the size of Alaska, then the Playstation 3 "roughly" has as many consoles sold as Microsoft.
It takes only a cursory look at the market to understand why this is silly.
Firstly, the maintenance on an MMORPG that isn't instance-based like Guild Wars is huge. That means a large cost, hence the monthly fees. Now, to a small extent those monthly fees generate profit, but only to a small extent. If you overblow your fees too much you shrink your potential user base.
Secondly, it's generally a good idea to focus on one such game at a time. Blizzard has a team that literally spends all their time on WoW, and things can still take a while to get done. Imagine how crazy it would be if Blizzard was currently maintaining and improving WoW, UoS (Universe of Starcraft) and HoD (Hellhole of Diablo). Nothing would ever get done, ever.
Thirdly, the MMORPG market is not infinite. Like any otehr market it can and does grow, but even when it does "by leaps and bound" we will never see the market doubling or tripling over one MMORPG in a matter of months. Years maybe, but not months. The logical limit of an MMORPG's possible user base in the first year is about 150% of the current market. However, that figure is assuming every last player, old and new, adopts the MMORPG. It is much more likely that only a small fraction of the market will adopt the new game.
Fourthly, MMORPGs tend to be both exclusive to one another and retentive of current players. Monthly fees are a key incentive in finding one MMORPG and sticking with it. $15 a month isn't bad, $30 might be okay, but $45 is practically a new game every month being frittered away for the privilage of being able to play WoW, EVE and EQ2. As MMORPGs reward time invested, it's almost always better for a player to stick with one.
Lastly, to all you WoW killers out there... wait. Quite simply, you will not be able to beat WoW at this time. The player-base is entrenched, they aren't sick of it yet, and they won't leave for another 2 years even if you create an incredible and supirior MMO experience. Wait 2, 3 maybe even 5 years before taking a serious shot. By then WoW will have outlived itself, and your supirior MMO will be able to take the market by storm while Blizzard takes their usual inordinate amount of time in developement.
I'm not going to claim I did, because I certainly didn't. Partly because Nintendo seemed set to have adaquate supply (4 million worldwide, who'd have though it would sell out?), and partly because of the constant PS3/360 fanboy astroturfings, and lastly because of the rampant skepticism from the media.
However, as I finally reached an age where I could provide for myself the money, the transportation, and the free time to preorder/camp-out for a console, I took the opportunity to do so for the one I wanted.
I'm grateful I did too. It gave my grandpa his first chance to play tennis again in years. You could almost see the warm memories welling up.
Something of an aside I think, but I don't know anyone that expected or anticipated the Wii to be in such demand.
At the risk of being redundant, I'll second a sibling post's +2 pointer to a very interesting and even informative anecdote from one of our Japanese brethren.
Read the parent, and mod them up. At the very least it deserves a read.
You are right that it is way too early to call this, I think a lot of people forget that however poorly things are going for Sony now, they can recover and still give a strong showing this generation.
However, the Xbox360 launch had several characteristics I think are important to note.
1) Preorders were not filled out until Spring. It was completely impossible to get an Xbox360 from an actual store even into March. 2) There were many PS3/Revolution hold outs at the time, who put off buying a 360 assuming that the PS3 would be significantly and undeniably better in every way, or that the Revolution would simply be amazing. There was a spike in 360 sales during the summer following E3.
Regardless, the Xbox 360 launch was bumpy, but it had the grace that there was no competition to capitalize on the blunders. This is not true now, and will make the ordeal harder (but not impossible) for Sony.
1) "Will have" does not help now. Now, there is no compelling reason to have a PS3 over an Xbox 360.
2) We heard a lot of "will have" promises from Sony over the years leading up to the PS3 launch, many of which were broken. However unlikely strong Japanese support will be for the Xbox 360, there is always the market leader Wii (in Japan anyway) availible. We've already seen developers push back titles on the PS3, it's not impossible that some (even big names) might leave altogether if the PS3 doesn't gain momentum.
That was rather nitpicky of me, but I thought necessary.
The Wii is a competitor for both the PS3 and the Xbox 360, and here's why.
1) Developers - Game studios only have so many resources to devote to game developement. Any that are spent on the Wii are not spent on the PS3 and Xbox 360, even if it is just a port. The cumulative effect of this is less developement for the Xbox 360 and PS3.
2) Follow the Leader - If the Wii gains a significant lead on the other consoles in market share, this will further compound #1 due to the "Follow the Leader" syndrome for game developement. While a lot of games for the PS1 and PS2 were very crappy, having that kind of third party support is any console manufacturer's dream. Stealing that dream hurts the PS3 and Xbox 360.
3) Hardcore - Even though the Wii and DS have been designed to be friendlier systems, there is definately a strong appeal for many hardcore gamers. While hardcore gamers often spend much more money on video games and are thus very likely to own multiple systems, having any portion of said funds diverted to the Wii places it in competition.
4) Casual Understanding - The nerdy, informed, and hardcore may know all about Nintendo's "Blue Ocean" strategy, but more people only know it's a game system, and so are the PS3 and Xbox 360. They aren't aware Nintendo is in a different market, because for them there is only one market.
5) Next Time Gadget - There will be another console generation, and it's pretty clear that barring unthinkable and unpredictable disasters Nintendo will be there. As much as they are competing for a place in this console generation, all of the big three are competing for pole position in the next generation. While not determinate, being the incumbent from the last generation is a significant advantage.
This is not to say that they are truly in direct competition. A better analogy is to say that Nintendo is targeting an entire pie, while Sony and Microsoft are aimed at a smaller piece. To an extent there is conflict, but Nintendo will be just as happy to have the 50-60% of the pie that Microsoft and Sony are only barely interested in.
I'd argue that the iPod isn't "shit" per se, but at the same time I wouldn't argue that it's the best there is.
You did hit on the reason why Apple does so well. When it comes to marketing, no one is as good as Apple in the mp3 player field. Even though the iPod may simply be a good option equivalent to many others and inferior to some, the truth is that Apple knows how to get the word out.
Anyway, kudos to sitting corrected. That's more than most here would ever do.
The Rio Carbon was announced in August 2004, and the Rio Karma appears to have been announced around November of 2003.
While Rio can be credited as having birthed the first mp3 player back before they were known as Rio, the models you have mentioned were announced years after the first iPods hit the market in 2001.
Without the Pacific influence of the United States keeping the Japanese occupied, the USSR would have been incapable of reallocating forces from the one front to the other.
The US was absolutely key in the Allied victory because it was the only nation of the Allies that was free to go full steam in production without the threat of bombings, ground invasions etc. The only real threat was U-Boats intercepting supply ships and fleets.
Having a single completely safe industrial base is a huge asset in any war. The US was an entire nation of them.
It is possible that without the US intervention that the Allies might still have won, but it would have taken much longer and at a far greater cost to both human life and potential recovery.
We might both be right, to various extents, but that is part of my understanding of events.
I can understand where you're coming from, but I have to agree on several points.
Making any form of art depicting or relating to a horrific event should in no way instantly disqualify it from competition, recognition, or thoughtful contemplation.
For example, Guernica. Picasso painted a well-regarded masterpiece artfully depicting the utter horror and waste that was the bombing of a peaceful, remote town. We could potentially throw this work of art away because of its "exploitation" of a tragedy, or examine it and find that it is in fact itself an outcry at and reminder of the terrible event.
Similarly we can examine the movie "Tora! Tora! Tora!" which depicted the events leading up to Pearl Harbor, as well as the attack itself. It is an important film, reknowned both for the famous Japanese and American actors who gave their talents to it and for the even handed view of both sides. Despite the subject matter being potentially sensitive it should not be ignored or deemed an "exploit" of the events.
I am not arguing that the Columbine RPG is art, but that is the point of the festival. People attempting to create artful titles in plot, story, execution etc. compete. It is arguable that any finalists should be considered art, as they would not be finalists otherwise.
Thus, the great issue here is partially the "bad taste" in which the game was made, but also that those in charge of the event accepted its entry, courted it so that it would be entered, and admitted it as a finalist.
I think that, at best, the Columbine RPG could actually be an insightful and thoughtful examination of the outlook and desperation of the killer's lives, or even a humorous (if black) satire. While dealing with sensitive material requires careful execution, I do not believe that this somehow disqualifies the title as potentially being art.
If you have actually played the game and have come to your conclusion that the game is not art or worthy of consideration, then you have formed your opinion from experience and are to be commended. However, if you have written off the game before attempting to understand it, I highly recommend you take a step back and evaluate the game objectively before passing sentence.
It is disheartening that many people do not pause and consider the real world implications of what happens in their video games, but the ignorance they display is not a necessarily flaw in the games but also or exclusively themselves.
DVD will remain readable by Blue-Ray and HD-DVD reader so why should we slow down on our DVD purchases?
Because we don't want to buy the same movie twice. The backwards compatability is nice for our current collections, but why keep expanding those when in the near future we'll just have to buy it all again to take advantage of HD?
For people who aren't rolling in disposable income, it's a lot easier to not buy anything than to fret over buying movies multiple times.
I have to agree that eventually one format, the other, or some newer format down the road will win the war, and I agree with you it won't happen overnight.
However if you look at the statements in the article, especially the one in the summary, and the assertions of posters here you'll find there are a large number of people who think an overnight victory is possible. I believe the GP is mostly a response to all the people who act as though the format war is already decided, or will be shortly.
Sony promised 2 million consoles worldwide by the end of last year, and we received 1 million (apparently). Does anyone know if Japan received the other million, or did Sony fall short?
Many of the achievements in all of those games are obscure and difficult to get. While there are certainly a number that are simple, most actually require some effort to get.
I would suspect that for the average person to get fifty, especially when most only play a couple of games in a casual manner, is actually a surprising figure.
I don't know where you went to school, but in my experience all but the highest echelons of classes had 20+ students in attendence, if not more. Meanwhile all but the frailest of professors were juggling at least four classes, and this was on a 30k per student tuition with a student body of 2.7k+, in addition to large donations from alumni. That's almost 90 million dollars without the sizable donations.
I can't say I know much about state schools, but at the very least I have my doubts that things are so bad at private institutions.
Slashdot Mirror
I think a lot of people laughed at Bill Gates when he claimed Microsoft was winning the console war. While what he said is rather hard to argue against, it seems rather premature to claim victory when the race has really just started.
However, it has been noted time and time again that while the Wii can coexist with the 360, the PS3, or both the same can not readily be said of the 360 and the PS3. While it is possible they both will survive and even do well this generation, it is just as if not more likely that one will effectively crush the other.
Taking that into consideration sheds some extra light on Gates' jubilation. A 10 million console head start, and the greatest threat to your success fails to live up to expectations. It is even possible, if unlikely, that Sony will be forced to drop out of consoles altogether (perhaps after a PS4), leaving Microsoft as one of two clear giants of the industry.
Quite simply, the position the Xbox 360 is in now is a very, very strong one. They've already sold a number of consoles equal to half what Nintendo's previous offering achieved. I'd be in a state of euphoria myself were I Gates. It would have been very difficult to imagine after the launch a little over a year ago that everything would go so well for Microsoft. The only thing the could go better would be a catastrophic explosion or meteoric impact at Sony HQ.
In North America.
The 360 went from ~8 million worldwide to ~10 million worldwide in the period following the launch. Nintendo went from 0 to ~4 million worldwide. If the 2:1 ratio and current sales rate continue, we'll see Nintendo as the worldwide leader before long.
Actually, I think his definition is fine.
If he was claiming there was an abundance if Wii's available, that would be one thing. However, he's claiming there is an abundance of production. Nintendo's production rate appears to be approximately 1 million a month, which is quite abundant. How quickly that abundance of production is eaten up or demanded only affects the abundance of the Wii itself, and not of its production.
Assuming $600 is trivial.
The reason is that to Sports Gamers the roster is a big feature.
Technically oriented people, including me, have a hard time understanding this because we know enough about the mechanics of the games to know what is and isn't difficult developement. Aside from completely new faces, and removing retirees, the amount of work that goes into updating the rosters is trivial. We don't see something any of us could finish the majority of in at most a week as something worth $60.
However, the common Sports Gamer doesn't know this, and doesn't care. These people follow the batting statistics throughout the year, know how many yards a receiver has run, how many free throws a player has missed. The statistics are half the game to them, which is why the rosters are so important.
Is this being abused at the expense of the Sports Gamers? Yes. Do they know? Probably not. Do they care? Unlikely.
As fearful as we may be that this model of developement will creep out into other genres, I think we're safe.
Because we feel it sets a bad precident.
It is true that over the years there have been many new features added to the Madden series. However, the number of features added each new year is small. This is not to say that they are bad features, but that alone they don't seem to be worth another $60 investment.
What worries us is the success of this model. If developers get the message that they can release minor updates as full blown games, the possibilities for abuse and mediocrity are numerous. Imagine Microsoft releasing Halo 3 each year, adding a couple more levels and some small number of new features included. The mere prospect is horrific.
It may be that only the more hardcore or well invested casual players care, but it shakes us to think that developers might see the Madden series and think, "Why am I taking 2-3 years to make a sequel to my game, when obviously players are more than happy to pay exactly the same price for far less new product!"
Part of the issue may be that "nerds" as it were, see new rosters as a very trivial feature while many of the principle buyers of Madden see it as a very big one. This is possibly because the nerds see the rosters as merely slightly different statistics and barely more than gameplay tweaks, while understanding how simple it is to take players already existing in the game and change their numbers.
Regardless, Madden and other sports titles aren't the only series that do this. Koei's Dynasty Warriors series has some variation or other that hits the market every year.
Alaska: 1,717,855 sq. km
Hokkaido: 83,452 sq. km
Japan: 377,835 sq. km
USA: 9,631,420 sq. km
I'm afraid Hokkaido is 2 orders of magnitude smaller than Alaska, while still constituting 22% of Japan's landmass. Alaska is more than 500% bigger than all of Japan, and is only 18% of the total landmass of the United States.
If Hokkaido is "roughly" the size of Alaska, then the Playstation 3 "roughly" has as many consoles sold as Microsoft.
It takes only a cursory look at the market to understand why this is silly.
Firstly, the maintenance on an MMORPG that isn't instance-based like Guild Wars is huge. That means a large cost, hence the monthly fees. Now, to a small extent those monthly fees generate profit, but only to a small extent. If you overblow your fees too much you shrink your potential user base.
Secondly, it's generally a good idea to focus on one such game at a time. Blizzard has a team that literally spends all their time on WoW, and things can still take a while to get done. Imagine how crazy it would be if Blizzard was currently maintaining and improving WoW, UoS (Universe of Starcraft) and HoD (Hellhole of Diablo). Nothing would ever get done, ever.
Thirdly, the MMORPG market is not infinite. Like any otehr market it can and does grow, but even when it does "by leaps and bound" we will never see the market doubling or tripling over one MMORPG in a matter of months. Years maybe, but not months. The logical limit of an MMORPG's possible user base in the first year is about 150% of the current market. However, that figure is assuming every last player, old and new, adopts the MMORPG. It is much more likely that only a small fraction of the market will adopt the new game.
Fourthly, MMORPGs tend to be both exclusive to one another and retentive of current players. Monthly fees are a key incentive in finding one MMORPG and sticking with it. $15 a month isn't bad, $30 might be okay, but $45 is practically a new game every month being frittered away for the privilage of being able to play WoW, EVE and EQ2. As MMORPGs reward time invested, it's almost always better for a player to stick with one.
Lastly, to all you WoW killers out there... wait. Quite simply, you will not be able to beat WoW at this time. The player-base is entrenched, they aren't sick of it yet, and they won't leave for another 2 years even if you create an incredible and supirior MMO experience. Wait 2, 3 maybe even 5 years before taking a serious shot. By then WoW will have outlived itself, and your supirior MMO will be able to take the market by storm while Blizzard takes their usual inordinate amount of time in developement.
I think the following points can not be stressed enough.
1) Hellgate has an offline single-player mode.
2) It is not yet decided whether online will be pay-for-play or not, despite what the article claims.
I'm not going to claim I did, because I certainly didn't. Partly because Nintendo seemed set to have adaquate supply (4 million worldwide, who'd have though it would sell out?), and partly because of the constant PS3/360 fanboy astroturfings, and lastly because of the rampant skepticism from the media.
However, as I finally reached an age where I could provide for myself the money, the transportation, and the free time to preorder/camp-out for a console, I took the opportunity to do so for the one I wanted.
I'm grateful I did too. It gave my grandpa his first chance to play tennis again in years. You could almost see the warm memories welling up.
Something of an aside I think, but I don't know anyone that expected or anticipated the Wii to be in such demand.
At the risk of being redundant, I'll second a sibling post's +2 pointer to a very interesting and even informative anecdote from one of our Japanese brethren.
Read the parent, and mod them up. At the very least it deserves a read.
You are right that it is way too early to call this, I think a lot of people forget that however poorly things are going for Sony now, they can recover and still give a strong showing this generation.
However, the Xbox360 launch had several characteristics I think are important to note.
1) Preorders were not filled out until Spring. It was completely impossible to get an Xbox360 from an actual store even into March.
2) There were many PS3/Revolution hold outs at the time, who put off buying a 360 assuming that the PS3 would be significantly and undeniably better in every way, or that the Revolution would simply be amazing. There was a spike in 360 sales during the summer following E3.
Regardless, the Xbox 360 launch was bumpy, but it had the grace that there was no competition to capitalize on the blunders. This is not true now, and will make the ordeal harder (but not impossible) for Sony.
The problem here is "will have", for two reasons.
1) "Will have" does not help now. Now, there is no compelling reason to have a PS3 over an Xbox 360.
2) We heard a lot of "will have" promises from Sony over the years leading up to the PS3 launch, many of which were broken. However unlikely strong Japanese support will be for the Xbox 360, there is always the market leader Wii (in Japan anyway) availible. We've already seen developers push back titles on the PS3, it's not impossible that some (even big names) might leave altogether if the PS3 doesn't gain momentum.
That was rather nitpicky of me, but I thought necessary.
The Wii is a competitor for both the PS3 and the Xbox 360, and here's why.
1) Developers - Game studios only have so many resources to devote to game developement. Any that are spent on the Wii are not spent on the PS3 and Xbox 360, even if it is just a port. The cumulative effect of this is less developement for the Xbox 360 and PS3.
2) Follow the Leader - If the Wii gains a significant lead on the other consoles in market share, this will further compound #1 due to the "Follow the Leader" syndrome for game developement. While a lot of games for the PS1 and PS2 were very crappy, having that kind of third party support is any console manufacturer's dream. Stealing that dream hurts the PS3 and Xbox 360.
3) Hardcore - Even though the Wii and DS have been designed to be friendlier systems, there is definately a strong appeal for many hardcore gamers. While hardcore gamers often spend much more money on video games and are thus very likely to own multiple systems, having any portion of said funds diverted to the Wii places it in competition.
4) Casual Understanding - The nerdy, informed, and hardcore may know all about Nintendo's "Blue Ocean" strategy, but more people only know it's a game system, and so are the PS3 and Xbox 360. They aren't aware Nintendo is in a different market, because for them there is only one market.
5) Next Time Gadget - There will be another console generation, and it's pretty clear that barring unthinkable and unpredictable disasters Nintendo will be there. As much as they are competing for a place in this console generation, all of the big three are competing for pole position in the next generation. While not determinate, being the incumbent from the last generation is a significant advantage.
This is not to say that they are truly in direct competition. A better analogy is to say that Nintendo is targeting an entire pie, while Sony and Microsoft are aimed at a smaller piece. To an extent there is conflict, but Nintendo will be just as happy to have the 50-60% of the pie that Microsoft and Sony are only barely interested in.
I'd argue that the iPod isn't "shit" per se, but at the same time I wouldn't argue that it's the best there is.
You did hit on the reason why Apple does so well. When it comes to marketing, no one is as good as Apple in the mp3 player field. Even though the iPod may simply be a good option equivalent to many others and inferior to some, the truth is that Apple knows how to get the word out.
Anyway, kudos to sitting corrected. That's more than most here would ever do.
The Rio Carbon was announced in August 2004, and the Rio Karma appears to have been announced around November of 2003.
While Rio can be credited as having birthed the first mp3 player back before they were known as Rio, the models you have mentioned were announced years after the first iPods hit the market in 2001.
Without the Pacific influence of the United States keeping the Japanese occupied, the USSR would have been incapable of reallocating forces from the one front to the other.
The US was absolutely key in the Allied victory because it was the only nation of the Allies that was free to go full steam in production without the threat of bombings, ground invasions etc. The only real threat was U-Boats intercepting supply ships and fleets.
Having a single completely safe industrial base is a huge asset in any war. The US was an entire nation of them.
It is possible that without the US intervention that the Allies might still have won, but it would have taken much longer and at a far greater cost to both human life and potential recovery.
We might both be right, to various extents, but that is part of my understanding of events.
I can understand where you're coming from, but I have to agree on several points.
Making any form of art depicting or relating to a horrific event should in no way instantly disqualify it from competition, recognition, or thoughtful contemplation.
For example, Guernica. Picasso painted a well-regarded masterpiece artfully depicting the utter horror and waste that was the bombing of a peaceful, remote town. We could potentially throw this work of art away because of its "exploitation" of a tragedy, or examine it and find that it is in fact itself an outcry at and reminder of the terrible event.
Similarly we can examine the movie "Tora! Tora! Tora!" which depicted the events leading up to Pearl Harbor, as well as the attack itself. It is an important film, reknowned both for the famous Japanese and American actors who gave their talents to it and for the even handed view of both sides. Despite the subject matter being potentially sensitive it should not be ignored or deemed an "exploit" of the events.
I am not arguing that the Columbine RPG is art, but that is the point of the festival. People attempting to create artful titles in plot, story, execution etc. compete. It is arguable that any finalists should be considered art, as they would not be finalists otherwise.
Thus, the great issue here is partially the "bad taste" in which the game was made, but also that those in charge of the event accepted its entry, courted it so that it would be entered, and admitted it as a finalist.
I think that, at best, the Columbine RPG could actually be an insightful and thoughtful examination of the outlook and desperation of the killer's lives, or even a humorous (if black) satire. While dealing with sensitive material requires careful execution, I do not believe that this somehow disqualifies the title as potentially being art.
If you have actually played the game and have come to your conclusion that the game is not art or worthy of consideration, then you have formed your opinion from experience and are to be commended. However, if you have written off the game before attempting to understand it, I highly recommend you take a step back and evaluate the game objectively before passing sentence.
It is disheartening that many people do not pause and consider the real world implications of what happens in their video games, but the ignorance they display is not a necessarily flaw in the games but also or exclusively themselves.
No Blu-Ray. Less space than a PS3. Lame.
Because we don't want to buy the same movie twice. The backwards compatability is nice for our current collections, but why keep expanding those when in the near future we'll just have to buy it all again to take advantage of HD?
For people who aren't rolling in disposable income, it's a lot easier to not buy anything than to fret over buying movies multiple times.
I have to agree that eventually one format, the other, or some newer format down the road will win the war, and I agree with you it won't happen overnight.
However if you look at the statements in the article, especially the one in the summary, and the assertions of posters here you'll find there are a large number of people who think an overnight victory is possible. I believe the GP is mostly a response to all the people who act as though the format war is already decided, or will be shortly.
Sony promised 2 million consoles worldwide by the end of last year, and we received 1 million (apparently). Does anyone know if Japan received the other million, or did Sony fall short?
Many of the achievements in all of those games are obscure and difficult to get. While there are certainly a number that are simple, most actually require some effort to get.
I would suspect that for the average person to get fifty, especially when most only play a couple of games in a casual manner, is actually a surprising figure.
While some might not consider this funny, I hardly think the parent is a troll.
Anyway, I laughed.
I don't know where you went to school, but in my experience all but the highest echelons of classes had 20+ students in attendence, if not more. Meanwhile all but the frailest of professors were juggling at least four classes, and this was on a 30k per student tuition with a student body of 2.7k+, in addition to large donations from alumni. That's almost 90 million dollars without the sizable donations.
I can't say I know much about state schools, but at the very least I have my doubts that things are so bad at private institutions.