Clearly, Jack Thompson is a lightning rod. He's stumbled onto a very real issue that was discovered by many before him, and he's frankly damaged the cause he's picked up simply by associating his name with it. Still, criticizing Thompson is not the same as criticizing his premise, which underneath the sensationalism is quite sound.
The "issue" has been public for a long time, it's also been a non-issue for a long time. To date, the military hasn't done anything in the realm of video games worth raising eyebrows over. As the gamepolitics article noted, if it was disclosed that the gaming industry and the DoD had been working together to sneak military brainwashing into your run of the mill FPS, then there'd be a story. The fact that the military is looking to simulation experts in the gaming industry to make their simulations better shouldn't surprise or alarm anyone.
I don't believe your prediction would pan out in reality for several reasons.
1) Raising the price will only potentially curb demand. It will not place additional Wiis on shelves in time for Christmas, let alone "right away". 2) Your solution works by reducing the number of people who will want the console via the price hike. These people are very unlikely to be happy about Nintendo making consoles available to other people by making consoles unavailable to them. Their criticism will be voiced, and it wouldn't be bellyaching. 3) No console (bundles excluded) has ever had its price raised in the history of video games. Were Nintendo to do so, it would be unprecedented and worthy of plenty of media attention (and criticism).
Nintendo technically has the power to raise the price. They won't for a very obvious reason, PR. There are very, very few items classified under "electronics" that get to cost more as time goes on. A price hike on a video game system is completely unprecedented, and would bring with it incredible amounts of negative press.
Consider how much negative press Sony has received for their hubris and minor slip ups. Multiply that by several orders and you'll have the general reaction to a price hike.
Desensitization in the sense you mention is something we should strive for. Desensitization in the sense of one's understanding of the morality, or immorality, of violence is something we should avoid. The semantics here muddle the issue somewhat, as there isn't a clear distinction between the two in most discussions. The result is that many people assume the two go hand in hand, when really they do not.
I don't know if you've noticed, but expensive cartridges have been replaced with dirt-cheap optical media. It used to cost orders of magnitudes more to "print" a video game compared to a book, and now it costs at least one order of magnitude less.
I have noticed, but the point remains. Video games and books are not interchangeable because books do not operate on budgets in the millions of dollars. Books don't have to recuperate those costs. Books are also cheaper, but don't lose value over time the way video games do. They can afford to sit on a shelf for a much longer period of time without mark down, because the number of people waiting for a book to get cheaper before buying it are few and far between.
They are not analogous media, and what works for books will not work for video games without turning the system into the ship of Theseus.
We're going in circles here. I don't need to give you an anecdotal example, because *all* GameStops were taking pre-orders for the items I listed in this post before the release dates and/or prices of the items were announced.
And as I and others responded to that list, they did not take preorders of the Wii before the release date was announced, Final Fantasy X is a non-issue because games are cheap and easy to manufacture, and for the DS GameStop stopped taking preorders when they reached the limit of their incoming shipments.
Hence, what I said many posts back...
Hardware is where they really can't make any guarantees, hence the care they put into the PS3 and Wii launches. These being the most recent examples, it's probably safe to say they won't be returning to the same preorder insanity we saw for the 360 or any other prior hardware.
The article was supposedly told at the local level, but so what? That's irrelevant.
It's certainly irrelevant to what you have been saying, but then again what you have been saying is only tangentially relevant to what the article was saying.
The article implied that we should tolerate the policy because it was made by "corporate", but how does it matter to the customer who made the decision? Why aren't the managers pushing back to their district managers, or further up the chain about these policies? The fact that an article like this has to exist should be evidence enough that this is a bad policy for them, and a significant number of customers complain about it.
If the manager believes a policy is bad, who's to say they don't? Complaining does not necessarily warrant change. On the other hand if the manager agrees with the policy, they'll leave it up to the customers to complain.
Did you miss the part about the checkout policy? That's right, your "gutted , but still new" game may have been taken home to be played by a store employee. Not only does that make the game "not new" by even the most generous definitions of "new", but it is also technically illegal for them to sell that game as new in many (if not all) states. So yeah, you didn't have to take the shrink wrap off yourself, and somebody already played that copy of the game. Those are the only differences though. Coincidentally, they're the only differences between the non-gutted games, and the games on the used rack too... except that there's a "lifetime" guarantee that the game works when you buy it used. They don't offer that courtesy to the suckers^H^H^H^H^H^H^H customers who buy the gutted game.
I didn't, and I'd still take the gutted game over a used copy. Call me gullible, but given that there is generally a long line of people wanting to work at GameStop, they can afford to terminate anyone who has a consistently bad performance (i.e bringing back gutted games in a condition more akin to used, warranting complaints from customers). I'd much rather trust an employee hired for their ability to not manhandle games on a daily basis than the people responsible for the unplayable disks at Blockbuster.
If only a couple people in a store's region purchase a new game from Target or Wal-Mart instead of GameStop because of the gutting policy, they are probably losing more profit than they would if they ponied up for some mock boxes on the shelf. Keep in mind that they not only lost the sale of those few game copies, but the possibility of any up-sells they may have made to those customers on that visit. They may not lose enough to get put out of business because of it, but I'd bet they're losing enough to make the policy downright bone-headed.
Given the following assumptions, your strategy can not possibly make a profit.
1. The only time they need to sell a gutted game is when they are out of shrink wrapped, new copies. 2. Shipping empty boxes requires excluding an actual game from current shipments.
With these conditions, the gutted game wouldn't even be there to purchase under your system. We must assume #2, because it doesn't make sense to ship a box of empty boxes, as there aren't enough games coming out on a given week to warrant that. Not only that, this doesn't include the necessity of storing lots of empty boxes for titles you do not have in stock because you sold out but might eventually see one of them in the future.
Your proposition is not as economically sound as you think it is.
The fact of the matter is that GameStop frequently doesn't receive enough copies of a game to cover its pre-orders.
You anecdote would be more helpful if A) you specified when this happened B) you specified with what titles and C) you specified what GameStop tried to do to appease you, however unsuccessful it was. As it stands, it's entirely your experience against the experience of anyone who disagrees.
Plus you don't contest my assertion at all... This guy said pre-orders are taken only if the allotment is guaranteed. You start off by saying "pretty much guaranteed", which is exactly the same as "not guaranteed".
I didn't want to get into an argument about semantics, but unfortunately I find myself in a position necessitating clarification. When I said "pretty much guaranteed" I meant "guaranteed to the full extent of the ability a company has to guarantee that another company will deliver a product as stated". I didn't mean, "I guess the manager has some vague idea how many copies they'll be getting, and won't preorder too many more than that". In short, the only reason I didn't say "fully guaranteed" was due to the possibility I described later. Which brings us to the next bullet point.
Then you provide an example from your own experience of being sold a pre-release when the allotment wasn't guaranteed. You're agreeing with me, and you don't even realize it.
Within the definition given, the situation I described is still "guaranteed". It is only a misinterpretation of my intentions by which you have come to the conclusion that I agree with you.
The point of my anecdote was to show that the only experience I've had over dozens of preorders where it was not filled was when a game with a promised release date was completely canned, a situation beyond the control of the organization I preordered from.
Lastly, there is no reason for game publishers not to operate like book publishers. In other words: Ship way too many copies, and take the extras back when they don't sell. It costs a very small amount to produce a disc and case, no matter what is on it. Yet they don't require this of the publishers they deal with.
This kind of market existed in the Atari days, and when Nintendo first attempted to rejuvenate the video games industry. However, due to the mechanics of this it was nearly impossible for a video game company to make a profit. Books and video games are simply not interchangeable.
It might be possible to somehow modify the book system to be more appropriate for video games, but there's isn't enough reason for this to happen currently. It doesn't have a big enough benefit for the big players in either retail or in publishing to make the drastic changes necessary for it to work. Until there is a clear motivation for them, it won't happen.
Games are pretty much guaranteed if you preorder. Despite the excessive worldwide popularity of the Halo franchise, and the fact that it only went gold less than a month before the game was launched (Aug 29th - Sept 25th) there were ample copies for everyone on launch day and more than enough for the weeks after. Quite simply, the demand for games hasn't reached a point yet where the rate of manufacture for games has been significantly challenged. If a game is in short supply, it's because of a lack of perceived interested (i.e lack of preorders among a plethora of other things).
Hardware is where they really can't make any guarantees, hence the care they put into the PS3 and Wii launches. These being the most recent examples, it's probably safe to say they won't be returning to the same preorder insanity we saw for the 360 or any other prior hardware.
The only other preorder problem is if a game isn't released. I've only experienced this once (StarCraft: Ghost) and as it was only $5 I never bothered to drive from Texas to Pennsylvania where the GameStop holding my preorder stands.
So they should have the publisher ship them some real ones....
It's cheaper and easier to send a box of entirely blank cases followed by e-mails containing mock ups to print. The best part, the cases are reusable.
When the game actually launches, it's cheaper and easier to open a box and remove the game. You can't sell an empty box.
"Corporate"?
Who cares if an individual manager gets to make that decision or not? Am I supposed to make a sympathy buy because "corporate" forces a GameStop manager to do things that make me not want to shop there?
That wasn't my point. My point was you were railing against an article told at the local level, while claiming "Furthermore, nobody is forcing them to sell the gutted game at full price." This wasn't about sympathy buys, but about understanding where the manager was coming from.
It doesn't matter to me at what level of the chain the decision was made. The fact of the matter is that I don't want to pay full price for a game with an open box, or a case with stickers all over the front. Especially when the game has a registration key.
That's a fair enough position to take. You don't want to pay full price for a game with an open box. You can express that opinion, and refuse to purchase the game at that price. You have that power as a buyer.
But at the same time, I have the power to say, "Hey, the only real difference here is I didn't have to take the shrink wrap off myself." If they're out of the game otherwise, I can walk home with a brand new copy, or I can throw myself at the mercies of whatever used copies they might or might not have.
If there are enough people who hold similar opinions to yours, you might see things change. However, as long as there are a significant number of people like myself you're going to be charged full price for gutted games.
Complete bullshit. Gamestop has enough clout to get a few empty boxes for display purposes. They have empty boxes for the games on the wall to advertise pre-releases. "Gutting" a game is entirely unnecessary. Furthermore, nobody is forcing them to sell the gutted game at full price. If they feel they need a gutted box on the wall to sell a game, then when it comes time to sell the gutted copy, they are completely free to sell it at cost instead of taking full retail profit. It is also unnecessary for the store manager to give the customer a hard time when they change their mind and refuse to buy because the game is opened.
Most of the time, those empty boxes aren't the real deal. I can't say I've worked at a Gamestop and have special knowledge, but it doesn't take an insider to look at them and tell they aren't official. Often enough they don't even have anything on the back.
Nobody may be forcing them to sell at retail price, except for corporate. Corporate has decided that since the game has essentially been untouched, the price should match accordingly. That, or they decided that they like screwing with people. It's not a decision any particular store's manager gets to make.
After building a computer for the first time I had a power supply failure. Despite my inexperience I had come to that conclusion after some extensive testing. However, when I replaced the power supply the computer failed to boot. When my power supply had fried it took the motherboard with it. Again, this was another inexperienced conclusion, but in the end it panned out.
However, due to my lack of experience I decided to phone back Best Buy, from whom I had bought the replacement power supply. After navigating the labyrinthine phone system I finally reached the wrong support group, who forwarded me to whoever was supposed to be knowledgeable on the subject. The tech support person proceeded to ask me to do a number of things I'd done already. Finally, they reached a diagnosis.
This person, and I kid you not, explained it to me as follows.
Tech Support: "The problem is that your BIOS isn't detecting the new power supply." Me: "Excuse me?" Tech Support: "You'll need to reset your BIOS so that it can acknowledge the new power supply and get your computer booted." Me: "That doesn't make any sense." Tech Support: "I'm afraid I can't help you if you don't proceed with this next step." Me: "Right... thanks for your help." Tech Support: "No problem."
I proceeded to RMA the motherboard back to the supplier, installed the replacement, and everything worked fine after that. I still remain confused to this day.
We started with three consoles this generation, the Wii, the 360 and the PS3. Then Microsoft announced the Core and Premium variations, upping the consoles this generation to four. Then Sony followed suit with their 20gb and 60gb versions, five. Then Microsoft announced the Elite, six. Then Sony announced the 80gb PS3, seven. Then Sony announced the 40gb PS3, eight. Then Microsoft announced the Arcade, nine...
You can argue that they are all over-glorified, repackaged versions of the same thing, you might be right. However, the point remains that both Microsoft and Sony are needlessly complicating matters. There isn't an obvious difference between any of the systems. One 360 looks like another, one PS3 looks like another. You have a wall of systems all alike, all different.
Meanwhile, each and every Wii box is exactly the same.
If I were an uninformed parent, walking into a store because I knew Jr wanted video games and I wanted to give them to him, I'd probably run out screaming if it wasn't for the Wii. The Wii is a comforting reminder that someone understands people who don't understand video games. There are no confusing, "What's different between this one and this one?" questions. There is only a clearly marked, small, and inoffensive box marked Wii.
Yes, many parents will go into stores looking specifically for 360s and PS3s, but they aren't going to enjoy the experience. It's Russian roulette with your wallet.
5 - Store characters on a server that will last longer than 90 days AND are non hackable.
Two words, Open Battle.net. Additionally, how many characters did you have that it was impossible to commit to playing them each for one hour in a three month timespan? Lastly, I have my doubts that Bnetd or anything related to it was hack-proof. Speaking of which...
4 - Allow/disallow Maphack at MY choosing. (Maphack is not a hacking tool, it is a UI improvement)
Case in point.
Once again, Open Battle.net. Also, that's not a bug, it's a feature.
3 - Choose who can join my server. (No Spambots, just my friends + their friends)
I don't see how this is even an issue unless you enjoyed hanging out in the chat channels. Spambots didn't join anything but the main channels, mostly the trade channels, and couldn't join your game if you gave it a password.
1 - Mod support. All of the really great games were that way because of the Modding community.
I'm unimpressed by your ability to skip #2, rather than just spend 15 seconds to go back and properly number your countdown.
Two words, and I repeat, Open Battle.net. I made my own mods, and played them with friends in this manner.
In short, the only thing Bnetd provided that Blizzard hadn't already given you the ability to do was play games without buying them.
I'd like to point out that the reference for the statements labeling the seal of quality as a "marketing ploy" is a single book. While that is better than nothing, I can't remember ever writing a research paper in college with fewer than 3 credible sources.
Perhaps my memory is fuzzy, but this book doesn't share the same assessment.
It's possible it's merely a semantic issue or a bad implication on the part of Wikipedia.
DRM restricts the user. 10NES restricted the developers.
The chip was designed for two purposes, keep crap games off the system and give Nintendo control to that effect. Was it 100% effective? Certainly not, but neither are most Spam filters. That, and there's no accounting for taste.
Take the time to read Game ver, you'll have a better idea of what went on.
Personally, I don't care what analysts think. How many of them correctly foresaw the Wii's success? How many of them foresaw the PS3's failure?
I'm not asking any and all analysts to be clairvoyant, but I don't recall any of them being at all accurate. The most dire prognostication was that Sony wouldn't absolutely dominate, but only lead.
As far as I can tell, 90% of analysts are going to make predictions anyone who has a passing interest in the subject could make with about as much accuracy. Basically, they pick whatever follows the old trends irregardless of the fact that trends change.
Sony might drop the price, that's always been a possibility. However, this is Sony we're talking about. I personally find it just as likely that they'll stick to their guns and keep the price as is; it wouldn't even be stupid. If they lower the price, they piss off a lot of hardcore people and potentially reduce their revenue. If they don't, they piss off a lot of hardcore people and potentially reduce their revenue.
I won't be surprised either way, but I would believe random anonymous coward Sony fanboy trolls before I'd listen to analysts.
Let me put a strong rumble pack on your gun and let's see how well you compensate for it.;-)
It's a matter of fact that any dedicated player can adapt to even a monumental handicap.
I played copious amounts of Perfect Dark with a good friend of mine on controllers that had been permanently damaged by Mario Party. When I say permanently damaged, I mean that both controllers acted as though aiming was determined through a random number generator. "Spastic" would be a good descriptor. Despite this handicap we adapted and came to be rather good at the game.
Similarly, all the problems you mentioned are adverse variables against perfect aim via the Wiimote. However, they are all problems that can be intuitively combated. Assuming one is not constantly making major shifts in one's distance from the TV, it's relatively easy to make some initial adaptations and slowly settle into a comfort zone for aiming.
Meanwhile HD TVs are moving into the mass market price range and the real next gen consoles are building up their user bases ready to buy our real games.
Starting to move anyway. The nice big TVs the advertisements call for are still well out of range. If you're content with a monitor sized TV that does HD, it's only $600 dollars (cheapest I could find on Best Buy at 1080i).
Also, your company want might to pay more attention to the "building up" of user bases. The rate at which the PS3 and Xbox 360 are selling combined is less than that of the Wii. Beyond the costs of multi-platforming your "real" games, you'll still be targeting a smaller user base when your games come out in a few years.
There is real debate to be had on this subject, but you seem to be lacking any of the decent arguments.
I now return to my regularly scheduled playing of my 360.
If the 360 doesn't have the power to keep up, it will be relegated to "toy" status like the Wii.
I wasn't aware the Wii had been relegated to anything but "JESUS CHRIST ITS A LION GET IN THE CAR". But that's a different matter than the meat of your comment.
Graphics aren't the issue.
I think what you meant to say here "aren't the only issue", which is a fair statement to make.
Processing power and storage capacity will define the next generation of games. Once game AI developers start to use the power of the PS3, games that use the simplistic AIs of today will feel "flat" in comparison.
AI, at least given the current paradigms, can't get too smart for a number of reasons.
1) For any uniform increase in AI intelligence, the amount of processing power required for that increases becomes greater and greater in a non-linear fashion as the overall intelligence increases. Basically, it's similar to graphics in that it has diminishing returns.
2) Many players really don't want smarter AI, because most people aren't good enough to deal with skilled opponents. I'm not talking about mechanically unfair advantages a computer has, but the kind of strategy and awareness in AI that a small subset of the gaming populace wants. Granted, there are gains to be made in AI that don't cross the threshold of "too smart".
3) AI already feels flat. We don't need some magic voodoo on one of the new consoles to show us that.
Capacity is a no-brainer. As games become more expansive and as hi-res textures become the norm, trying to fit onto a DVD will become a big problem for game developers.
The Gamecube had 1/5th - 1/6th as much space to work with as the PS2 and Xbox (1.5gb vs 8.5gb) and no hard drive. Some of the most notably long, complicated, and beautiful games of the previous generation were on the Gamecube. Capacity may become another hurdle, but isn't likely to be crippling.
Slashdot Mirror
The "issue" has been public for a long time, it's also been a non-issue for a long time. To date, the military hasn't done anything in the realm of video games worth raising eyebrows over. As the gamepolitics article noted, if it was disclosed that the gaming industry and the DoD had been working together to sneak military brainwashing into your run of the mill FPS, then there'd be a story. The fact that the military is looking to simulation experts in the gaming industry to make their simulations better shouldn't surprise or alarm anyone.
Or comedy gold.
I'd say it probably isn't the latches that are pathetic, but the passengers who jam clearly infeasible luggage into the bins.
The way to a man's heart is through his stomach, but the way to a woman's heart is through stress-relieving massage.
If guys figured this out, there would be many, many more heterosexual masseurs.
I don't believe your prediction would pan out in reality for several reasons.
1) Raising the price will only potentially curb demand. It will not place additional Wiis on shelves in time for Christmas, let alone "right away".
2) Your solution works by reducing the number of people who will want the console via the price hike. These people are very unlikely to be happy about Nintendo making consoles available to other people by making consoles unavailable to them. Their criticism will be voiced, and it wouldn't be bellyaching.
3) No console (bundles excluded) has ever had its price raised in the history of video games. Were Nintendo to do so, it would be unprecedented and worthy of plenty of media attention (and criticism).
But then again, we can always agree to disagree.
That account has existed since Nov '00. That's some foresight on Nintendo's part.
Nintendo technically has the power to raise the price. They won't for a very obvious reason, PR. There are very, very few items classified under "electronics" that get to cost more as time goes on. A price hike on a video game system is completely unprecedented, and would bring with it incredible amounts of negative press.
Consider how much negative press Sony has received for their hubris and minor slip ups. Multiply that by several orders and you'll have the general reaction to a price hike.
Desensitization in the sense you mention is something we should strive for. Desensitization in the sense of one's understanding of the morality, or immorality, of violence is something we should avoid. The semantics here muddle the issue somewhat, as there isn't a clear distinction between the two in most discussions. The result is that many people assume the two go hand in hand, when really they do not.
I have noticed, but the point remains. Video games and books are not interchangeable because books do not operate on budgets in the millions of dollars. Books don't have to recuperate those costs. Books are also cheaper, but don't lose value over time the way video games do. They can afford to sit on a shelf for a much longer period of time without mark down, because the number of people waiting for a book to get cheaper before buying it are few and far between.
They are not analogous media, and what works for books will not work for video games without turning the system into the ship of Theseus.
And as I and others responded to that list, they did not take preorders of the Wii before the release date was announced, Final Fantasy X is a non-issue because games are cheap and easy to manufacture, and for the DS GameStop stopped taking preorders when they reached the limit of their incoming shipments.
Hence, what I said many posts back...
At last the power of logic has shown us there is an equitable solution. Excellent refutation of #2.
I agree. That should actually be a very viable method.
It's certainly irrelevant to what you have been saying, but then again what you have been saying is only tangentially relevant to what the article was saying.
If the manager believes a policy is bad, who's to say they don't? Complaining does not necessarily warrant change. On the other hand if the manager agrees with the policy, they'll leave it up to the customers to complain.
I didn't, and I'd still take the gutted game over a used copy. Call me gullible, but given that there is generally a long line of people wanting to work at GameStop, they can afford to terminate anyone who has a consistently bad performance (i.e bringing back gutted games in a condition more akin to used, warranting complaints from customers). I'd much rather trust an employee hired for their ability to not manhandle games on a daily basis than the people responsible for the unplayable disks at Blockbuster.
Given the following assumptions, your strategy can not possibly make a profit.
1. The only time they need to sell a gutted game is when they are out of shrink wrapped, new copies.
2. Shipping empty boxes requires excluding an actual game from current shipments.
With these conditions, the gutted game wouldn't even be there to purchase under your system. We must assume #2, because it doesn't make sense to ship a box of empty boxes, as there aren't enough games coming out on a given week to warrant that. Not only that, this doesn't include the necessity of storing lots of empty boxes for titles you do not have in stock because you sold out but might eventually see one of them in the future.
Your proposition is not as economically sound as you think it is.
You anecdote would be more helpful if A) you specified when this happened B) you specified with what titles and C) you specified what GameStop tried to do to appease you, however unsuccessful it was. As it stands, it's entirely your experience against the experience of anyone who disagrees.
I didn't want to get into an argument about semantics, but unfortunately I find myself in a position necessitating clarification. When I said "pretty much guaranteed" I meant "guaranteed to the full extent of the ability a company has to guarantee that another company will deliver a product as stated". I didn't mean, "I guess the manager has some vague idea how many copies they'll be getting, and won't preorder too many more than that". In short, the only reason I didn't say "fully guaranteed" was due to the possibility I described later. Which brings us to the next bullet point.
Within the definition given, the situation I described is still "guaranteed". It is only a misinterpretation of my intentions by which you have come to the conclusion that I agree with you.
The point of my anecdote was to show that the only experience I've had over dozens of preorders where it was not filled was when a game with a promised release date was completely canned, a situation beyond the control of the organization I preordered from.
This kind of market existed in the Atari days, and when Nintendo first attempted to rejuvenate the video games industry. However, due to the mechanics of this it was nearly impossible for a video game company to make a profit. Books and video games are simply not interchangeable.
It might be possible to somehow modify the book system to be more appropriate for video games, but there's isn't enough reason for this to happen currently. It doesn't have a big enough benefit for the big players in either retail or in publishing to make the drastic changes necessary for it to work. Until there is a clear motivation for them, it won't happen.
Games are pretty much guaranteed if you preorder. Despite the excessive worldwide popularity of the Halo franchise, and the fact that it only went gold less than a month before the game was launched (Aug 29th - Sept 25th) there were ample copies for everyone on launch day and more than enough for the weeks after. Quite simply, the demand for games hasn't reached a point yet where the rate of manufacture for games has been significantly challenged. If a game is in short supply, it's because of a lack of perceived interested (i.e lack of preorders among a plethora of other things).
Hardware is where they really can't make any guarantees, hence the care they put into the PS3 and Wii launches. These being the most recent examples, it's probably safe to say they won't be returning to the same preorder insanity we saw for the 360 or any other prior hardware.
The only other preorder problem is if a game isn't released. I've only experienced this once (StarCraft: Ghost) and as it was only $5 I never bothered to drive from Texas to Pennsylvania where the GameStop holding my preorder stands.
It's cheaper and easier to send a box of entirely blank cases followed by e-mails containing mock ups to print. The best part, the cases are reusable.
When the game actually launches, it's cheaper and easier to open a box and remove the game. You can't sell an empty box.
That wasn't my point. My point was you were railing against an article told at the local level, while claiming "Furthermore, nobody is forcing them to sell the gutted game at full price." This wasn't about sympathy buys, but about understanding where the manager was coming from.
That's a fair enough position to take. You don't want to pay full price for a game with an open box. You can express that opinion, and refuse to purchase the game at that price. You have that power as a buyer.
But at the same time, I have the power to say, "Hey, the only real difference here is I didn't have to take the shrink wrap off myself." If they're out of the game otherwise, I can walk home with a brand new copy, or I can throw myself at the mercies of whatever used copies they might or might not have.
If there are enough people who hold similar opinions to yours, you might see things change. However, as long as there are a significant number of people like myself you're going to be charged full price for gutted games.
Most of the time, those empty boxes aren't the real deal. I can't say I've worked at a Gamestop and have special knowledge, but it doesn't take an insider to look at them and tell they aren't official. Often enough they don't even have anything on the back.
Nobody may be forcing them to sell at retail price, except for corporate. Corporate has decided that since the game has essentially been untouched, the price should match accordingly. That, or they decided that they like screwing with people. It's not a decision any particular store's manager gets to make.
After building a computer for the first time I had a power supply failure. Despite my inexperience I had come to that conclusion after some extensive testing. However, when I replaced the power supply the computer failed to boot. When my power supply had fried it took the motherboard with it. Again, this was another inexperienced conclusion, but in the end it panned out.
However, due to my lack of experience I decided to phone back Best Buy, from whom I had bought the replacement power supply. After navigating the labyrinthine phone system I finally reached the wrong support group, who forwarded me to whoever was supposed to be knowledgeable on the subject. The tech support person proceeded to ask me to do a number of things I'd done already. Finally, they reached a diagnosis.
This person, and I kid you not, explained it to me as follows.
Tech Support: "The problem is that your BIOS isn't detecting the new power supply."
Me: "Excuse me?"
Tech Support: "You'll need to reset your BIOS so that it can acknowledge the new power supply and get your computer booted."
Me: "That doesn't make any sense."
Tech Support: "I'm afraid I can't help you if you don't proceed with this next step."
Me: "Right... thanks for your help."
Tech Support: "No problem."
I proceeded to RMA the motherboard back to the supplier, installed the replacement, and everything worked fine after that. I still remain confused to this day.
I'm just as confused as you are.
We started with three consoles this generation, the Wii, the 360 and the PS3. Then Microsoft announced the Core and Premium variations, upping the consoles this generation to four. Then Sony followed suit with their 20gb and 60gb versions, five. Then Microsoft announced the Elite, six. Then Sony announced the 80gb PS3, seven. Then Sony announced the 40gb PS3, eight. Then Microsoft announced the Arcade, nine...
You can argue that they are all over-glorified, repackaged versions of the same thing, you might be right. However, the point remains that both Microsoft and Sony are needlessly complicating matters. There isn't an obvious difference between any of the systems. One 360 looks like another, one PS3 looks like another. You have a wall of systems all alike, all different.
Meanwhile, each and every Wii box is exactly the same.
If I were an uninformed parent, walking into a store because I knew Jr wanted video games and I wanted to give them to him, I'd probably run out screaming if it wasn't for the Wii. The Wii is a comforting reminder that someone understands people who don't understand video games. There are no confusing, "What's different between this one and this one?" questions. There is only a clearly marked, small, and inoffensive box marked Wii.
Yes, many parents will go into stores looking specifically for 360s and PS3s, but they aren't going to enjoy the experience. It's Russian roulette with your wallet.
Two words, Open Battle.net. Additionally, how many characters did you have that it was impossible to commit to playing them each for one hour in a three month timespan? Lastly, I have my doubts that Bnetd or anything related to it was hack-proof. Speaking of which...
Case in point.
Once again, Open Battle.net. Also, that's not a bug, it's a feature.
I don't see how this is even an issue unless you enjoyed hanging out in the chat channels. Spambots didn't join anything but the main channels, mostly the trade channels, and couldn't join your game if you gave it a password.
I'm unimpressed by your ability to skip #2, rather than just spend 15 seconds to go back and properly number your countdown.
Two words, and I repeat, Open Battle.net. I made my own mods, and played them with friends in this manner.
In short, the only thing Bnetd provided that Blizzard hadn't already given you the ability to do was play games without buying them.
I'd like to point out that the reference for the statements labeling the seal of quality as a "marketing ploy" is a single book. While that is better than nothing, I can't remember ever writing a research paper in college with fewer than 3 credible sources.
Perhaps my memory is fuzzy, but this book doesn't share the same assessment.
It's possible it's merely a semantic issue or a bad implication on the part of Wikipedia.
DRM restricts the user. 10NES restricted the developers.
The chip was designed for two purposes, keep crap games off the system and give Nintendo control to that effect. Was it 100% effective? Certainly not, but neither are most Spam filters. That, and there's no accounting for taste.
Take the time to read Game ver, you'll have a better idea of what went on.
Personally, I don't care what analysts think. How many of them correctly foresaw the Wii's success? How many of them foresaw the PS3's failure?
I'm not asking any and all analysts to be clairvoyant, but I don't recall any of them being at all accurate. The most dire prognostication was that Sony wouldn't absolutely dominate, but only lead.
As far as I can tell, 90% of analysts are going to make predictions anyone who has a passing interest in the subject could make with about as much accuracy. Basically, they pick whatever follows the old trends irregardless of the fact that trends change.
Sony might drop the price, that's always been a possibility. However, this is Sony we're talking about. I personally find it just as likely that they'll stick to their guns and keep the price as is; it wouldn't even be stupid. If they lower the price, they piss off a lot of hardcore people and potentially reduce their revenue. If they don't, they piss off a lot of hardcore people and potentially reduce their revenue.
I won't be surprised either way, but I would believe random anonymous coward Sony fanboy trolls before I'd listen to analysts.
It's a matter of fact that any dedicated player can adapt to even a monumental handicap.
I played copious amounts of Perfect Dark with a good friend of mine on controllers that had been permanently damaged by Mario Party. When I say permanently damaged, I mean that both controllers acted as though aiming was determined through a random number generator. "Spastic" would be a good descriptor. Despite this handicap we adapted and came to be rather good at the game.
Similarly, all the problems you mentioned are adverse variables against perfect aim via the Wiimote. However, they are all problems that can be intuitively combated. Assuming one is not constantly making major shifts in one's distance from the TV, it's relatively easy to make some initial adaptations and slowly settle into a comfort zone for aiming.
Yes, some of us prefer knives, tweezers, blueberry pies, and pictures of Oprah Windfrey.
Starting to move anyway. The nice big TVs the advertisements call for are still well out of range. If you're content with a monitor sized TV that does HD, it's only $600 dollars (cheapest I could find on Best Buy at 1080i).
Also, your company want might to pay more attention to the "building up" of user bases. The rate at which the PS3 and Xbox 360 are selling combined is less than that of the Wii. Beyond the costs of multi-platforming your "real" games, you'll still be targeting a smaller user base when your games come out in a few years.
There is real debate to be had on this subject, but you seem to be lacking any of the decent arguments.
I now return to my regularly scheduled playing of my 360.
I wasn't aware the Wii had been relegated to anything but "JESUS CHRIST ITS A LION GET IN THE CAR". But that's a different matter than the meat of your comment.
I think what you meant to say here "aren't the only issue", which is a fair statement to make.
AI, at least given the current paradigms, can't get too smart for a number of reasons.
1) For any uniform increase in AI intelligence, the amount of processing power required for that increases becomes greater and greater in a non-linear fashion as the overall intelligence increases. Basically, it's similar to graphics in that it has diminishing returns.
2) Many players really don't want smarter AI, because most people aren't good enough to deal with skilled opponents. I'm not talking about mechanically unfair advantages a computer has, but the kind of strategy and awareness in AI that a small subset of the gaming populace wants. Granted, there are gains to be made in AI that don't cross the threshold of "too smart".
3) AI already feels flat. We don't need some magic voodoo on one of the new consoles to show us that.
The Gamecube had 1/5th - 1/6th as much space to work with as the PS2 and Xbox (1.5gb vs 8.5gb) and no hard drive. Some of the most notably long, complicated, and beautiful games of the previous generation were on the Gamecube. Capacity may become another hurdle, but isn't likely to be crippling.