There were a few gripes that I had with the game, but overall it was a pretty good game. Sailing around in the boat got old after awhile, and the stealth element of the game was rather lame and pointless IMHO.
The important thing is that he's apparently learned from this so that it doesn't happen again. Considering that the Revolution (I think they decided to produce this for their next gen console instead of the GameCube, or at least it seems possible) probably won't be released until around this time next year or even later, there should be plenty of time to polish the game.
Personally I wish the the big companies would realize developers need time to create a game worth selling. A game like Wind Waker could have easily been pushed on hype alone even if Nintendo crapped in a box and shipped it out as quickly as possible. As a gamer I'd much rather wait for a quality product than a rushed one that gets here three months earlier.
You do realize that a good MMO or CTF game can teach similar things as well.
The only real difference is that you'll get more exercise playing football and have a lesser chance of getting hurt playing video games. Well that and if you Team Kill in Halo 2 you won't get in as much trouble.
Is this really such a bad thing? If the various music artists around the world realize that they can get along just fine without the RIAA or big music labels, then the world will be a vastly better place.
As technology becomes more widespread and digital music distribution becomes the norm rather than the exception, there's no reason why all the major record companies can't disappear. As an artist, you would no longer need a big company to make all the CDs, and you would get more profit from your songs without a greedy middle-man skimming off the top all of the time.
Bands wouldn't need to spend large amounts of money on studio time to release and album because with a new distribution model they could just release single after single, which is how a lot of online music shoppers purchase their music. Startups could even offer their music for free to get people to listen to them (like some bands are doing now) and pay money to see them live.
Right now the music industry is full of middle-men that screw everyone involved. If a company doesn't like a band they don't have to offer them a contract. We're probably missing out on a lot of good music in the mainstream because the music industry doesn't think it would be popular. While there are certainly a lot of albums out there worth the price they ask, there's a lot more that have only a few songs worth listening too on the album. Right now a lot of consumers (those without computers or the ability to use iTunes, Napster, etc.) are forced to pay $15 for what's really $5 worth of music. Then when someone doesn't want to subscribe to this business model called "fuck everyone" the music industry does as much as it can to resist any change.
They're all quite happy having their pockets lined by someone else's hard work and dedication and exploiting the customer base as much as they can bear. This article is also pretty telling about some of the business practices these companies employ. Frankly, they don't give a damn about music, only making money. Here's hoping that the rotten bastards have a steady decline and are remeber only as a horribly oppressive and unsuccessful business model that no one will ever try again.
I think it's more of a lack of ambition on America's part. There seems to be much more of a "Did you see what happened on The Real World yesterday?" attitude, than a "I wonder if this could..." attitude.
America has one of the highest standards of living in the world. "Poverty level" in America is "Rich as Bill Gates" in other countries. We've essentially been so productive and innovative in the past that we've become too comfortable. Why bother trying to make something better when your favority sitcom (or worse yet reality tv show) is on and you have a recliner that almost swallows you and a big old bowl of chips and dip right next to it.
Either that or all the techies are too busy being karma whores or trying to get first post on/. instead of working.
government would best serve this country by staying the hell out if it can help it. However, things seem to have gotten to the point where the government really can't help it.
It's pretty obvious that parents on some scale are refusing to take enough of an active interest in the lives of their children to prevent them from acquiring content that may not be suitable for them (or anyone else for that matter). Rather than policing their children, some people would rather have the government do it. If Bob and Jane won't stop little Billy from getting his hands on a "murder simulator" then someone has to, obviously. The government could say, "No! Raise your own damned kids," but would likely find themselves replaced by a government that says "Sure, we'll raise your kids." Some would argue that holding the parents responsible as a good alternative, but which is easier for a government: Give in to the voting public and stay in office or alienate the voting public and get replaced by someone who will give in anyway?
If anything, the Federal government should stay as far away from this as possible. If California, New York, or Illinois wants to do something about it within their own state, they can go right ahead. What those particular states might want isn't necessarily something that my state might.
If the government did have to do something on a national level, I'd suggest creating an organization to replace the ESRB, which really has little to no authority or power to do anything other than assign a largely inadiquate lable to any game that is given to it for review. I'd like to see three primary elements of a game catagorically rated: violence, profanity, and sexuality. Games like GTA would score quite high in violence because of the ability to kill anyone in almost any manner, moderately high in terms of profanity, especially given the more recent installments, but on the low end in sexuality even with the Hot Coffee mod. Although I've never played Playboy Mansion, I'm sure that while it would score high in sexuality, violence would probably be a big zero.
A rating system that scored games based on individual attributes rather than taking it all into consideration and giving it a broad rating that encompasses several different factors. For instance, as one of the comments in the article mentions: "Finally, the ESRB's rating system has a fatal flaw of not distinguishing between games like Halo (scifi, shooting aliens) and games like GTA (shooting cops, sex with hookers, drugs, etc.). They're both rated M. Since AO is retail suicide, everyone avoids it like the plague and it has become useless."
Having such general ratings really limits an easy method of choosing content that might be suitable for you or your children. An M rated game about bashing someone with profane language and various racial/religous slurs is much different than an M rated game about bashing someone's head in with a claw hammer. you might not mind some raunchy language but violence might sicken you. It's much the same way with movies. A movie can be rated R for excessive violence, language, or sexuality. In a similar fashion you might not mind if your children of age 16 see a movie with a lot of fowl language, but you might not want them to see anything with a lot of sex or violence. A rating system that breaks a game into a few core catagories and gives rating for each catagory would better serve parents and people in deciding which content would be suitable for them or their children.
Let's say state X makes a law banning the sale of M rated games to minors. If they don't do anything about AO and stores decide to sell unrated or AO games, a minor could technically purchase an unrated game with 10 times the violence as an M rated game.
Additionally, general ratings like M really don't differentiate games well enough. I could create a game with just enough sexuality in it to get an M rating. It might not have violence or profanity, but could still get an M rating. I could also create a game that simulates a person playing the role of Hitler. I could have lots of blood, gore, profanity, racism, and be full a hatred and still pull an M rating. Guess which I'd rather have kept out of the hand's of children.
However, since it's obvious that there are a lot of parents not doing their jobs (look at the number of young kids who can easily play M rated games) of keeping content that may be harmful to their children (It's not really for me to decide if 10 year old Jonhny should be running over cops in a video game since he's not my kid, but general concensus would probably suggest he shouldn't be doing that in a video game or real life) away from their children, someone probably should.
Why not in America?
on
Gamer Nation
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
I don't really see much of a problem for this to happen most parts of America. In big cities it wouldn't be hard to have the government wire the whole city and allow many different companies to compete for customers. I don't see it happening in rural America because it's really not cost effective to string 10 miles of fiber to farmer Joe.
But the government doesn't want to get involved. They'd rather let a company do the wiring themselves and then charge that market all it can bear. Rather than creating a service that's good for everyone, we're all living the American dream, shouting a big FU to the country so that we can all scheme to get rich for ourselves. Then again I guess that suggest is communist for thinking that a minority of the population shouldn't hord a majority of the wealth.
Sometimes I think America's worst enemy is a America itself. We'd rather make a lot of money than offer a quality product that's affordable for almost everyone.
There's been a lot of doom and gloom about the industry lately bemoaning the lack of innovation and indie development. While the outlook today is bleak, the only constant in this industry is change, so it's not likely to stay that way forever.
I think this is true with almost anything now days. People have some sort of nogistalgic impression of the past that makes it seem so much better than the present. Add that into the fact that people just like to bitch and complain, and you've got the above comment applied to anything.
There will always be something new and innovative out there. I'm willing to bet there's a lot of stuff that people don't even pick up on. Additionally, we have to remember that during the last decade a lot of new genres sprung to life. Of course games like Doom were going to be innovative. Nothing like them had really existed before. Someone could make a game that simulates growing mold and it would be somewhat innovative (we already have sim games of all types) but would the market really want to buy a product like this? If you want to blame anyone for the lack of innovation, blame consumers that keep buying the same rehashed stuff over and over again.
There're still plenty of frontiers out there for games to explore. The Nintendo DS, for example, is something that really hasn't been done before. There are also a lot of genres out there that need refinement before we can move on. 3D platformers could, in general, stand to have better cameras that offer tighter gameplay. Occasionally, innovation happens within a genre. Look at the Madden series. It went from playing a season with your favorite team to having an owner mode where you can set the price of hotdogs in your stadium.
Innovation is happening all the time, but when the market fails to support innovation, it goes away. Given the cost of producing a game on a console it's a lot harder for indie developers with radical ideas to get into the game. That's why you see a lot of nifty little games come out for computers or made in flash. These are a lot easier for a small timer to make given their limited finances.
I think that Nintendo's wireless strategy and a game like Animal Crossing for the Revolution could push up to 60% of users "online"
Of course this leaves a little bit up to interpretation. 60% of users won't be connecting to some type of server that Nintendo sets up, but 60% of users may communicate wirelessly with another Revolution console within range of whatever WiFi network is set up.
This doesn't constitute what many people would normally consider going online with a game, but it still accomplishes some type of online functionality. I know a lot of people who play Halo 2 on a LAN at college but don't subscribe to Xbox Live. People are still playing the game online, but they're just not doing it in any way that Microsoft can track. Programs like XBConnect also lead to this.
I'd guess that there are a lot of people who have played Halo 2 "online" without subcribing to Xbox Live. (On a personal note if you bought the game for single player mode you're not very smart) It might not even be unreasonable to say that 60 of the people who purchased Halo 2 have played "online" in some capacity.
I might be wrong, but probably not by much. Just chalk it up to people not wanting to pay what they feel is an unreasonable price for something when a free alternative exists.
While attempted legislation of content in the game industry is a big issue, I feel that there are bigger problems out there. Legislation, while not the biggest issue by itself, will more than likely contribute to the larger problems.
Personally, I believe that the gaming industry is setting itself up for another fall as seen before Nintendo arrived on the scene. The next generation consoles are expected to be more expensive than ever with the PS3 expected to debut for $400, which is interesting because it supposedly costs over $500 to manufacture. The Xbox and Revolution will probably be more reasonably priced, but will still come in costing a little more than gaming consoles generally cost in the past. Game prices are also expected to rise from $50 to $60. Granted that games have been priced at $50 for a while now, but inflation has been slowly reering its ugly head. Whether it's fair or not, consumers are not going to like it.
Additionally, small studios seem to be getting gobbled up by larger companies like EA. Game designers are generally being overworked and underpayed. How long before they decide that they've had enough and go on strike or quit in droves? Massive strikes or large upheavals in the industry would lead to even more delays than we're used to seeing currently. With the software sitting on a computer uncomplete and not in a store for people to buy, developement costs would technically go up as the income from sales becomes non-existant. Additionally, it seems that the industry has turned into Hollywood. There are always a few sleeper hits that creep out every now and again, but it seems like the industry has become sequal driven. As the cost of development rises, companies can't afford to take bigger risks. At the same time consumers are getting sick of being fed the same rehashed games over and over again.
Another factor is the industry's obsession with graphics and power. The dick measuring contest the PS3 and Xbox 360 have gotten into is ridiculous. Gameplay is put on the backburner while developers see how many more polygons they can squeeze in or how much more realistically they can get breat jiggles to be. 3D games have looked great and have wonderful worlds to explore, if the camera isn't busted beyond usability and the controls make you feel like your character is drugged. Companies have been mandating HD support in all games when many consumers don't have HD TVs capable of displaying resolutions that high. Additionally, making prettier graphics only increases the development costs. At a certain point they have to realize that the graphics that will only look marginally better aren't worth the extra cost.
The game industry has enough problems internally right now without worrying about what Congress is doing. Given their general track record, the government is the last thing that the game industry has to worry about, at least for the time being. If you're worried about a few nuts whining to their Senator are going to tear the game industry apart, perhaps you should step back and see that the industry is already doing a pretty good job of doing it by themselves.
Personally I think that Microsoft still uses their current business model because it gives them control which is always something they've coveted. Do they adopt standarts that they haven't hard a part in creating? Usually not. If they do, in the case of RSS (which was posted on/. a while back) they usually piss in the broth themselves a little just to make the flavor to their liking a little more.
Microsoft expects to dictate to you, the user, how you will use their hardware, and they expect you to pay for it as well. They want to have control over how the content is distributed and how it is accessed by users. Other companies, like Sony, are a little more open and carefree. "Do it however the hell you want, we don't really care," is what they've been saying.
I don't know whether or not your claim that more people play online with the PS2 is accurate or not. Given that the PS2 has an install base four or more times greater than the Xbox and that a majority of PS2 games are free to play online, it wouldn't surprise me if this were true. But you also have the remember that Microsoft is making money off of these subsciptions whereas Sony isn't making anything from the people who play online (unless you want to count people who buy a PS2 for free online play).
According to sales figures the Xbox has sold roughly 20 million units world wide. If there are 2 million subscribers online with Xbox live simple arithmatic yields 10% of Xbox customers use their consoles online.
While this doesn't seem like a lot, the figure is/has been growing slowly. I believe a lot of it has to do with the unvailability of high speed internet access for a good deal of customers as well as people being unwilling to pay the subscription ($50 I think) costs.
However, 10% really isn't all that big of a number. I'm guessing that it's slightly under since there have more than likely been more than 20 million Xbox consoles sold. When Microsoft can get that number up to 30%, maybe they might have a cause for celebration.
This just proves that Nintendo and Sony were both right for shying away from the online market during the current generation. 10% doesn't seem enough to justify the associated costs and difficulties with setting up an infrastructure that will work. Microsoft does have the advantage in that they already have one set up and it will be easy for them to apply it to their next generation console. Nintendo and Sony will almost be starting from scratch.
I don't know how much more successful the online gaming business will be for the different companies. Each have or seem to be taking different approaches. Nintendo is offering downloadable games for their next generation consoles and is working on getting the DS online. Microsoft has a subsciption model where they handle all online gaming. Sony has generally let each company decide for themselves how to run the online portion of their games.
I'm willing to bet that online gaming will continue to grow and probably peak at around 60% in some cases where it's free and easy to use and as low as 20% in instances where fees are associated. Given that Microsoft is offering both a silver (free) and gold (fee) subsciption to Xbox Live, it will become more difficult to project actual figures. My guess is that they will lump both together to claim a higher percentage of consumers are using Xbox Live so they can use the figure to sell more consoles. Nintendo will have trouble tracking theirs since Revolutions can probably communicate wirelessly without going through any gaming servers. Sony will just keep talking about how many Tflops the PS3 can push.
Online gaming can be great, but let's keep plenty of good non-online games on the market as well.
Be able to use the thumbs up/down button to rate the commercials instead of sending personal information to the company. This way when another one of those Bush's Baked Beans commercials with the talking dog comes on I can hit thumbs down until it falls off. Maybe than the asshats in marketing at that company will decide that using the same idea for longer than I can remember isn't a good idea. It was funny the first time, cute the second time, but now it's just OLD!
Either that or it could be used to rate people's interest in a product. This way when a commercial for Fox's latest reality TV disaster comes on, I can hit my little red button again and save them the trouble of releasing more crap that no one wants to watch.
Or even better yet, I can hit the power button and go read a book, or post on/.
Ya gotta wonder why Apple is trying to expand to the tiny Video market when the PSP's UMD Media is not selling all that well to begin with...
First of all, I imagine that if they're going to make an iPod for video playing, it will have a much larger screen, possibly on par with a portable DVD player. It's not going to be super large, but that's the price we pay for portable.
Personally I believe Apple could make a big splash into the market even though UMDs are not doing well. I don't see the two as related in anyway. UMDs only play on a PSP whereas downloaded content from Apple will play on their iPod, a computer, and might very well be burnable to a DVD. Next, UMDs are overpriced for what they offer. They cost more than a DVD but the quality is less than a DVD. Who would want to buy that?
Additionally, the PSP is a gaming unit. Its primary focus is to play games. Adding UMD movie capabilities is an added feature so that Sony can justify charging $250 for a handheld game system. Whereas an iPod would primarily be for listening to music, viewing photos, and watching movies. That would be the primary purpose of a video enabled iPod, which would mean the experience must be a lot better to justify purchasing it.
Now, they may be selling Music Video's, but even those are becoming more visual than 'Musical.' If I was apple, id stick with the Photo and just continue their domination of that market instead of trying to expand to another market and end up falling on their face when the PSP is trying, and currently not doing all that well, on a MADE for Gaming/Video handheld.
Apple needs to keep innovating if they want to stick around. They can depend on a small 2% of the market to always buy their computers, but if a business isn't moving foreward it's either standing still or moving backwards while the competition is passing it by. By a similar argument, Apple should never have made the iPod and just stuck with what it does well, making a good OS.
Apple has the track record, knowhow, and funding necessary to break into the online video distribution market. They can point to the success of iTunes and that it is possible to offer the online distribution of content with a reasonable DRM at a price that everyone can benefit from.
I'm guessing that the music video that you download will have a fairly high resolution that would give it a larger size. Because practically no one is really making a business out of selling music videos it's not like there's some price that needs to be met.
My best guess is that it's $.99 for the song and an extra $1 for using all of that bandwidth up.
Apple really needs to get into the market the same way they got into the online music market: invent it and make it work so seemlessly that later competitors won't be able to keep up.
Apple could easily pitch the success of their iTunes music store the the major motion picture companies and probably work out a reasonable DRM that's flexible enough for consumers to handle.
Personally, I don't care if some other company is first out the door and gets it right like Apple did with the iPod and iTunes, but I just hope that other company isn't Microsoft given a lot of the recent/. articles about Longhorn having DRM for monitors and EF by Intel.
One of the main reasons the Xbox did as well as it did was due to Halo. It had one killer app that everyone just needed to have and that you couldn't get anywhere else.
What will end up making or breaking the Xbox 360 are the games that are available when the product launches. This article has a list of probable launch titles for the Xbox 360. Team Xbox also has a few predictions. The question is, are any of these killer apps that I just need to have and that I won't be able to get anywhere else?
A quick glance at the list and I know there isn't anything on there that I just have to play right away. Some of you might differ, but to me it looks like a lot of those games are more of the same old that will probably see PS3 versions with the possibility of slightly better graphics.
The launch titles are especially important for the Xbox 360 because there are still a lot of doubts about the compatibility of Xbox games. Apparently, some explanation has been given about hos it will work, but I've heard a few rumors that say backwards compatibility won't be there. If there aren't any games I need to have for the Xbox 360 and I can't play my Xbox games on them right out of the box, then do I really need an Xbox 360 right away?
The final factor is the price and what I get for it. Sony has called the Xbox 360, the Xbox 1.5, which I won't entirely believe, but does have a few points. Right now it has a plain old DVD drive in it. Where's the next-gen media format support? A recent EGM article hinted that this might be upgradable to HD-DVD if MS feels the need to do it. The Xbox will also serve as a media center, which I really don't need. So is $300 worth the price of admission? Considering that the PS3 is expected to launch for $400 or more and include more next-gen bells and whistles, I might consider waiting for that if I needed a media center. Then again, Nintendo is trying to ship their console for $200 or less. Granted that Nintendo isn't offering an all-in-one package, but it is an affordable gaming console. The only problem is that I'd have to wait almost another year for it to come out.
As metioned in the article, brand loyalty will certainly play a part in what people decide to do. Since I own all three major consoles, I don't really see myself as loyal to any particular brand. Each has its merits though.
If I had to make a prediction, I'm going to guess that the Xbox 360 will do quite well in America taking the number 2 spot and picking up market share, but will do poorly in Japan.
Why does everyone keep predicting the downfall and ultimate death of Nintendo's systems, both console and handheld?
Right now, the DS is outselling the PS2 in Japan. Sure it's not a "GameBoy" in the purest sense, but it still plays GBA games and has a fairly similar design aside from the extra, touch-sensative screen.
A new online publication, The Escapist, has a column about the downfall of Nintendo. It seems like everyone is always jumping on Nintendo's back dispite that they're remaining profitable dispite losing market share.
Personally, I don't think the Gameboy is dead, it's just waiting for a while before a new version comes out. Because the DS is capable of displaying graphics on par with an N64, what would any gameboy released now have to offer? The same N64 graphics without the extra screen? Nintendo could probably produce something with the same kind of power as the PSP, but why bother? It would be more expensive (because Nintendo can't afford to sell at a loss) and wouldn't improve the quality of games any.
A while ago I read an article that theorized Nintendo's next handheld would be a portable GameCube. I think this was in a magazine so you'll have to forgive me for not being able to link it. If Nintendo waits 2 or 3 years until the price to produce the hardware at a reasonable price and with a small enouch size to allow it to be portable, then this could work out really well. Add in the fact that the chip companies are starting to focus more on lowering power consumption instead of ramping up the the clock speed, and such a unit might have a decent battery life.
My main question is, why is the media so obsessed with the graphical capabilities of consoles? Sure pretty graphics can make a game that's wonderful to look at, but if it's not fun to play, what's the point of buying it? As this article points out, 3D isn't always better.
I still play a lot of GB and GBA games because they're fun and give me something to do on road trips. Not to mention that the batteries last quite a bit longer than either the PSP (4-6 hours) or the DS (6-10 hours). Not to mention the fact that a GBA game will cost anywhere from $20-$35, while DS games usually cost $30-$35 and PSP games cost $45-$50. I think the GameBoy offers a fun, affordable, and long-lasting experience that no other console or handheld will ever be able to match.
People always worry about governments taking away freedoms and liberties. Recently the United States government has taken a lot of flak from the Patriot Act and other legislation that the President would like to see passed.
However, it seems like the real threat to the rights of American citizens is coming from the big corporations and not the government. A lot of people find it bad enough that the RIAA and MPAA use DRM or want to have technologies that require the use of DRM in order to view their product in the way that they want it to be viewed. And now we need a certain type of monitor just to be able to view information on our computers? Just think of how badly companies could abuse this?
Sure Americans have a Constitution that gives us freedoms (speech, religion, etc.) but it's looking like we'll have to buy a certain type of technology just to be able to express those freedoms.
It looks like OS is going to be more than just free as in beer.
Not really, but for some reason a lot of politicians think that they can, or at least substitue legislation for the necessity of parenting.
Rather than parents taking an active interest in the gaming, television, and online habits of their children, politicians would rather pass laws regulating the flow of information and sale of materials that they feel are harmful to a child. Never mind the fact that these viewpoints are completely subjective.
Maybe I might feel it necessary for any children I might have to play GTA and experience violent behavior. Maybe I might want them to be able to view pornographic scenes in movies or video games. Who the hell do they think they are to act so self-rightous and decide what is and what is not good for the rest of the world? Essentially what we end up with is a form of censorship, someone else deciding what's appropriate for me to view. I don't mind a review board that posts recomendations and warns me of the content in a product (I don't want to pop in a cartoon and have it turn out to be horse porn or brutal executions), but I want to have the freedom to decide for myself or my children what is appropriate.
It falls right into line with the American Way though. Why do if yourself when you can get someone else to do it for you and save you the work? These politicians can garner votes by promoting their activities as good for the American public and can go home and sleep at night convincing themselves they've somehow done some good in the world.
Why not just release the "concept" or whatever you'd call it into the public domain? This way everyone can use it and no one can sue Amazon over it. I can understand wanting to patent a new engine or a radically different type of CPU that no one's ever though of before, but trying to slap a patent something that seems obvious and has more than likely been done a thousand times over since the beginning of time is a little ridiculous.
Up until now consumers have had one choice for the most part, and that was the GameBoy. Everything else that was put up against the GameBoy was slaughtered by it. Now Sony has come with deep pockets and the ability to support something else.
Personally, I really don't like the PSP (it's just an expensive portable PS2 for the most part), but I can see the advantages that it brings. The graphics on the GameBoy have never been all that great. Many games have looked good despite the GB or GBA's inability to throw out high polygon counts. The PSP makes 3D gaming possible on a handheld in ways that it has never been before. However, it seems as though most companies are intent on throwing rehashes of PS2 games on it. I really haven't seen any originality on the system. It has a lot of potential, but right now it seems a lot of that potential is being wasted. The only reason I'd buy one is Lumines, but I'm not paying almost $300 for the experience.
The DS on the other hand is really an odd duck. Like the PSP there is a lot of untapped potential on the system that's going to waste. However after playing games like Kirby's Canvas Curse, I've been blown away by some of the possibilities of the system. The DS is just begging people to think outside of the box and come up with something new and innovative.
The most important thing though, is that consumers have a choice in what type of gaming philosophy they want to subscribe to. You can buy into the innovation and new style of gaming brought about by the DS, or you can get the mainstream rich-graphic games that the PSP has to offer. No matter what your preference is, consumers have more of a choice now.
Why take it out?
on
RockStar Speaks
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Personally I think this whole uproar has done nothing but sell more copies of GTA:SA. Someone might have been thinking about it before, and now the novelty of being able to have sex in a video game might just convince them to buy it. The idea that it's rebellious and angers adults only makes kids want to play it more.
Personally, I think the whole thing is a non-issue that's being stirred up by a few crazies who would like to see games banned. The game is rated M in America and shouldn't be sold to anyone under 17. The AO rating just bumps that up to 18. Anyone who's playing this game has more than likely seen porn on the internet, TV, or in a magazine that was more hardcore than the silly minigame you'd find in GTA:SA.
I'd be willing to make a bet with anyone that if the next GTA game was released with an AO rating that included some sexual material like the "hot coffee" mod and an M rating lacking said content, that the AO rated version would sell more copies if distributed almost as widely as the M version.
While analog could still be used we're trying to move technology forward.
In a similar sense, sure people can get by using their 56k lines, but wouldn't it be a lot better if everyone had access to fiber, cable, or something else along those lines?
It seems to me that at least part of the reason that America isn't the most technologically advanced nation in the world is because we like to hold on to dying technologies. In the next few years we're going to be seeing HD-DVD and Blu-Ray technology emerging into the marketplace, but a lot of people will still be using VHS.
We might take a hit in the pocketbook, but isn't it time that our country got with the times? I don't mean that we should adopt every new technology even if it's only marginally better, but we shouldn't cling to old technology when there are clearly better alternatives out there.
Slashdot Mirror
The important thing is that he's apparently learned from this so that it doesn't happen again. Considering that the Revolution (I think they decided to produce this for their next gen console instead of the GameCube, or at least it seems possible) probably won't be released until around this time next year or even later, there should be plenty of time to polish the game.
Personally I wish the the big companies would realize developers need time to create a game worth selling. A game like Wind Waker could have easily been pushed on hype alone even if Nintendo crapped in a box and shipped it out as quickly as possible. As a gamer I'd much rather wait for a quality product than a rushed one that gets here three months earlier.
The only real difference is that you'll get more exercise playing football and have a lesser chance of getting hurt playing video games. Well that and if you Team Kill in Halo 2 you won't get in as much trouble.
As technology becomes more widespread and digital music distribution becomes the norm rather than the exception, there's no reason why all the major record companies can't disappear. As an artist, you would no longer need a big company to make all the CDs, and you would get more profit from your songs without a greedy middle-man skimming off the top all of the time.
Bands wouldn't need to spend large amounts of money on studio time to release and album because with a new distribution model they could just release single after single, which is how a lot of online music shoppers purchase their music. Startups could even offer their music for free to get people to listen to them (like some bands are doing now) and pay money to see them live.
Right now the music industry is full of middle-men that screw everyone involved. If a company doesn't like a band they don't have to offer them a contract. We're probably missing out on a lot of good music in the mainstream because the music industry doesn't think it would be popular. While there are certainly a lot of albums out there worth the price they ask, there's a lot more that have only a few songs worth listening too on the album. Right now a lot of consumers (those without computers or the ability to use iTunes, Napster, etc.) are forced to pay $15 for what's really $5 worth of music. Then when someone doesn't want to subscribe to this business model called "fuck everyone" the music industry does as much as it can to resist any change.
They're all quite happy having their pockets lined by someone else's hard work and dedication and exploiting the customer base as much as they can bear. This article is also pretty telling about some of the business practices these companies employ. Frankly, they don't give a damn about music, only making money. Here's hoping that the rotten bastards have a steady decline and are remeber only as a horribly oppressive and unsuccessful business model that no one will ever try again.
America has one of the highest standards of living in the world. "Poverty level" in America is "Rich as Bill Gates" in other countries. We've essentially been so productive and innovative in the past that we've become too comfortable. Why bother trying to make something better when your favority sitcom (or worse yet reality tv show) is on and you have a recliner that almost swallows you and a big old bowl of chips and dip right next to it.
Either that or all the techies are too busy being karma whores or trying to get first post on /. instead of working.
It's pretty obvious that parents on some scale are refusing to take enough of an active interest in the lives of their children to prevent them from acquiring content that may not be suitable for them (or anyone else for that matter). Rather than policing their children, some people would rather have the government do it. If Bob and Jane won't stop little Billy from getting his hands on a "murder simulator" then someone has to, obviously. The government could say, "No! Raise your own damned kids," but would likely find themselves replaced by a government that says "Sure, we'll raise your kids." Some would argue that holding the parents responsible as a good alternative, but which is easier for a government: Give in to the voting public and stay in office or alienate the voting public and get replaced by someone who will give in anyway?
If anything, the Federal government should stay as far away from this as possible. If California, New York, or Illinois wants to do something about it within their own state, they can go right ahead. What those particular states might want isn't necessarily something that my state might.
If the government did have to do something on a national level, I'd suggest creating an organization to replace the ESRB, which really has little to no authority or power to do anything other than assign a largely inadiquate lable to any game that is given to it for review. I'd like to see three primary elements of a game catagorically rated: violence, profanity, and sexuality. Games like GTA would score quite high in violence because of the ability to kill anyone in almost any manner, moderately high in terms of profanity, especially given the more recent installments, but on the low end in sexuality even with the Hot Coffee mod. Although I've never played Playboy Mansion, I'm sure that while it would score high in sexuality, violence would probably be a big zero.
A rating system that scored games based on individual attributes rather than taking it all into consideration and giving it a broad rating that encompasses several different factors. For instance, as one of the comments in the article mentions: "Finally, the ESRB's rating system has a fatal flaw of not distinguishing between games like Halo (scifi, shooting aliens) and games like GTA (shooting cops, sex with hookers, drugs, etc.). They're both rated M. Since AO is retail suicide, everyone avoids it like the plague and it has become useless."
Having such general ratings really limits an easy method of choosing content that might be suitable for you or your children. An M rated game about bashing someone with profane language and various racial/religous slurs is much different than an M rated game about bashing someone's head in with a claw hammer. you might not mind some raunchy language but violence might sicken you. It's much the same way with movies. A movie can be rated R for excessive violence, language, or sexuality. In a similar fashion you might not mind if your children of age 16 see a movie with a lot of fowl language, but you might not want them to see anything with a lot of sex or violence. A rating system that breaks a game into a few core catagories and gives rating for each catagory would better serve parents and people in deciding which content would be suitable for them or their children.
Let's say state X makes a law banning the sale of M rated games to minors. If they don't do anything about AO and stores decide to sell unrated or AO games, a minor could technically purchase an unrated game with 10 times the violence as an M rated game.
Additionally, general ratings like M really don't differentiate games well enough. I could create a game with just enough sexuality in it to get an M rating. It might not have violence or profanity, but could still get an M rating. I could also create a game that simulates a person playing the role of Hitler. I could have lots of blood, gore, profanity, racism, and be full a hatred and still pull an M rating. Guess which I'd rather have kept out of the hand's of children.
However, since it's obvious that there are a lot of parents not doing their jobs (look at the number of young kids who can easily play M rated games) of keeping content that may be harmful to their children (It's not really for me to decide if 10 year old Jonhny should be running over cops in a video game since he's not my kid, but general concensus would probably suggest he shouldn't be doing that in a video game or real life) away from their children, someone probably should.
But the government doesn't want to get involved. They'd rather let a company do the wiring themselves and then charge that market all it can bear. Rather than creating a service that's good for everyone, we're all living the American dream, shouting a big FU to the country so that we can all scheme to get rich for ourselves. Then again I guess that suggest is communist for thinking that a minority of the population shouldn't hord a majority of the wealth.
Sometimes I think America's worst enemy is a America itself. We'd rather make a lot of money than offer a quality product that's affordable for almost everyone.
I think this is true with almost anything now days. People have some sort of nogistalgic impression of the past that makes it seem so much better than the present. Add that into the fact that people just like to bitch and complain, and you've got the above comment applied to anything.
There will always be something new and innovative out there. I'm willing to bet there's a lot of stuff that people don't even pick up on. Additionally, we have to remember that during the last decade a lot of new genres sprung to life. Of course games like Doom were going to be innovative. Nothing like them had really existed before. Someone could make a game that simulates growing mold and it would be somewhat innovative (we already have sim games of all types) but would the market really want to buy a product like this? If you want to blame anyone for the lack of innovation, blame consumers that keep buying the same rehashed stuff over and over again.
There're still plenty of frontiers out there for games to explore. The Nintendo DS, for example, is something that really hasn't been done before. There are also a lot of genres out there that need refinement before we can move on. 3D platformers could, in general, stand to have better cameras that offer tighter gameplay. Occasionally, innovation happens within a genre. Look at the Madden series. It went from playing a season with your favorite team to having an owner mode where you can set the price of hotdogs in your stadium.
Innovation is happening all the time, but when the market fails to support innovation, it goes away. Given the cost of producing a game on a console it's a lot harder for indie developers with radical ideas to get into the game. That's why you see a lot of nifty little games come out for computers or made in flash. These are a lot easier for a small timer to make given their limited finances.
Of course this leaves a little bit up to interpretation. 60% of users won't be connecting to some type of server that Nintendo sets up, but 60% of users may communicate wirelessly with another Revolution console within range of whatever WiFi network is set up.
This doesn't constitute what many people would normally consider going online with a game, but it still accomplishes some type of online functionality. I know a lot of people who play Halo 2 on a LAN at college but don't subscribe to Xbox Live. People are still playing the game online, but they're just not doing it in any way that Microsoft can track. Programs like XBConnect also lead to this.
I'd guess that there are a lot of people who have played Halo 2 "online" without subcribing to Xbox Live. (On a personal note if you bought the game for single player mode you're not very smart) It might not even be unreasonable to say that 60 of the people who purchased Halo 2 have played "online" in some capacity.
I might be wrong, but probably not by much. Just chalk it up to people not wanting to pay what they feel is an unreasonable price for something when a free alternative exists.
Personally, I believe that the gaming industry is setting itself up for another fall as seen before Nintendo arrived on the scene. The next generation consoles are expected to be more expensive than ever with the PS3 expected to debut for $400, which is interesting because it supposedly costs over $500 to manufacture. The Xbox and Revolution will probably be more reasonably priced, but will still come in costing a little more than gaming consoles generally cost in the past. Game prices are also expected to rise from $50 to $60. Granted that games have been priced at $50 for a while now, but inflation has been slowly reering its ugly head. Whether it's fair or not, consumers are not going to like it.
Additionally, small studios seem to be getting gobbled up by larger companies like EA. Game designers are generally being overworked and underpayed. How long before they decide that they've had enough and go on strike or quit in droves? Massive strikes or large upheavals in the industry would lead to even more delays than we're used to seeing currently. With the software sitting on a computer uncomplete and not in a store for people to buy, developement costs would technically go up as the income from sales becomes non-existant. Additionally, it seems that the industry has turned into Hollywood. There are always a few sleeper hits that creep out every now and again, but it seems like the industry has become sequal driven. As the cost of development rises, companies can't afford to take bigger risks. At the same time consumers are getting sick of being fed the same rehashed games over and over again.
Another factor is the industry's obsession with graphics and power. The dick measuring contest the PS3 and Xbox 360 have gotten into is ridiculous. Gameplay is put on the backburner while developers see how many more polygons they can squeeze in or how much more realistically they can get breat jiggles to be. 3D games have looked great and have wonderful worlds to explore, if the camera isn't busted beyond usability and the controls make you feel like your character is drugged. Companies have been mandating HD support in all games when many consumers don't have HD TVs capable of displaying resolutions that high. Additionally, making prettier graphics only increases the development costs. At a certain point they have to realize that the graphics that will only look marginally better aren't worth the extra cost.
The game industry has enough problems internally right now without worrying about what Congress is doing. Given their general track record, the government is the last thing that the game industry has to worry about, at least for the time being. If you're worried about a few nuts whining to their Senator are going to tear the game industry apart, perhaps you should step back and see that the industry is already doing a pretty good job of doing it by themselves.
Microsoft expects to dictate to you, the user, how you will use their hardware, and they expect you to pay for it as well. They want to have control over how the content is distributed and how it is accessed by users. Other companies, like Sony, are a little more open and carefree. "Do it however the hell you want, we don't really care," is what they've been saying.
I don't know whether or not your claim that more people play online with the PS2 is accurate or not. Given that the PS2 has an install base four or more times greater than the Xbox and that a majority of PS2 games are free to play online, it wouldn't surprise me if this were true. But you also have the remember that Microsoft is making money off of these subsciptions whereas Sony isn't making anything from the people who play online (unless you want to count people who buy a PS2 for free online play).
While this doesn't seem like a lot, the figure is/has been growing slowly. I believe a lot of it has to do with the unvailability of high speed internet access for a good deal of customers as well as people being unwilling to pay the subscription ($50 I think) costs.
However, 10% really isn't all that big of a number. I'm guessing that it's slightly under since there have more than likely been more than 20 million Xbox consoles sold. When Microsoft can get that number up to 30%, maybe they might have a cause for celebration.
This just proves that Nintendo and Sony were both right for shying away from the online market during the current generation. 10% doesn't seem enough to justify the associated costs and difficulties with setting up an infrastructure that will work. Microsoft does have the advantage in that they already have one set up and it will be easy for them to apply it to their next generation console. Nintendo and Sony will almost be starting from scratch.
I don't know how much more successful the online gaming business will be for the different companies. Each have or seem to be taking different approaches. Nintendo is offering downloadable games for their next generation consoles and is working on getting the DS online. Microsoft has a subsciption model where they handle all online gaming. Sony has generally let each company decide for themselves how to run the online portion of their games.
I'm willing to bet that online gaming will continue to grow and probably peak at around 60% in some cases where it's free and easy to use and as low as 20% in instances where fees are associated. Given that Microsoft is offering both a silver (free) and gold (fee) subsciption to Xbox Live, it will become more difficult to project actual figures. My guess is that they will lump both together to claim a higher percentage of consumers are using Xbox Live so they can use the figure to sell more consoles. Nintendo will have trouble tracking theirs since Revolutions can probably communicate wirelessly without going through any gaming servers. Sony will just keep talking about how many Tflops the PS3 can push.
Online gaming can be great, but let's keep plenty of good non-online games on the market as well.
Either that or it could be used to rate people's interest in a product. This way when a commercial for Fox's latest reality TV disaster comes on, I can hit my little red button again and save them the trouble of releasing more crap that no one wants to watch.
Or even better yet, I can hit the power button and go read a book, or post on /.
First of all, I imagine that if they're going to make an iPod for video playing, it will have a much larger screen, possibly on par with a portable DVD player. It's not going to be super large, but that's the price we pay for portable.
Personally I believe Apple could make a big splash into the market even though UMDs are not doing well. I don't see the two as related in anyway. UMDs only play on a PSP whereas downloaded content from Apple will play on their iPod, a computer, and might very well be burnable to a DVD. Next, UMDs are overpriced for what they offer. They cost more than a DVD but the quality is less than a DVD. Who would want to buy that?
Additionally, the PSP is a gaming unit. Its primary focus is to play games. Adding UMD movie capabilities is an added feature so that Sony can justify charging $250 for a handheld game system. Whereas an iPod would primarily be for listening to music, viewing photos, and watching movies. That would be the primary purpose of a video enabled iPod, which would mean the experience must be a lot better to justify purchasing it.
Now, they may be selling Music Video's, but even those are becoming more visual than 'Musical.' If I was apple, id stick with the Photo and just continue their domination of that market instead of trying to expand to another market and end up falling on their face when the PSP is trying, and currently not doing all that well, on a MADE for Gaming/Video handheld.
Apple needs to keep innovating if they want to stick around. They can depend on a small 2% of the market to always buy their computers, but if a business isn't moving foreward it's either standing still or moving backwards while the competition is passing it by. By a similar argument, Apple should never have made the iPod and just stuck with what it does well, making a good OS.
Apple has the track record, knowhow, and funding necessary to break into the online video distribution market. They can point to the success of iTunes and that it is possible to offer the online distribution of content with a reasonable DRM at a price that everyone can benefit from.
My best guess is that it's $.99 for the song and an extra $1 for using all of that bandwidth up.
Apple could easily pitch the success of their iTunes music store the the major motion picture companies and probably work out a reasonable DRM that's flexible enough for consumers to handle.
Personally, I don't care if some other company is first out the door and gets it right like Apple did with the iPod and iTunes, but I just hope that other company isn't Microsoft given a lot of the recent /. articles about Longhorn having DRM for monitors and EF by Intel.
Sorry for the confusion, misunderstanding, mix-up, whatever-you-want-to-call-it.
What will end up making or breaking the Xbox 360 are the games that are available when the product launches. This article has a list of probable launch titles for the Xbox 360. Team Xbox also has a few predictions. The question is, are any of these killer apps that I just need to have and that I won't be able to get anywhere else?
A quick glance at the list and I know there isn't anything on there that I just have to play right away. Some of you might differ, but to me it looks like a lot of those games are more of the same old that will probably see PS3 versions with the possibility of slightly better graphics.
The launch titles are especially important for the Xbox 360 because there are still a lot of doubts about the compatibility of Xbox games. Apparently, some explanation has been given about hos it will work, but I've heard a few rumors that say backwards compatibility won't be there. If there aren't any games I need to have for the Xbox 360 and I can't play my Xbox games on them right out of the box, then do I really need an Xbox 360 right away?
The final factor is the price and what I get for it. Sony has called the Xbox 360, the Xbox 1.5, which I won't entirely believe, but does have a few points. Right now it has a plain old DVD drive in it. Where's the next-gen media format support? A recent EGM article hinted that this might be upgradable to HD-DVD if MS feels the need to do it. The Xbox will also serve as a media center, which I really don't need. So is $300 worth the price of admission? Considering that the PS3 is expected to launch for $400 or more and include more next-gen bells and whistles, I might consider waiting for that if I needed a media center. Then again, Nintendo is trying to ship their console for $200 or less. Granted that Nintendo isn't offering an all-in-one package, but it is an affordable gaming console. The only problem is that I'd have to wait almost another year for it to come out.
As metioned in the article, brand loyalty will certainly play a part in what people decide to do. Since I own all three major consoles, I don't really see myself as loyal to any particular brand. Each has its merits though.
If I had to make a prediction, I'm going to guess that the Xbox 360 will do quite well in America taking the number 2 spot and picking up market share, but will do poorly in Japan.
Right now, the DS is outselling the PS2 in Japan. Sure it's not a "GameBoy" in the purest sense, but it still plays GBA games and has a fairly similar design aside from the extra, touch-sensative screen.
A new online publication, The Escapist, has a column about the downfall of Nintendo. It seems like everyone is always jumping on Nintendo's back dispite that they're remaining profitable dispite losing market share.
Personally, I don't think the Gameboy is dead, it's just waiting for a while before a new version comes out. Because the DS is capable of displaying graphics on par with an N64, what would any gameboy released now have to offer? The same N64 graphics without the extra screen? Nintendo could probably produce something with the same kind of power as the PSP, but why bother? It would be more expensive (because Nintendo can't afford to sell at a loss) and wouldn't improve the quality of games any.
A while ago I read an article that theorized Nintendo's next handheld would be a portable GameCube. I think this was in a magazine so you'll have to forgive me for not being able to link it. If Nintendo waits 2 or 3 years until the price to produce the hardware at a reasonable price and with a small enouch size to allow it to be portable, then this could work out really well. Add in the fact that the chip companies are starting to focus more on lowering power consumption instead of ramping up the the clock speed, and such a unit might have a decent battery life.
My main question is, why is the media so obsessed with the graphical capabilities of consoles? Sure pretty graphics can make a game that's wonderful to look at, but if it's not fun to play, what's the point of buying it? As this article points out, 3D isn't always better.
I still play a lot of GB and GBA games because they're fun and give me something to do on road trips. Not to mention that the batteries last quite a bit longer than either the PSP (4-6 hours) or the DS (6-10 hours). Not to mention the fact that a GBA game will cost anywhere from $20-$35, while DS games usually cost $30-$35 and PSP games cost $45-$50. I think the GameBoy offers a fun, affordable, and long-lasting experience that no other console or handheld will ever be able to match.
However, it seems like the real threat to the rights of American citizens is coming from the big corporations and not the government. A lot of people find it bad enough that the RIAA and MPAA use DRM or want to have technologies that require the use of DRM in order to view their product in the way that they want it to be viewed. And now we need a certain type of monitor just to be able to view information on our computers? Just think of how badly companies could abuse this?
Sure Americans have a Constitution that gives us freedoms (speech, religion, etc.) but it's looking like we'll have to buy a certain type of technology just to be able to express those freedoms.
It looks like OS is going to be more than just free as in beer.
Rather than parents taking an active interest in the gaming, television, and online habits of their children, politicians would rather pass laws regulating the flow of information and sale of materials that they feel are harmful to a child. Never mind the fact that these viewpoints are completely subjective.
Maybe I might feel it necessary for any children I might have to play GTA and experience violent behavior. Maybe I might want them to be able to view pornographic scenes in movies or video games. Who the hell do they think they are to act so self-rightous and decide what is and what is not good for the rest of the world? Essentially what we end up with is a form of censorship, someone else deciding what's appropriate for me to view. I don't mind a review board that posts recomendations and warns me of the content in a product (I don't want to pop in a cartoon and have it turn out to be horse porn or brutal executions), but I want to have the freedom to decide for myself or my children what is appropriate.
It falls right into line with the American Way though. Why do if yourself when you can get someone else to do it for you and save you the work? These politicians can garner votes by promoting their activities as good for the American public and can go home and sleep at night convincing themselves they've somehow done some good in the world.
Why not just release the "concept" or whatever you'd call it into the public domain? This way everyone can use it and no one can sue Amazon over it. I can understand wanting to patent a new engine or a radically different type of CPU that no one's ever though of before, but trying to slap a patent something that seems obvious and has more than likely been done a thousand times over since the beginning of time is a little ridiculous.
Personally, I really don't like the PSP (it's just an expensive portable PS2 for the most part), but I can see the advantages that it brings. The graphics on the GameBoy have never been all that great. Many games have looked good despite the GB or GBA's inability to throw out high polygon counts. The PSP makes 3D gaming possible on a handheld in ways that it has never been before. However, it seems as though most companies are intent on throwing rehashes of PS2 games on it. I really haven't seen any originality on the system. It has a lot of potential, but right now it seems a lot of that potential is being wasted. The only reason I'd buy one is Lumines, but I'm not paying almost $300 for the experience.
The DS on the other hand is really an odd duck. Like the PSP there is a lot of untapped potential on the system that's going to waste. However after playing games like Kirby's Canvas Curse, I've been blown away by some of the possibilities of the system. The DS is just begging people to think outside of the box and come up with something new and innovative.
The most important thing though, is that consumers have a choice in what type of gaming philosophy they want to subscribe to. You can buy into the innovation and new style of gaming brought about by the DS, or you can get the mainstream rich-graphic games that the PSP has to offer. No matter what your preference is, consumers have more of a choice now.
Personally, I think the whole thing is a non-issue that's being stirred up by a few crazies who would like to see games banned. The game is rated M in America and shouldn't be sold to anyone under 17. The AO rating just bumps that up to 18. Anyone who's playing this game has more than likely seen porn on the internet, TV, or in a magazine that was more hardcore than the silly minigame you'd find in GTA:SA.
I'd be willing to make a bet with anyone that if the next GTA game was released with an AO rating that included some sexual material like the "hot coffee" mod and an M rating lacking said content, that the AO rated version would sell more copies if distributed almost as widely as the M version.
In a similar sense, sure people can get by using their 56k lines, but wouldn't it be a lot better if everyone had access to fiber, cable, or something else along those lines?
It seems to me that at least part of the reason that America isn't the most technologically advanced nation in the world is because we like to hold on to dying technologies. In the next few years we're going to be seeing HD-DVD and Blu-Ray technology emerging into the marketplace, but a lot of people will still be using VHS.
We might take a hit in the pocketbook, but isn't it time that our country got with the times? I don't mean that we should adopt every new technology even if it's only marginally better, but we shouldn't cling to old technology when there are clearly better alternatives out there.