Obviously Nintendo's AAA titles will be exclusive, as will those coming from companies wholly or partially owned by Microsoft. Mario and Halo are not franchises to laugh at. (Plus there's the uniqueness of the Wiimote, for what that's worth.) Both those platforms will have no problem distinguishing themselves via their game selection.
On the other hand, it seems like the issue of AAA games going multi-platform will hit Sony pretty hard, because they rely a lot on third-party titles. It seems like Sony's only real hope here is that the Cell chip is powerful enough to lure in developers who are going for the most technically cutting-edge games - companies like id, although I have no idea about them specifically.
Remember how back then character models/sprites had about 10 polys/pixels apiece, you could create a complete and polished level in a couple days, and you didn't have to spend million upon millions of dollars on art assets to make an A+ game?
It's one thing when you're just supporting a dozen programmers or so on your game. When you're 20 million dollars in the red by the time the game sees the shelves, you can't take such a casual attitude towards lost sales.
Funny part is, that would be a legitimate addon for WoW, and Blizzard probably wouldn't even try to stop it.
Anyway, the level and class of anyone nearby is already readily available info, and at one point the "kill count" sort of was (when PVP rankings were in effect).
People knowing what gear you have? All they need to do is look at you; most high-end gear is pretty unique in appearance. Priests have been complaining for a year Benediction (a popular healing weapon) makes them a target to enemy players.
So GM products make you fat, violent and reactionary?
I kid, I kid. But realistically, there are far more variables at play in the U.S. population than can realistically be controlled for when analyzing the impact of GM crops on our ENTIRE population.
I don't think it's really intended to catch every single abuse. It's intended that when a big scandal comes to light, like that "All I want for Xmas is a PSP" crap, the company gets in some legal trouble for it. (Although realistically, this probably just means that such companies won't 'fess up as easily.)
Newscientist.com ain't exactly Science magazine. I'll wait until a real peer-reviewed journal publishes some findings before I start donating oodles of money via the oh-so-conviently-located link in the TFA.
Remember the world before Photoshop, the laser printer, and Desktop Publishing? You could only get Photoshop for the Mac.
"Apple: Our systems are so cutting edge, you can run software that doesn't exist yet!"
A similar argument was made with the first Xbox versus PS2. Microsoft sold their console at a lost (unlike Sony in that generation) and STILL didn't push nearly as many consoles. But Microsoft toughed it out, established themselves as a "major player" in the console wars, and now, one generation later, a whole lot of people (including the Slashdot Collective) are betting they'll beat out Sony this time around.
Same idea here, it looks like. Wedge yourself into the market, deal with the BSOD jokes, but keep up the marketing push and in the long run, nobody's laughing anymore.
Then jump in the car and drive to those locations and see how much they have changed in the last few years of being stale. I bet not much. BTW, how often does the courthouse change? Yeah, I bet I'm not living in a city that's been a warzone for years either. Things might be a tad different in Baghdad now than they were five years ago.
Maybe if you have $1300 lying around to spend on all three consoles, it doesn't matter to you which one wins. Those of us with a limited gaming budget are very much interested in which console will end up being super-popular and having a huge host of third-party titles to choose from, and which will rot on the shelves and consequently end up in the bargain bin next to the Dreamcasts in six months.
"They want to stop the suffering humans with diseases that stem cell research promises to cure, and they don't know that stem cells can come from other sources."
Frankly, YOU don't know that either. There's still a lot of scientific debate about the potential usefulness of these non-embryonic stem cells. While a lot of people on the right would like to get out of this moral dilemma by finding non-embryonic cells that are just as useful as the embryonic kind, wishing doesn't necessarily make it so.
Thing about the Gamecube was that it had all those awesome Nintendo titles as exclusives. Sony doesn't have that sort of first-party software team; if the third-party support for PS3 dries up, there will be very little to redeem it.
Oh, come off it. Bill Gates donated tens of billions of dollars of his OWN money so that the company he started could get a little positive PR? Even if we ignore the fact that it's Bill's money and not Microsoft's, the company would have to sell an extra copy of XP to everyone in THE WORLD for this to be a positive return on their investment.
My friends have occasionally directed me to their blogs and myspace/facebook pages over the years, and it's honestly been more of a hassle than I cared to deal with to sign up for each and every one just to see their crappy cell phone pics or whatever. The few I care enough to read regularly (like the blog of my friend in Japan) I just comment "anonymously" with my name in the comment. When MySpace wants me to login, I use BugMeNot to get a random login. Same for YouTube's oh-so-scandalous "mature"-tagged videos and the rest of that crap.
The point? These sites aren't just "fatiguing" current users; they're scaring away potential users like me who aren't willing to sit through 5-10 minutes of entering (fake) personal information just to occasionally watch a 3-minute video clip or read a meandering myspace post written by a friend who's too lazy to just goddamn email me.
You can tell MOAB doesn't have an ax to grind
on
Month of Apple Fixes
·
· Score: 1
because they call Mac fanboys crackheads on their front page.
Oxfam isn't "very large and very wealthy" in any conventional sense. It's a charity organization. They're not Greenpeace or PETA, extremist activist groups who make sensationalist accusations against corporations willy-nilly. Sue them and you're basically taking money straight from the world's neediest people.
That said, just from watching these two videos I'd tend to side with Starbucks. The Oxfam vid looks like they just went up to a bunch of people on the street and said, "Starbucks is screwing over starving Ethiopians; how do you fell about that?" Whereas the Starbucks video at least starts to discuss the practical realities of the situation.
It's not really a clear-cut debate. I'll readily believe that Starbucks does a lot to build schools and hospitals and pays well over market price, but when "market price" comes out to three cents a day or whatever, that's not saying a lot. But on the other hand, it's not like Starbucks could be paying these farmers $15/hour without getting run out of business in a week. Really, it sounds to me like Starbucks is doing everything a multinational could be expected to do to "play fair" in the international market, and that if we want to improve the lot of Ethiopians we should be petitioning our governments to give more international aid and/or debt relief rather than trying to guilt the private sphere into it. (But if Starbucks is actually promoting race wars or slave labor or any of the other ludicrously evil thing corporations tend to do in Africa when nobody's paying attention, please let me know.)
Slashdot Mirror
Any list of anything that doesn't include Chrono Trigger is incomplete.
Obviously Nintendo's AAA titles will be exclusive, as will those coming from companies wholly or partially owned by Microsoft. Mario and Halo are not franchises to laugh at. (Plus there's the uniqueness of the Wiimote, for what that's worth.) Both those platforms will have no problem distinguishing themselves via their game selection.
On the other hand, it seems like the issue of AAA games going multi-platform will hit Sony pretty hard, because they rely a lot on third-party titles. It seems like Sony's only real hope here is that the Cell chip is powerful enough to lure in developers who are going for the most technically cutting-edge games - companies like id, although I have no idea about them specifically.
Remember how back then character models/sprites had about 10 polys/pixels apiece, you could create a complete and polished level in a couple days, and you didn't have to spend million upon millions of dollars on art assets to make an A+ game?
It's one thing when you're just supporting a dozen programmers or so on your game. When you're 20 million dollars in the red by the time the game sees the shelves, you can't take such a casual attitude towards lost sales.
Funny part is, that would be a legitimate addon for WoW, and Blizzard probably wouldn't even try to stop it.
Anyway, the level and class of anyone nearby is already readily available info, and at one point the "kill count" sort of was (when PVP rankings were in effect).
People knowing what gear you have? All they need to do is look at you; most high-end gear is pretty unique in appearance. Priests have been complaining for a year Benediction (a popular healing weapon) makes them a target to enemy players.
They're trying a three-pronged approach: subliminal, liminal, and super-liminal.
What's superliminal, you ask? "HEY YOU, GAMBLE!"
Japanese: sakkaa
Score one for the bad guys! Yee-haw!
So GM products make you fat, violent and reactionary?
I kid, I kid. But realistically, there are far more variables at play in the U.S. population than can realistically be controlled for when analyzing the impact of GM crops on our ENTIRE population.
I don't think it's really intended to catch every single abuse. It's intended that when a big scandal comes to light, like that "All I want for Xmas is a PSP" crap, the company gets in some legal trouble for it. (Although realistically, this probably just means that such companies won't 'fess up as easily.)
Newscientist.com ain't exactly Science magazine. I'll wait until a real peer-reviewed journal publishes some findings before I start donating oodles of money via the oh-so-conviently-located link in the TFA.
Yeah, currently I've got my schedule full with
1. World of Warcraft
Hopefully when my guild dissolves in another couple years, I can start checking out some of these other so-called "computer games"...
"Apple: Our systems are so cutting edge, you can run software that doesn't exist yet!"
2005 called, they want their pre-Bootcamp anti-Mac tirade back.
A similar argument was made with the first Xbox versus PS2. Microsoft sold their console at a lost (unlike Sony in that generation) and STILL didn't push nearly as many consoles. But Microsoft toughed it out, established themselves as a "major player" in the console wars, and now, one generation later, a whole lot of people (including the Slashdot Collective) are betting they'll beat out Sony this time around.
Same idea here, it looks like. Wedge yourself into the market, deal with the BSOD jokes, but keep up the marketing push and in the long run, nobody's laughing anymore.
If you can't even remember one of the key concepts in a book you're reviewing...
Did you completely miss the GP's sarcasm, or do you just not see how his sentiment applies to your own idea?
Maybe if you have $1300 lying around to spend on all three consoles, it doesn't matter to you which one wins. Those of us with a limited gaming budget are very much interested in which console will end up being super-popular and having a huge host of third-party titles to choose from, and which will rot on the shelves and consequently end up in the bargain bin next to the Dreamcasts in six months.
"They want to stop the suffering humans with diseases that stem cell research promises to cure, and they don't know that stem cells can come from other sources."
Frankly, YOU don't know that either. There's still a lot of scientific debate about the potential usefulness of these non-embryonic stem cells. While a lot of people on the right would like to get out of this moral dilemma by finding non-embryonic cells that are just as useful as the embryonic kind, wishing doesn't necessarily make it so.
Thing about the Gamecube was that it had all those awesome Nintendo titles as exclusives. Sony doesn't have that sort of first-party software team; if the third-party support for PS3 dries up, there will be very little to redeem it.
Oh, come off it. Bill Gates donated tens of billions of dollars of his OWN money so that the company he started could get a little positive PR? Even if we ignore the fact that it's Bill's money and not Microsoft's, the company would have to sell an extra copy of XP to everyone in THE WORLD for this to be a positive return on their investment.
1. When Apple does it, they're not leveraging a monopoly, because they don't have one.
2. The last time anyone cared about Microsoft bundling anything, Windows 95 was new and the Earth was a rapidly-cooling ball of magma.
My friends have occasionally directed me to their blogs and myspace/facebook pages over the years, and it's honestly been more of a hassle than I cared to deal with to sign up for each and every one just to see their crappy cell phone pics or whatever. The few I care enough to read regularly (like the blog of my friend in Japan) I just comment "anonymously" with my name in the comment. When MySpace wants me to login, I use BugMeNot to get a random login. Same for YouTube's oh-so-scandalous "mature"-tagged videos and the rest of that crap.
The point? These sites aren't just "fatiguing" current users; they're scaring away potential users like me who aren't willing to sit through 5-10 minutes of entering (fake) personal information just to occasionally watch a 3-minute video clip or read a meandering myspace post written by a friend who's too lazy to just goddamn email me.
because they call Mac fanboys crackheads on their front page.
Oxfam isn't "very large and very wealthy" in any conventional sense. It's a charity organization. They're not Greenpeace or PETA, extremist activist groups who make sensationalist accusations against corporations willy-nilly. Sue them and you're basically taking money straight from the world's neediest people.
That said, just from watching these two videos I'd tend to side with Starbucks. The Oxfam vid looks like they just went up to a bunch of people on the street and said, "Starbucks is screwing over starving Ethiopians; how do you fell about that?" Whereas the Starbucks video at least starts to discuss the practical realities of the situation.
It's not really a clear-cut debate. I'll readily believe that Starbucks does a lot to build schools and hospitals and pays well over market price, but when "market price" comes out to three cents a day or whatever, that's not saying a lot. But on the other hand, it's not like Starbucks could be paying these farmers $15/hour without getting run out of business in a week. Really, it sounds to me like Starbucks is doing everything a multinational could be expected to do to "play fair" in the international market, and that if we want to improve the lot of Ethiopians we should be petitioning our governments to give more international aid and/or debt relief rather than trying to guilt the private sphere into it. (But if Starbucks is actually promoting race wars or slave labor or any of the other ludicrously evil thing corporations tend to do in Africa when nobody's paying attention, please let me know.)
Believe it or not, Penny Arcade (of "fucking toolbox" fame) is not a subsidiary of Nintendo.