Many of them will but many won't (Halo 3, Blue Dragon, Mass Effect, Splinter Cell: Conviction, Too Human, etc...), not to mention the many great exclusives that are already out on the system (Gears of War, Viva Pinata, Crackdown, Forza 2, Dead Rising). And then of course you have to take into account that many of those multi-platform titles are best played on the 360 due to either insane hardware requirements (Bioshock), late releases on other systems (GRAW2), or just downright inferior gameplay (Madden '08). The fact is that you can't dismiss the 360 as a Halo only system, and the author makes himself sound like little more than a ranting fanboy when he does.
Yes, the technical issues are important, and yes any sensible buyer should take them into account when making a purchase. However, there are plenty of legitimate reasons to own a 360 and the author of that article does many of his readers a disservice when he recommends that they "just skip it".
I have to disagree with him as well. Claiming that there's no reason to own a 360 because of technical issues shows that he completely misunderstands why people buy consoles. It's all about the games, always has been, always will be. And contrary to what Nooch seems to think, the Xbox 360 and it's predecessor offer far more than just Halo in that department.
I agree. US wages, in most kinds of jobs, are kept artificially low by the flood of immigrants. Umm... no they're kept artificially high by the lack of a 'flood' of immigrants. You'd be hard pressed to find another nation on the planet where wages are higher than in the US, even places (such as Moscow or Shanghai) where the cost of living is significantly higher.
I especially think its ability to visually recognize objects would pair well with games. Combining tangible 3D pieces from boardgames with animations and computing abilities from video games sounds like a hell of a lot of fun.
So if I wanted to use this thing as a coffee table, which in many homes sits in front of the couch, I would then have to run a powercord across the floor to this 'table'? Nice. While I understand your point, I don't really consider that a strike against the device's design. It's just a reality of life that electronic devices require power. Besides, there are more than a few ways to run power to the center of a room discretely.
How much power does this thing consume? Essentially it's a DLP projector, a mid range home PC, and a few infrared cameras. Probably not the most energy efficient device, but I doubt it consumes much more electricity than a standard PC setup.
Wonder what happens to it if you spill a drink on the surface. Probably nothing. The surface is covered with acrylic.
Well to start you make the common mistake of confusing the oil industry with 'Big Oil'. The oil industry is the world's largest, with yearly revenues in the trillions of dollars. It is comprised of tens of thousands of private, public, and state owned companies who all compete against each other in a free market. 'Big Oil' is merely the 4 or 5 largest publicly held oil companies, the largest of which is Exxon Mobile. However, Exxon Mobile is only the 5th largest oil company in the world with the first four being state owned companies in Saudi Arabia, Mexico, Venezuela, and China respectively. In terms of yearly production they control merely a fraction of world oil output. For comparison's sake, Saudi Arabian Oil Co. produces approximately 3.5 times what Exxon Mobile does every year.
Now that we've covered that we can move to your misconception that gasoline is subsidized to the point where the price at the pump is actually lower than what it costs to get it there. In fact quite the opposite is true, gasoline is taxed heavily at every stage of production. For oil and gas produced inside the US, state and local governments take approximately a 12.5% royalty right at the wellhead, and generally tax the remaining production at about a 5-8% severance tax and a 1-2% ad velorum tax, neither of those include standard taxes on corporate profits. And then of course gasoline is taxed again at the pump. Generally about 30-40% of what you pay at the pump is taxes depending on what state you live in. Of course this is nothing compared to Europe, where gasoline taxes can make up as much as 70% of the purchase price at the pump.
Not really. His ideas are great for what they are and have probably served as the catalyst for many other ideas in this industry. However, as with everything else, coming up with a new idea and implementing it are two entirely different things. Like you I usually enjoy his games, but I think a lot of that is because I play them as the game that they turn out to be, not as what I was hoping they would turn out to be.
Not dogs per se, but I have seen many games where silent, animal companions have added significantly to the experience. Shadow of the Colossus springs to mind as one of the best examples.
Wow... just wow. I don't even know where to start as you seem to have based everything you think you know about the oil industry on Michael Moore videos.
If I'm not mistaken, that means $47 per year. Which really isn't that bad when you notice the price of gasoline lately. It may not be that bad if you're an American. In less fortunate areas of the world, such as Mexico, $47/year is a big deal for many people.
The real reason for choosing ethanol is its availability. It's easy to come by and is currently cheaper than gasoline. The US also has a great deal of surplus farming capacity from which to draw greater yields. While this may be true, the situation is hardly that simple. While E10 is cheaper at the pump, it's also less fuel efficient leading to an almost negligible savings. Also, keep in mind that corn is heavily subsidized in the US. What you're paying at the pump is not the true cost of the fuel.
Since then, technology has improved and the US Government's studies have shown it to be energy positive. It has indeed, but not by much. Most estimates place between 1.2-1.3 BTU yield for every BTU used in production of corn based ethanol. However, if you're looking for environmental justification, you have to take into consideration that you're now burning fuels, and thus releasing carbons into the atmosphere, approximately twice as much for the same amount of energy. If we were really interested in ethanol for the sake of the environment, then we should be importing sugar based ethanol from areas like Brazil which are much, much more energy positive (approximately 8:1). Of course, this wouldn't benefit the US farm lobby so instead we have heavy tariffs on imported sugar.
There are a lot of good things about ethanol, however there are just as many negatives that get glossed over by politicians pushing its agenda in order to garner votes from mis-informed, environmentally conscious Americans. The debate over ethanol is much more complicated than most people realize. Rushing to convert our entire economy on the delusion that it's some sort of miracle fuel without considering the consequences is a recipe for disaster.
I'd go with Civ 4 as well. There are people out there who will claim that the series achieved perfection with either Civ 2 or 3, but I've honestly enjoyed the additions each iteration has added to the series. One of the great things about Civ is just how incredibly deep it is. Game concepts like culture, introduced in Civ 3, and religion, introduced in Civ 4, bring even more depth to the game. As great as every installation is, I find it hard to go back to a previous version after a new one is released.
If they didn't learn anything from the countless other times this has happened to other forms of DRM, I don't know what makes you think they'll learn anything from this one.
Actually, I just checked some figures. WOW's worldwide sales for 2004 were approximately 700,000 units, that's only $35 million in revenue for 2004, again a far cry short of the $150 million difference between PC game sales for 2004 and 2005.
Oh it certainly sold a lot of copies, broke records even. But it didn't sell the 8 million copies that are out there right now before the end of '04. At most it sold around 1 million copies between its Nov. 23rd release and the end of the year. That's about $50 million of revenue, about 3-4 times short of the difference between 2004's PC game sales and 2005's PC game sales. In fact more copies of WOW have been sold in 2005 and 2006 than were sold in 2004, yet PC game sales are still far below 2004's $1.1 billion. There's a lot more at work in this market than just WOW.
WOW did not start out as the massive success that it is today. Additionally, most WOW accounts are outside of the United States. While WOW had an impressive launch, it wasn't released until near the end of the year. And lastly, WOW subscriptions and online sales would not be included in NPD sales numbers. My point is that the mere launch of WOW doesn't account for the $1.5 billion difference between 2004 and 2005.
There are a lot more factors at stake here. Things like online distribution are not being accounted for as the industry shifts more and more in that direction. Also, competition from consoles comes and goes depending on where they are at in their life cycle. For some reason, people like to point to WOW to explain almost any changes in the PC gaming market, but there are a lot more forces at work here than simply one game.
Apparently Bioware is a little miffed about this announcement and refuses to confirm the date. Until I see an official press release, I'm filing this one firmly in the "rumor" category.
For starters there's this pesky thing called the Constitution. Which is why laws such as this have been struck down by courts in every single state that they've been introduced. In several of those cases, judges have gone so far as to award the game industry millions of dollars in compensation. In the most recent case to be struck down, a Louisiana judge harshly criticized legislators for letting the law pass in the first place.
The court is dumbfounded that the attorney general and the state are in the position of having to pay taxpayer money as attorneys fees and costs in this lawsuit. The act which this court found unconstitutional passed through committees in both the State House and Senate, and to be promptly signed by the Governor.
There are lawyers at each stage of this process. Some of the members of these committees are themselves lawyers. Presumably, they have staff members who are attorneys as well. The State House and Senate certainly have staff members who are attorneys. The governor has additional attorneys - the executive counsel.
Prior to the passage of the Act there were a number of reported cases from a number of jurisdictions which held similar statutes to be unconstitutional (and in which the defendant was ordered to pay substantial attorney's fees). The Court wonders why nobody objected to the enactment of this statute. In this court's view the taxpayers deserve more from their elected officials. So not only are these laws patently illegal, but they're a complete waste of taxpayers' money. We can argue the moral implications of laws such as these all we want, but our judicial system has stated unanimously that such laws are not legal in the United States.
By that logic, Canada and Antigua have no right to file WTO complaints against the US, since both nations doubtlessly have their own violations on their own records, but then whatever nations filed those complaints probably had records of their own too. That kind of logic is circular. The WTO is not some sort of binding natural law. It is merely an institution set up to foster efficient global trade. If you try to make exceptions based on past history, the whole system breaks down. Each case must be determined on its own and not take into account unrelated violations.
And if this were a discussion of Canadian softwood lumber or online gambling in Antigua then that would be a legitimate point. However, in a discussion of enforcement of IP in China, the American hypocrisy in other areas of trade is a red herring. It bears no practical use in determining whether or not China should be allowed to flaunt IP laws.
Oh please... one can make a myriad of logical arguments for disliking the US, however yours is not one of them. Any representative government that submits itself to something other than the will of the people who it represents is failing in its primary duty. When American law and international law conflict, the US government's duty is to its citizens, not to some international community. The same goes for any democratic government.
I would like to see any nation that has a perfectly clean trade record. Simple because the US has violated WTO rulings in other areas does not mean that China's flaunting of IP laws is now permissible. As the GP stated, this is a legitimate complaint filed through the appropriate channels. You may not agree with US trade policy, but you certainly can't paint them as in the wrong on this particular issue.
Slashdot Mirror
Many of them will but many won't (Halo 3, Blue Dragon, Mass Effect, Splinter Cell: Conviction, Too Human, etc...), not to mention the many great exclusives that are already out on the system (Gears of War, Viva Pinata, Crackdown, Forza 2, Dead Rising). And then of course you have to take into account that many of those multi-platform titles are best played on the 360 due to either insane hardware requirements (Bioshock), late releases on other systems (GRAW2), or just downright inferior gameplay (Madden '08). The fact is that you can't dismiss the 360 as a Halo only system, and the author makes himself sound like little more than a ranting fanboy when he does.
Yes, the technical issues are important, and yes any sensible buyer should take them into account when making a purchase. However, there are plenty of legitimate reasons to own a 360 and the author of that article does many of his readers a disservice when he recommends that they "just skip it".
I have to disagree with him as well. Claiming that there's no reason to own a 360 because of technical issues shows that he completely misunderstands why people buy consoles. It's all about the games, always has been, always will be. And contrary to what Nooch seems to think, the Xbox 360 and it's predecessor offer far more than just Halo in that department.
I especially think its ability to visually recognize objects would pair well with games. Combining tangible 3D pieces from boardgames with animations and computing abilities from video games sounds like a hell of a lot of fun.
Well to start you make the common mistake of confusing the oil industry with 'Big Oil'. The oil industry is the world's largest, with yearly revenues in the trillions of dollars. It is comprised of tens of thousands of private, public, and state owned companies who all compete against each other in a free market. 'Big Oil' is merely the 4 or 5 largest publicly held oil companies, the largest of which is Exxon Mobile. However, Exxon Mobile is only the 5th largest oil company in the world with the first four being state owned companies in Saudi Arabia, Mexico, Venezuela, and China respectively. In terms of yearly production they control merely a fraction of world oil output. For comparison's sake, Saudi Arabian Oil Co. produces approximately 3.5 times what Exxon Mobile does every year.
Now that we've covered that we can move to your misconception that gasoline is subsidized to the point where the price at the pump is actually lower than what it costs to get it there. In fact quite the opposite is true, gasoline is taxed heavily at every stage of production. For oil and gas produced inside the US, state and local governments take approximately a 12.5% royalty right at the wellhead, and generally tax the remaining production at about a 5-8% severance tax and a 1-2% ad velorum tax, neither of those include standard taxes on corporate profits. And then of course gasoline is taxed again at the pump. Generally about 30-40% of what you pay at the pump is taxes depending on what state you live in. Of course this is nothing compared to Europe, where gasoline taxes can make up as much as 70% of the purchase price at the pump.
Not really. His ideas are great for what they are and have probably served as the catalyst for many other ideas in this industry. However, as with everything else, coming up with a new idea and implementing it are two entirely different things. Like you I usually enjoy his games, but I think a lot of that is because I play them as the game that they turn out to be, not as what I was hoping they would turn out to be.
Not dogs per se, but I have seen many games where silent, animal companions have added significantly to the experience. Shadow of the Colossus springs to mind as one of the best examples.
Wow... just wow. I don't even know where to start as you seem to have based everything you think you know about the oil industry on Michael Moore videos.
There are a lot of good things about ethanol, however there are just as many negatives that get glossed over by politicians pushing its agenda in order to garner votes from mis-informed, environmentally conscious Americans. The debate over ethanol is much more complicated than most people realize. Rushing to convert our entire economy on the delusion that it's some sort of miracle fuel without considering the consequences is a recipe for disaster.
I'd go with Civ 4 as well. There are people out there who will claim that the series achieved perfection with either Civ 2 or 3, but I've honestly enjoyed the additions each iteration has added to the series. One of the great things about Civ is just how incredibly deep it is. Game concepts like culture, introduced in Civ 3, and religion, introduced in Civ 4, bring even more depth to the game. As great as every installation is, I find it hard to go back to a previous version after a new one is released.
I've been playing the Civ games for over a decade now and they have yet to get old. Definitely my pick for a deserted island game.
I don't know what to do when standard anti-socialism and anti-IP /. dogma clash. Who's side are we supposed to be on on this one.
If they didn't learn anything from the countless other times this has happened to other forms of DRM, I don't know what makes you think they'll learn anything from this one.
sorry, I put the decimal point in the wrong place. I meant .15 billion.
Actually, I just checked some figures. WOW's worldwide sales for 2004 were approximately 700,000 units, that's only $35 million in revenue for 2004, again a far cry short of the $150 million difference between PC game sales for 2004 and 2005.
Oh it certainly sold a lot of copies, broke records even. But it didn't sell the 8 million copies that are out there right now before the end of '04. At most it sold around 1 million copies between its Nov. 23rd release and the end of the year. That's about $50 million of revenue, about 3-4 times short of the difference between 2004's PC game sales and 2005's PC game sales. In fact more copies of WOW have been sold in 2005 and 2006 than were sold in 2004, yet PC game sales are still far below 2004's $1.1 billion. There's a lot more at work in this market than just WOW.
WOW did not start out as the massive success that it is today. Additionally, most WOW accounts are outside of the United States. While WOW had an impressive launch, it wasn't released until near the end of the year. And lastly, WOW subscriptions and online sales would not be included in NPD sales numbers. My point is that the mere launch of WOW doesn't account for the $1.5 billion difference between 2004 and 2005.
There are a lot more factors at stake here. Things like online distribution are not being accounted for as the industry shifts more and more in that direction. Also, competition from consoles comes and goes depending on where they are at in their life cycle. For some reason, people like to point to WOW to explain almost any changes in the PC gaming market, but there are a lot more forces at work here than simply one game.
Apparently Bioware is a little miffed about this announcement and refuses to confirm the date. Until I see an official press release, I'm filing this one firmly in the "rumor" category.
There are lawyers at each stage of this process. Some of the members of these committees are themselves lawyers. Presumably, they have staff members who are attorneys as well. The State House and Senate certainly have staff members who are attorneys. The governor has additional attorneys - the executive counsel.
Prior to the passage of the Act there were a number of reported cases from a number of jurisdictions which held similar statutes to be unconstitutional (and in which the defendant was ordered to pay substantial attorney's fees). The Court wonders why nobody objected to the enactment of this statute. In this court's view the taxpayers deserve more from their elected officials. So not only are these laws patently illegal, but they're a complete waste of taxpayers' money. We can argue the moral implications of laws such as these all we want, but our judicial system has stated unanimously that such laws are not legal in the United States.
By that logic, Canada and Antigua have no right to file WTO complaints against the US, since both nations doubtlessly have their own violations on their own records, but then whatever nations filed those complaints probably had records of their own too. That kind of logic is circular. The WTO is not some sort of binding natural law. It is merely an institution set up to foster efficient global trade. If you try to make exceptions based on past history, the whole system breaks down. Each case must be determined on its own and not take into account unrelated violations.
And if this were a discussion of Canadian softwood lumber or online gambling in Antigua then that would be a legitimate point. However, in a discussion of enforcement of IP in China, the American hypocrisy in other areas of trade is a red herring. It bears no practical use in determining whether or not China should be allowed to flaunt IP laws.
Oh please... one can make a myriad of logical arguments for disliking the US, however yours is not one of them. Any representative government that submits itself to something other than the will of the people who it represents is failing in its primary duty. When American law and international law conflict, the US government's duty is to its citizens, not to some international community. The same goes for any democratic government.
I would like to see any nation that has a perfectly clean trade record. Simple because the US has violated WTO rulings in other areas does not mean that China's flaunting of IP laws is now permissible. As the GP stated, this is a legitimate complaint filed through the appropriate channels. You may not agree with US trade policy, but you certainly can't paint them as in the wrong on this particular issue.