The point of net neutrality is not to do away with differentiating levels of service. It's to prevent ISPs from charging others for access to those tiers, while giving themselves or preferred services access to those tiers for free or reduced prices. The main fear is that a company like Comcast might offer a streaming video service over their network for a fee, then charge other services, like Netflix, a quality of service fee that makes it prohibitive to compete with Comcast on their own network and prices them out of the market. AT&T objections here, while worrisome on their own, don't necessarily conflict with the principles of net neutrality.
I don't think that a temporary decline in game budgets marks a permanent decline. Rather I think it likely marks a re-aligning of resources within the industry. We'll still see games like Modern Warfare get ridiculous budgets and those budgets will continue to climb. However, I think most developers are starting to come to terms with the fact that there's only room for so many Modern Warfare level games in the industry, and that sometimes it's better to set your sights a bit lower. So I don't think the big budget games are going to disappear, but I do think that we might be seeing fewer of them in the future.
I completely agree. The ability of an ebook to move to whichever device it's most convenient for me to read it on at the moment, be it my PC, iPad, Kindle, or Android phone, is really what makes the experience so worth it for me. When I first got my Kindle and the Amazon ebook selection was only around 200,000 titles, I often made exceptions when they didn't have a book I wanted and would buy the physical copy. However, the selection has increased so much since then that these days it just makes more sense for me to move on to a different title that is available in the format I want. Authors and publishers who refuse to release in a digital format are now losing about a sale to me about every other week.
I didn't call it anything. That's from a page made about 8 years ago that applies strikingly well, to this day, to just about every Apple product launch.
A minor, rarely occurring flaw in the device begins to be discussed in the Apple support forums. Whiny, artistic types post lengthy diatribes about how this terrible design flaw has made the device unusable and scarred them emotionally. Electronic petitions are created demanding that Apple replace the devices for free, plus pay for counseling to help traumatized users overcome their emotional distress.
My guess is that they're thinking that timeliness is worth something. Not everybody wants to wait 6 months from the time an episode airs to watch it on Netflix. In fact, I think the overlap between Hulu and Netflix is actually very small, as Netflix doesn't feature content until it makes it to DVD, or in many cases even 30 days after that, and Hulu doesn't feature content after a season has finished airing.
The costs of the leak have absolutely nothing to do with the point I was making. This is in regards to continued drilling in the gulf and the economic impact on the region of a 6 month moratorium. If you RTFS, the Louisiana judge and the governor of Louisiana are saying that the moratorium will have a significant impact on the local economy. The Federal government countered by saying that's not true because shutting in 33 drilling wells is insignificant in a region with 3600 active wells. This is an invalid argument, because drilling wells contribute significantly more jobs in the oil industry than wells that are already producing. I was illustrating that point by comparing the cost of drilling a well to the cost of operating it. When drilling a well, oil companies spend money at roughly 1,000 times the rate they spend it for simply operating an existing well.
What's worse: a 6-12 month stay on wells in the Gulf temporarily effecting Gulf states, or a 2nd oil catastrophe in the Gulf?
Obviously a 2nd catastrophe, but that's the wrong question to be asking. The right question is, "What's worse: a 6-12 month stay on wells in the Gulf temporarily effecting Gulf states, or the probability of a 2nd oil catastrophe in the Gulf during that time?"
Like I said in my OP, I'm not necessarily opposed to the idea of a drilling moratorium if it's necessary to prevent another spill while the regulations are revised. But let's not fool ourselves about the real costs and benefits of a moratorium, as TFA is trying to do. A second spill is not an inevitability, especially if existing regulations are enforced properly while newer, more stringent regulations are being drafted.
Well, I can think of several ways of looking at this. As to the question of whether to moratorium will have a significant impact on the regions economy, I think the answer is an unequivocal yes. Estimates seem to vary, but from what I can turn up, the oil & gas extraction industry makes up somewhere between 10% to 15% of Louisiana's GDP (though what the ratio of onshore to offshore is I can't say). Also, we have to keep in mind that whether or not the moratorium gets enacted has little to no impact on how quickly the current BP spill gets contained and cleaned up. So all your points about other industries are, mostly, moot. Those industries are hurt by the BP spill whether other companies are allowed to continue drilling or not.
Now, I say "mostly moot" because there is one instance in which continued drilling in the gulf would effect those industries, and that's in the case that there is another spill. So I think the key factors that need to be considered are: how much damage a moratorium does to the local economy, the likelihood of a second spill during the next several months (and how much that likelihood can be reduced through simply properly enforcing existing regulation), and the potential damage to the local economies in the event of a second spill.
Personally, I think that the likelihood of a second spill is incredibly small, especially with proper enforcement of existing regulations, and that likely tips the scales towards drilling. That said, I'm not the one making the decisions. I think that there's a tremendous temptation for our leaders to err on the side of caution, as I certainly would not want to be the guy who said "go ahead and drill" in the event that there is a second spill, no matter how small that likelihood might be.
pointing out that a moratorium on 33 wells is unlikely to have a devastating impact in a region hosting 3,600 active wells
The above quote should read "a moratorium on 33 drilling wells". Drilling wells are a rate (ie 33 wells per month), active wells are a stock. The distinction is important. The vast majority of oil and gas jobs are involved in the drilling and completion process. Operating a well after it has been completed requires very little resources. For example, a typical onshore well may cost $2-3 million to drill and complete in a 14-30 day time period, but only cost around $2,000/month to operate after completion.
Please note that I'm not saying a drilling moratorium should not be passed. Just that the moratorium will likely have significant impact on the Gulf economy, and that the state of Louisiana's concerns are quite valid, and that the Federal government's dismissal of them here is misleading and likely inaccurate.
Ok, well first off I have to apologize. My OP was a little flame-baitish because I didn't really know how to get started on my point.:-)
The point that I want to make is that the free market, to the extent that we think of it, has limits, or at least limits to where it's beneficial to society, something a lot of people fail to recognize. Note that I didn't say net neutrality doesn't violate the free market, only that it doesn't violate the principles of the free market, which are that free and open trade between parties produces a net benefit.
The reason it doesn't violate those principles is because the current state US broadband exhibits one of the primary market failures, which is a lack of adequate competition to keep producers from gouging their customers.
3D is a neat trick, but it comes at the cost of resolution and viewing angle.
It's a handheld device... you won't be holding it at a weird viewing angle.
I'm not talking crazy cockeyed viewing angles. I'm talking anything that isn't directly in the sweet spot for the system. Every review I've read from E3 says that the 3D effect has a remarkably small zone of effectiveness. Basically you have to hold the screen precisely to that one eye is viewing one side of the screen and the other views the other side. There's not a lot of room for error. Also, I imagine anything that makes use of the built in gyro will essentially require you to turn off the 3D effect, as that will have you using it at odd angles. Even if you're not, the screen is still pitifully low res compared to just about every other mobile product on the market today. Like I said before, 3D is a neat trick for sure, but it comes with a lot of trade-offs, and it's quite likely that many people will not find the trade-offs worth it.
As for the touch pad, I was never a fan of it on the DS. Switching between the digital controls and the stylus is an awkward process and game developers can never seem to make up their minds about which set of controls their game is built for.
I'm not sure which games you are talking about, but then I haven't played all DS games... could you provide examples? All games I have played fall in one of three categories:
A. The touchscreen is not required, the D-pad and six buttons are enough. (Ex: most strategy games, most platformers.)
B. The touchscreen is the main input device. The shoulder buttons and the D-pad (or the face buttons if you're a lefty) are still easily accessible. (Ex: Metroid Prime Hunters, surprisingly playable for an FPS, the two Zelda games.)
C. The touchscreen is used for always on-screen menus, the buttons for most of the input. I think this is probably what you are talking about, but I find that in those cases, precision is usually not required and you can use your thumbs instead of the stylus.
I was mainly talking about the devices that use the second scheme. I just always found it incredibly awkward to hold the device in one hand while using the stylus, as the DS, by design, is clearly intended to be held with 2 hands (ie it's wider than it is tall). I think a capacitive touch screen, that didn't require a stylus would have been a huge improvement for them from a design standpoint, as it would have allowed the player access to all the controls at all times.
Meanwhile Nintendo has inanely decided to replicate the biggest flaw in the PSP controls, only one analog stick, on the 3DS.
Well, the touchscreen serves as a second analog stick.
Like I said, I don't really consider the existing DS touchscreen to be a very good control scheme on its own, let alone a good substitute for other controls that are absent for no particular reason. Also, while the DS allowed lefties to map the d-pad to the face buttons while using the touch screen, this won't be possible with the 3DS due to the lack of an analog stick.
Nintendo's competition isn't exactly standing still here.
Certainly not, but Nintendo still looks like the big winner of E3. They've announced a new piece of hardware that has a lot of people impressed, and most importantly, titles from franchises every fanboy was clamoring for (Kirby on the Wii, Kid Icarus, Zelda, Donkey Kong, a few Mario games, Star Fox...). There's a 3D remake of Ocarina of Time for the 3DS, ffs. The only way that could have been topped would have been for Sony to announce that Square Enix would be releasing a 3D FF7 remake.
I wan't arguing that Nintendo made a big impression at E3. They make a big impression every time they announce new hardware. There's
I'd argue against these two. 3D is a neat trick, but it comes at the cost of resolution and viewing angle. The effective resolution of the 3DS screen is a paltry 400x240. Perhaps I'll be more convinced when I finally see it, but right now, I'd much prefer a high res display with a good viewing angle. As for the touch pad, I was never a fan of it on the DS. Switching between the digital controls and the stylus is an awkward process and game developers can never seem to make up their minds about which set of controls their game is built for. Meanwhile Nintendo has inanely decided to replicate the biggest flaw in the PSP controls, only one analog stick, on the 3DS.
The Wii3D or whatever their next console is going to be is going to do the same thing the 3DS did to the PSP, to the PS3 and the 360
This isn't a technology that can be replicated on a home console well. For one, anyone who bought a "Wii3D" would have to buy a new television also. Secondly, the 3DS technology requires the viewer be situated at a particular point in front of the screen. It doesn't work for a situation where you have multiple viewers, such as in the home.
Take a gimmick they have perfected, perhaps add another gimmick, but increase the graphics and remove the one advantage the other two have.
Nintendo's competition isn't exactly standing still here. I'll eat my left shoe if Sony doesn't show a PSP2 at TGS this year. Meanwhile Windows Phone 7 launches in Sept with Xbox Live Arcade integration and Apple continues to pound at the gates of handheld gaming, integrating a new online game center into iOS4. 3DS will certainly move a lot of units, but it far from spells the immediate demise of all of Nintendo's competitors as you seem to think.
If there's anyone wondering just how absurd $1.5 trillion is, consider this. The combined revenue (not profits) for the parent companies (not just the music subsidiaries) of the Big 4 record labels, over the last 5 years, is only about $150-$200 billion.
You know, people make this excuse for KOTOR 2 all the time. The only problem is, both NWN2 and Alpha Protocol were unfinished technical nightmares too, and neither of those games had anything to do with Lucas Arts. I'm sure LA had a role in KOTOR 2's problems, but it's also clear that Obsidian is a developer that has major problems finishing their games. Just because one of their three f*** ups may not have been entirely their fault, doesn't mean they continue to get the benefit of the doubt every time they announce a new game.
Hooray! Two of the most over hyped developers in the industry team up with the most over rated publisher to make a sequel to one of the most over rated franchises!
Not to mention, mobile data and access at home are very much not the same service, even if they are provided by the same company sometimes. The only fair point I think TFA makes is in regards to providers charging for different types of data on the same network, eg charging for text messaging on top of a mobile data plan, or digital phone on top of a cable Internet service.
I've been playing this game pretty much non-stop since last week, and loving every minute of it. I've never been a fan of the GTA games, but despite RDR playing almost identically it appeals to me significantly more.
Perhaps it's just the atmosphere, but it feels much more like an RPG than a shooter or action game. It's certainly every bit as much of an RPG as Mass Effect 2 was. I'd definitely recommend it to anyone looking for something good to play.
All of the comments he makes can be applied just as easily to television, books, periodicals, radio, and film. All this is, is Obama demonstrating the Douglas Adams rules of technology acceptance
1) everything that’s already in the world when you’re born is just normal;
2) anything that gets invented between then and before you turn thirty is incredibly exciting and creative and with any luck you can make a career out of it;
3) anything that gets invented after you’re thirty is against the natural order of things and the beginning of the end of civilisation as we know it until it’s been around for about ten years when it gradually turns out to be alright really.
Main Entry: 1gimmick Pronunciation: \gi-mik\ Function: noun Etymology: origin unknown Date: 1922 1 a : a mechanical device for secretly and dishonestly controlling gambling apparatus b : an ingenious or novel mechanical device : gadget 2 a : an important feature that is not immediately apparent : catch b : an ingenious and usually new scheme or angle c : a trick or device used to attract business or attention
Doesn't seem very arbitrary to me.
Try this. Go on Youtube and watch a Wii commercial, any Wii commercial. What do you see? You see a bunch of people moving around wildly as if their movements are translating to movements of characters on the screen. Now, go into someone's living room and watch people actually playing the Wii. Aside from the very rare exception (seriously, you could count the games on one hand), you see people sitting on their couch using the Wii remote and nunchuck just like any other regular controller, and occasionally shaking the remote in a completely arbitrary fashion until the game recognizes that the remote is moving. That is a gimmick. You've been sold one experience, while the actual experience is but a pale shadow of what was promised. It is a " trick... used to attract business".
Now, you may not much care for what flashy HD graphics add or don't add to a game. But the reality is that the flashy HD graphics that you're promised are the same flashy HD graphics that you get when you take the game home and stick it in your machine. It's no trick. The Wii is.
If 99 out of 100 games only know if you're swinging your arms, and not where you're swinging them, then yes, I do consider it a gimmick. I can count on one hand the number of games on the Wii that actually realize the potential of the control scheme in a way that tangibly adds to the immersive experience of playing them.
Seriously, when was the last time Nintendo implemented something in one of their platforms that wasn't a complete gimmick (and no I don't count the less than 1% of the time developers use the Wii Remote or DS touch screen for a function other than something that worked perfectly well with a button press)? Perhaps the N64 analog stick... I'm already less than impressed with 3D technology for multi-thousand dollar home theater setups. The chances that Nintendo will manage to produce a glasses free alternative, that isn't decidedly sub-par, in a ~$200 device are practically zero. Maybe I'll be proven wrong, but my gut feeling here is that this will be nothing more than another cheap gimmick that looks good in commercials, but does nothing to actually enhance the experience of playing games, and may even impair that experience in some cases.
Slashdot Mirror
The point of net neutrality is not to do away with differentiating levels of service. It's to prevent ISPs from charging others for access to those tiers, while giving themselves or preferred services access to those tiers for free or reduced prices. The main fear is that a company like Comcast might offer a streaming video service over their network for a fee, then charge other services, like Netflix, a quality of service fee that makes it prohibitive to compete with Comcast on their own network and prices them out of the market. AT&T objections here, while worrisome on their own, don't necessarily conflict with the principles of net neutrality.
I don't think that a temporary decline in game budgets marks a permanent decline. Rather I think it likely marks a re-aligning of resources within the industry. We'll still see games like Modern Warfare get ridiculous budgets and those budgets will continue to climb. However, I think most developers are starting to come to terms with the fact that there's only room for so many Modern Warfare level games in the industry, and that sometimes it's better to set your sights a bit lower. So I don't think the big budget games are going to disappear, but I do think that we might be seeing fewer of them in the future.
Reminds me of this.
I completely agree. The ability of an ebook to move to whichever device it's most convenient for me to read it on at the moment, be it my PC, iPad, Kindle, or Android phone, is really what makes the experience so worth it for me. When I first got my Kindle and the Amazon ebook selection was only around 200,000 titles, I often made exceptions when they didn't have a book I wanted and would buy the physical copy. However, the selection has increased so much since then that these days it just makes more sense for me to move on to a different title that is available in the format I want. Authors and publishers who refuse to release in a digital format are now losing about a sale to me about every other week.
I didn't call it anything. That's from a page made about 8 years ago that applies strikingly well, to this day, to just about every Apple product launch.
I believe this put's us right about here:
In the Apple Product Cycle
what are they thinking?
My guess is that they're thinking that timeliness is worth something. Not everybody wants to wait 6 months from the time an episode airs to watch it on Netflix. In fact, I think the overlap between Hulu and Netflix is actually very small, as Netflix doesn't feature content until it makes it to DVD, or in many cases even 30 days after that, and Hulu doesn't feature content after a season has finished airing.
The costs of the leak have absolutely nothing to do with the point I was making. This is in regards to continued drilling in the gulf and the economic impact on the region of a 6 month moratorium. If you RTFS, the Louisiana judge and the governor of Louisiana are saying that the moratorium will have a significant impact on the local economy. The Federal government countered by saying that's not true because shutting in 33 drilling wells is insignificant in a region with 3600 active wells. This is an invalid argument, because drilling wells contribute significantly more jobs in the oil industry than wells that are already producing. I was illustrating that point by comparing the cost of drilling a well to the cost of operating it. When drilling a well, oil companies spend money at roughly 1,000 times the rate they spend it for simply operating an existing well.
Obviously a 2nd catastrophe, but that's the wrong question to be asking. The right question is, "What's worse: a 6-12 month stay on wells in the Gulf temporarily effecting Gulf states, or the probability of a 2nd oil catastrophe in the Gulf during that time?"
Like I said in my OP, I'm not necessarily opposed to the idea of a drilling moratorium if it's necessary to prevent another spill while the regulations are revised. But let's not fool ourselves about the real costs and benefits of a moratorium, as TFA is trying to do. A second spill is not an inevitability, especially if existing regulations are enforced properly while newer, more stringent regulations are being drafted.
Well, I can think of several ways of looking at this. As to the question of whether to moratorium will have a significant impact on the regions economy, I think the answer is an unequivocal yes. Estimates seem to vary, but from what I can turn up, the oil & gas extraction industry makes up somewhere between 10% to 15% of Louisiana's GDP (though what the ratio of onshore to offshore is I can't say). Also, we have to keep in mind that whether or not the moratorium gets enacted has little to no impact on how quickly the current BP spill gets contained and cleaned up. So all your points about other industries are, mostly, moot. Those industries are hurt by the BP spill whether other companies are allowed to continue drilling or not.
Now, I say "mostly moot" because there is one instance in which continued drilling in the gulf would effect those industries, and that's in the case that there is another spill. So I think the key factors that need to be considered are: how much damage a moratorium does to the local economy, the likelihood of a second spill during the next several months (and how much that likelihood can be reduced through simply properly enforcing existing regulation), and the potential damage to the local economies in the event of a second spill.
Personally, I think that the likelihood of a second spill is incredibly small, especially with proper enforcement of existing regulations, and that likely tips the scales towards drilling. That said, I'm not the one making the decisions. I think that there's a tremendous temptation for our leaders to err on the side of caution, as I certainly would not want to be the guy who said "go ahead and drill" in the event that there is a second spill, no matter how small that likelihood might be.
The above quote should read "a moratorium on 33 drilling wells". Drilling wells are a rate (ie 33 wells per month), active wells are a stock. The distinction is important. The vast majority of oil and gas jobs are involved in the drilling and completion process. Operating a well after it has been completed requires very little resources. For example, a typical onshore well may cost $2-3 million to drill and complete in a 14-30 day time period, but only cost around $2,000/month to operate after completion.
Please note that I'm not saying a drilling moratorium should not be passed. Just that the moratorium will likely have significant impact on the Gulf economy, and that the state of Louisiana's concerns are quite valid, and that the Federal government's dismissal of them here is misleading and likely inaccurate.
Well if you're just going to make my argument for me it's no fun.
Ok, well first off I have to apologize. My OP was a little flame-baitish because I didn't really know how to get started on my point. :-)
The point that I want to make is that the free market, to the extent that we think of it, has limits, or at least limits to where it's beneficial to society, something a lot of people fail to recognize. Note that I didn't say net neutrality doesn't violate the free market, only that it doesn't violate the principles of the free market, which are that free and open trade between parties produces a net benefit.
The reason it doesn't violate those principles is because the current state US broadband exhibits one of the primary market failures, which is a lack of adequate competition to keep producers from gouging their customers.
In before the right wingers start ranting about how net neutrality violates the principles of the free market. (FYI, it doesn't)
3D is a neat trick, but it comes at the cost of resolution and viewing angle.
It's a handheld device... you won't be holding it at a weird viewing angle.
I'm not talking crazy cockeyed viewing angles. I'm talking anything that isn't directly in the sweet spot for the system. Every review I've read from E3 says that the 3D effect has a remarkably small zone of effectiveness. Basically you have to hold the screen precisely to that one eye is viewing one side of the screen and the other views the other side. There's not a lot of room for error. Also, I imagine anything that makes use of the built in gyro will essentially require you to turn off the 3D effect, as that will have you using it at odd angles. Even if you're not, the screen is still pitifully low res compared to just about every other mobile product on the market today. Like I said before, 3D is a neat trick for sure, but it comes with a lot of trade-offs, and it's quite likely that many people will not find the trade-offs worth it.
As for the touch pad, I was never a fan of it on the DS. Switching between the digital controls and the stylus is an awkward process and game developers can never seem to make up their minds about which set of controls their game is built for.
I'm not sure which games you are talking about, but then I haven't played all DS games... could you provide examples? All games I have played fall in one of three categories:
I was mainly talking about the devices that use the second scheme. I just always found it incredibly awkward to hold the device in one hand while using the stylus, as the DS, by design, is clearly intended to be held with 2 hands (ie it's wider than it is tall). I think a capacitive touch screen, that didn't require a stylus would have been a huge improvement for them from a design standpoint, as it would have allowed the player access to all the controls at all times.
Meanwhile Nintendo has inanely decided to replicate the biggest flaw in the PSP controls, only one analog stick, on the 3DS.
Well, the touchscreen serves as a second analog stick.
Like I said, I don't really consider the existing DS touchscreen to be a very good control scheme on its own, let alone a good substitute for other controls that are absent for no particular reason. Also, while the DS allowed lefties to map the d-pad to the face buttons while using the touch screen, this won't be possible with the 3DS due to the lack of an analog stick.
Nintendo's competition isn't exactly standing still here.
Certainly not, but Nintendo still looks like the big winner of E3. They've announced a new piece of hardware that has a lot of people impressed, and most importantly, titles from franchises every fanboy was clamoring for (Kirby on the Wii, Kid Icarus, Zelda, Donkey Kong, a few Mario games, Star Fox...). There's a 3D remake of Ocarina of Time for the 3DS, ffs. The only way that could have been topped would have been for Sony to announce that Square Enix would be releasing a 3D FF7 remake.
I wan't arguing that Nintendo made a big impression at E3. They make a big impression every time they announce new hardware. There's
better screen... better input (analog stick, dpad, AND touch), better everything.
I'd argue against these two. 3D is a neat trick, but it comes at the cost of resolution and viewing angle. The effective resolution of the 3DS screen is a paltry 400x240. Perhaps I'll be more convinced when I finally see it, but right now, I'd much prefer a high res display with a good viewing angle. As for the touch pad, I was never a fan of it on the DS. Switching between the digital controls and the stylus is an awkward process and game developers can never seem to make up their minds about which set of controls their game is built for. Meanwhile Nintendo has inanely decided to replicate the biggest flaw in the PSP controls, only one analog stick, on the 3DS.
The Wii3D or whatever their next console is going to be is going to do the same thing the 3DS did to the PSP, to the PS3 and the 360
This isn't a technology that can be replicated on a home console well. For one, anyone who bought a "Wii3D" would have to buy a new television also. Secondly, the 3DS technology requires the viewer be situated at a particular point in front of the screen. It doesn't work for a situation where you have multiple viewers, such as in the home.
Take a gimmick they have perfected, perhaps add another gimmick, but increase the graphics and remove the one advantage the other two have.
Nintendo's competition isn't exactly standing still here. I'll eat my left shoe if Sony doesn't show a PSP2 at TGS this year. Meanwhile Windows Phone 7 launches in Sept with Xbox Live Arcade integration and Apple continues to pound at the gates of handheld gaming, integrating a new online game center into iOS4. 3DS will certainly move a lot of units, but it far from spells the immediate demise of all of Nintendo's competitors as you seem to think.
If there's anyone wondering just how absurd $1.5 trillion is, consider this. The combined revenue (not profits) for the parent companies (not just the music subsidiaries) of the Big 4 record labels, over the last 5 years, is only about $150-$200 billion.
You know, people make this excuse for KOTOR 2 all the time. The only problem is, both NWN2 and Alpha Protocol were unfinished technical nightmares too, and neither of those games had anything to do with Lucas Arts. I'm sure LA had a role in KOTOR 2's problems, but it's also clear that Obsidian is a developer that has major problems finishing their games. Just because one of their three f*** ups may not have been entirely their fault, doesn't mean they continue to get the benefit of the doubt every time they announce a new game.
Hooray! Two of the most over hyped developers in the industry team up with the most over rated publisher to make a sequel to one of the most over rated franchises!
^This
Not to mention, mobile data and access at home are very much not the same service, even if they are provided by the same company sometimes. The only fair point I think TFA makes is in regards to providers charging for different types of data on the same network, eg charging for text messaging on top of a mobile data plan, or digital phone on top of a cable Internet service.
I've been playing this game pretty much non-stop since last week, and loving every minute of it. I've never been a fan of the GTA games, but despite RDR playing almost identically it appeals to me significantly more.
Perhaps it's just the atmosphere, but it feels much more like an RPG than a shooter or action game. It's certainly every bit as much of an RPG as Mass Effect 2 was. I'd definitely recommend it to anyone looking for something good to play.
All of the comments he makes can be applied just as easily to television, books, periodicals, radio, and film. All this is, is Obama demonstrating the Douglas Adams rules of technology acceptance
Doesn't seem very arbitrary to me.
Try this. Go on Youtube and watch a Wii commercial, any Wii commercial. What do you see? You see a bunch of people moving around wildly as if their movements are translating to movements of characters on the screen. Now, go into someone's living room and watch people actually playing the Wii. Aside from the very rare exception (seriously, you could count the games on one hand), you see people sitting on their couch using the Wii remote and nunchuck just like any other regular controller, and occasionally shaking the remote in a completely arbitrary fashion until the game recognizes that the remote is moving. That is a gimmick. You've been sold one experience, while the actual experience is but a pale shadow of what was promised. It is a " trick... used to attract business".
Now, you may not much care for what flashy HD graphics add or don't add to a game. But the reality is that the flashy HD graphics that you're promised are the same flashy HD graphics that you get when you take the game home and stick it in your machine. It's no trick. The Wii is.
If 99 out of 100 games only know if you're swinging your arms, and not where you're swinging them, then yes, I do consider it a gimmick. I can count on one hand the number of games on the Wii that actually realize the potential of the control scheme in a way that tangibly adds to the immersive experience of playing them.
Seriously, when was the last time Nintendo implemented something in one of their platforms that wasn't a complete gimmick (and no I don't count the less than 1% of the time developers use the Wii Remote or DS touch screen for a function other than something that worked perfectly well with a button press)? Perhaps the N64 analog stick... I'm already less than impressed with 3D technology for multi-thousand dollar home theater setups. The chances that Nintendo will manage to produce a glasses free alternative, that isn't decidedly sub-par, in a ~$200 device are practically zero. Maybe I'll be proven wrong, but my gut feeling here is that this will be nothing more than another cheap gimmick that looks good in commercials, but does nothing to actually enhance the experience of playing games, and may even impair that experience in some cases.