Man, it's pathetic that Blizzard bowed to all the players concerned about the sizes of their e-peens. In fact, I'm surprised the change was demanded at all given the popularity of Japanese games and their effeminate male characters.
And regardless, looking at that screenshot I feel the original version had some character and certainly was elf-like. The new one looks like a generic human with long ears. This just goes to show why so many games are the same old generic crap.
I find it a bit funny that while people act suspiciously towards pharmaceutical drugs and their potential side-effects and are wary of genetically modified foods they freely embrace drugs. Untold millions around the world have displayed countless side-effects from drug use ranging from impotence and brain cell loss all the way to death. And yet somehow people manage to come up excuses for everything. There's a reason why drugs are illegal regardless of whatever other motivations may drive some of it.
Keep in mind that only in relatively recent history have we seen drugs processed to the purity they are today. Hence the increased danger. It's fairly established that many activities, such as excessive MMO gameplay can cause chemical reactions which lead to addictive behaviour. And now you're going to tell me that substances which directly cause chemical reactions in the body aren't addictive. Certainly there are people who won't get addicted, but who's safer and who isn't is anyone's bet.
And drugs don't hurt anyone but the user? I guess drug related crime isn't really drug related at all. However, drug use brings a more subtle problem. Who is going to pay for a drug user's medical bills, especially a user who is incapable of paying those bills him or herself. Like US healthcare isn't already overpriced enough that we need to add yet another burden on the system.
And then what drugs should the government legalize? Should anything and everything be allowed? So the government is making steps to ban fast food, but apparently we should legalize drugs. And mind you there are politicians who have made ridiculous claims that fast food is as addictive as heroin. Even if only mild drugs are legalized inevitably people will move onto something stronger, and it's only inevitable that they start demanding those be legalized as well. For a while now it's been problem in the Netherlands with people seeking out harder drugs.
Despite all this ranting, I honestly don't have a problem at all with some drugs being legalized. And hell, they could legalize every drug in existance. However, if you're going to do that, then I demand that these people sign a waiver that they themselves are responsible for their own healthcare. If they can't afford their own healthcare they're out of luck when they made the choice to start using drugs. I'm sure as hell not going to pay for someone else's drug use, be it through taxes or through my health insurance.
Of course, even if drugs were legalized that would NEVER happen. But just wait, if you thought pharmaceuticals were bad now, just wait until they're allowed to manufacture what are currently illegal drugs. Sometimes I don't think people truly understand what they're asking for.
Ah, another self-righteous spewing from a conservative.
I find it absolutely astounding that you could glean that much from my post. Amazing. I also don't understand where you get the idea that I'm "shitting" on anyone. Apparently you're so blinded by your hatred against anything remotely conservative that you refuse to even use common sense.
So, if I understand you correctly I shouldn't be held responsible for my accounts because there could always be an extenuating circumstance. Or perhaps it's that certain people need to be less responsible than others.
If a company makes a conscious decision to exploit addictions, if Blizzard knowingly designed the game to take advantage of people who couldn't control themselves, I would agree. They need to be held responsible. On the other hand, if some gamer can't prevent himself from gaming 20 hours a day why in the fuck is that the Blizzard's fault?
Are we going to start regulating what the majority is able to do for the sake of the minority who can't control themselves? Isn't is already ridiculous enough with all the stupid warnings? Isn't it ridiculous that a toy sold in the American market has to be modified for fear that some kid might somehow hurt him or herself? Apparently Americans are more clumsy or stupid than the rest of the world.
People today want to do whatever they feel like it without having to face any reprocussions. But when something bad happens they're quick to blame someone else and demand the government protect them. If you can't use own common sense you've got some serious problems and no amount of warning labels or government protection is ever going to help you.
Absolutely MMOs are designed to be addictive. That's the whole point of subscription based games, to draw in players and keep them interested in the game. What MMO player doesn't look forward to hitting that next level, acquiring new gear, or exploring some new region? Character building certainly is an alluring gameplay element. I feel the lure whenever I try a MMO.
That said, however, I certainly don't think Blizzard or any other developer is responsible for anyone who gets addictive. These companies want players subscribed for a couple of years, but I doubt it's anyone's intention that they have players addicted to these games like they were drugs.
It's easy for someone to say they can stop playing whenever they want. There are also people who think playing games 40 hours a week is casual gaming. The point is that for someone who has become truly addicted they've lost all self-control. They can't stop. They feel agitated when they're not playing; the game is constantly on their mind. What they need is help, in one form or another.
Regardless of the nature of the addiction, it ultimately is that player's fault. They made the decision to install the game and start playing. The fact that they lost themselves to the game is ultimately their own fault.
My concern is that there are lawyers out there already licking their chops. It's only a matter of time before we start seeing lawsuits against these developers.
Much like the lawsuits against the tobacco companies. In at least the past 20 years we've known smoking is bad. Even if these people didn't know when they started, they must have learned since then. Why didn't they find a way to stop? The company may have been questionable to selling such a product, but ultimately it's the consumer's fault. I mean, using the rationale for suing those companies we might as well sue all automakers for enabling us to put ourselves in harm's way.
The question here isn't whether games like WoW are addictive, because they clearly are. It's whether people are going to be mature and responsible enough to acknowledge their own fault in all this. Unfortunately, as history has shown in this culture of the victim, too many people are going blame everyone but themselves.
And just wait until gaming reaches a point where it's photo-realistic, approaching something like the realism of the holodeck. We haven't seen anything yet.
There are two absurd extremes when it comes to perceived value and the internet.
On one end you have people who thing everything should be free and anything is fair game.
And at the other extreme you have companies spending hundreds of millions, if not billions of dollars for something that's at its core immaterial.
A bigger problem, to me, is how intrusive internet advertising has become, and that's to say nothing about the general crap quality of that advertising. These sites sell for so much money not because they actually offer anything of real substance but simply because they've hit on enough of a hook that they've managed to lure millions of visitors. The more visitors the more people exposed to advertising.
The Internet is in a big way driven by ad supported models, much like television. These sites exist for advertising which means that whoever is running the site must be responsible for content.
My first thought when I heard this story was, "What does it matter to them? No one outside of Japan will ever get their programming anyway."
But then my friend made a very good point. Youtube was sold for $1.6 billion in no small part because they attracted viewers with copyrighted programming. They certainly have made little effort in the past to block that kind of material.
That friend has been in a similar situation where someone running a site overseas goes and essentially takes his copyrighted flash games and puts them on their site without his permission. They then lure visitors using my friend's, and other people's, creations in order to make money on advertising.
Why Youtube was ever worth $1.6 billion is beyond me.
This excessively protective attitude towards children in the West is why we're going to end up with a generation of wimps. This issue just a small reflection of a more significant problem.
And in typical Microsoft fashion, downloading and installing an internet BROWSER requires... what else? That you reboot your computer.
That statement is made like it's somehow unique to Windows. I was just setting up a new Mac last week and had to reboot the computer after installing drivers for a freaking mouse, and it was Apple's own mouse on top of that.
Considering how inept the patent office seems to be I think I'm going to patent the act of looking at the sky. While I'm at it I think I'll patent the act of defecation too.
The problem isn't so much outsourcing in and of itself. It's that all expertise is being sent overseas. What is even manufactured in the United States anymore? US automakers are already trying to send what they can elsewhere, even the defense industry isn't completely American anymore. And at this point those are really the last stand for this nation.
The problem is that the US no longer has anything to call it's own. They've become completely dependent on the rest of the world for the sake of saving a few dollars. Instead of increasing the quality of their products they keep focusing on reducing costs and cutting corners.
Compare the US to Japan or Germany. Both of those nations export much of their manufacturing, however, the top tier is still kept within their respective nations. It ensures they retain skilled labor and will continue to innovate.
And back to the original question, what exactly do American companies do? They're put themselves in a compromising situation. Take Dell. What do they do other than slap a logo on a case? It's Taiwanese and a few Chinese companies doing most of the work. Sure, Intel, AMD and others are doing some of the initial design but foreign companies are poised to pull the rug out from under American companies. Just like Japanese companies came to dominate the electronics industry the Chinese will likely one day dominate the computer industry.
Here's an interesting thing... Swiffer was invented by a Japanese company. What did Procter & Gamble do? As they proudly proclaim, they "invented" the Swiffer brand. Too many American companies seem to trade in ephemeral concepts. Why waste money on innovation when someone else can do it for you? Well, one day the Japanese company will wise up and sell the products here themselves. Then companies like Procter & Gamble will be out of business, Americans will be out of work and they will blame foreign competition.
I don't think most gamers could play these guys and be even the slightest bit competitive. In the end it likely wouldn't be all that different than trying to play football with a professional footballer.
Furthermore, I don't think these guys care in the least bit to talk to the average guy. Doubtless, there are exceptions but the celebrity mentality inevitably changes everything.
These companies don't put nearly as much effort into Europe as they do in the US and Japan because Europeans don't spend money on consoles. Europeans generally earn less than their Japanese and American counterparts and certainly are taxed far, far more heavily. So Europeans are less likely to spend their money frivlously; if they buy something they expect more value out of it. Hence the popularity of PC gaming. Although, there are certain countries there, like England, where console gaming does enjoy a considerable presence.
But regardless, this is why these companies don't care. What Sony's executives have said is stupid, but they could care less. Their income, if they actually manage to sell any PS3's will be coming from the US and Japan not Europe.
This is inevitably going to come off as flamebait to some, but I think it has to be said...
If people but as much effort into constructive pursuits as they put into these games they couldn't help but be very successful. And I don't think there's a real middle ground where you can truly do well and continue to maintain what is essentially a second career within these games.
This is coming from someone who's played a few MMOs... I never invested even a fraction of the time some have put into these games but I still think it was too much time wasted. I certainly wont be making the mistake again.
They could have also reintroduced the original Nano design in new colors, or just come up with something completely new.
It's not that the new designs are bad, but the fact that they went back to a previous design is a bit of a disappointment. I feel like Apple isn't trying very hard because they know there are plenty of people out there who will buy their products no matter what they do.
If the best Apple can come up with is to reuse old designs then there's isn't much hope for the company.
Although, I'm sure the new iPod Nano will sell well given the way people obsess company regardless of what Apple does. After all, only Apple can take something that's been around for a few years and present it as something new and innovative.
Game movies suck because of the incompetent hacks charged with writing and directing them. If novels, which can have far more content than any game in existance, can be adapted into a good movie there's no reason the same can't be done with games.
Also, keep in mind that most games aren't very well written, with one-dimensional characters and contrived, simplistic storylines. Even games with writing considered to be above-average are fairly weak when compared to writing in other mediums. You're not going to get much of a movie if you try to be faithful to the game.
With consoles slowly turning into PCs themselves, especially in terms of cost, I don't see how the PC gaming market will become marginalized. At some point consoles will become so expensive that people will get more value just spending a few hundred more on a decent PC. This is already the case in most of Europe and parts of Asia.
In the meantime, despite all the nonsense "experts" like to claim the market isn't going to change at all. The market is going to continue as it has the past 10-15 years. Every so often the claim is made that PC gaming is dying and time and again we see it thriving as strongly as ever.
One important advantage PCs have is that it is still perceived by the average consumer to be an educational tool. There are a good number of educational games available for PCs whereas there are essentially none for the consoles. There, of course, are other obvious advantages, the internet, being able to do research online, chat with friends, etc.
This means that many parents will be buying a PC for their children. The PC already has a foot firmly in the door. It's only natural that when the time comes to invest in some games they're going to be looking at PC games first. $40 to $50 on a PC game is far more attractive than $60 for a console game in addition to the purchase of the console itself. Many of these kinds of consumers could care less whether their PCs run current games at the highest detail levels at 60fps.
Also, despite the overwhelming popularity of a few genres on PCs, FPS, RTS and RPGs there's a wide range of games available for PCs. People are going nuts over the supposed innovative gaming coming for the Wii, how the console will attract hordes of casual gamers. The PC has already accomplished this!
The PC has become an ubiquitous platform. Who doesn't have a computer? From flash to indie to commercial games there's a wide variety of gaming content out there, and a lot of it is free. Most people I know who are only mildly interested in games will never spend even $200 on a gaming console. They might see a compelling game on one of the consoles, but its quickly forgotten. They sure arent going to rush out and spend a few hundred dollars in order to play it. However, they will spend $20 on a whim if they see something they like for the PC.
If anything, I forsee the console becoming a niche market in the distant future. Consoles are entering a point of diminishing returns. They're getting too complicated and expensive to justify their purchase of a technically superior and more practical PC. I predict that at some point PCs will become so transparent in use that they'll be intuitive enough so serve as easy replacements for gaming consoles.
I have an adapter that lets me use the PS2 controller with my PC. Some games even take advantage of the rumble feature. This means I can have the same exact gameplay experience offered by any console.
I agree that consoles allow for a more sociable gameplay experience, but that's only because of the physical arrangement of computer equipment. I can go out and buy a 20" or larger monitor, hide the case somewhere, get a cordless keyboard and mouse (or some device better suited to be used from the sofa) and set up as many game controllers as I want. With that, I've effectively recreated the console experience with my PC.
This of course, assumes I'm playing a game originally designed with the console in mind, of which there are plenty. When I want to go back to the standard PC fare, I also have the option.
On the other hand, I don't see consoles provided that sort of capability any time soon. Some genres are limited on PCs simply because developers dont bother with them, but some genres don't exist for consoles because of hardware limitations or because the platform simply isn't conducive to them.
The argument that PC equipment has to be upgraded on a yearly basis is nonsense, not even worth arguing. I suppose if you want to keep running every current release at maximum framerates that may be true. But you can pull back on detail settings and have a current game run well and still look pretty decent. And regardless, there are console games out there that cause slow down and in that case there's nothing you can do about it.
The article posted last week on the top selling PC games demonstrates that there's a lot of variety in PC gaming. The same few contrived genres may get all the attention but the variety is there. Consoles offer something different only in comparison to PCs. But each console seems to have carved it's own niche in gaming. Buy any one console and you're going to be relatively limited in your options, except maybe for the PS2 which has such an large library. And, because PC games aren't limited by all the ridiculous licensing agreements it allows small, indie developers to thrive ensuring you'll find stuff on PCs you wont find anywhere else.
This isn't to say consoles don't have advantages. If all you care about is gaming, a console is a far better purchase. Consoles are significantly less expensive than PCs, although even that seems to be changing rather quickly. There are indeed numerous great games that are available only for consoles. And it really a bit easier to just sit back and play a game with a console, although other than the installation process things have gotten to be rather seamless on PCs as well.
The PC has far more potential as a gaming platform than any console, but in the end that distinction is irrelevant. It comes down to what best suits the consumer and which platform gets the most attention. In the end it comes down to what you're looking for out of a gaming system.
It's easy to see what they mean, but I think most of us know that a new install of XP can seem shiny and beautiful, but 2 months later
So you claim. I got my PC about 3 years ago, installing a new copy of XP onto it. I haven't had a problem at all in all that time, nor has system performance degraded. I can't recall a single system crash and I use the machine fairly intensively.
Let's see... I run Photoshop, Illustrator, Flash, 3D Studio Max and InDesign fairly often and often most of those at the same time. I also use the machine for gaming having played Morrowind, Neverwinter Nights, Warcraft 3, City of Heroes, Guild Wars, Dawn of War, Doom 3, and most recently Live for Speed. I've done the free trials of EQ2 and World of Warcraft among others.
I list all this just to make it clear that I actually use the machine to the maximum of it's capabilities. I keep the machine running clean, I uninstall and clean out anything I no longer use, I frequently check for spyware, having come across a particularly malicious infection maybe twice in the past few years. I certainly don't obsess about every last detail.
Of course I've had individual applications crash, but I don't hold the OS accountable. If I should then Mac OS is pure shit. I got a new Mac G4 at work at roughly the same time I got my PC and I've had far more problems from that computer than I've ever had from my PC. Crashes are ridiculously common, although things have certainly improved from the days of OS9. And my computer generally runs better than my coworkers', some of theirs' have run into some truly absurd problems.
Nevertheless, there's a reason designers have the mantra, "Save early, save often." The thing is that most designers will never blame Apple for anything. Any problem is always someone else's fault. If Photoshop crashes, it's Adobe's fault; if Office crashes, then it most definitely is Microsoft's fault. Either that or it's the end users fault, a common explanation being that too many applications were open at the same time. So now I'm not supposed to use a Mac the way computers were intended to be used.
However, an application on a PC crashes and it's ALWAYS Microsoft's fault. It's so ingrained that people put down Microsoft and their products without using even the most basic common sense. I'll be the first to admit Microsoft makes an over-complicated, bloated mess of much of their software but Windows XP and 2000 have both been sound operating systems.
Didn't Apple just recall well over a million batteries for pretty much the same exact reason?
Why is it that when someone like Dell has a problem leading to a recall it's assumed they were doing something wrong. Either they're trying to cover up defects, or they're unresponsive to customers or everything they make is crap.
Why is it that when the same exact thing happens with Apple suddenly the apologists come out of the woodwork. The defect isn't Apple's fault first of all, and when Apple finally gets around to acknowledging the problem and recalls the product people insist that it proves they care about the customer.
Dell laptops come with defective Sony batteries: Dell is crap. Apple laptops come with defective Sony batteries: It's all Sony's fault.
Dell recalls batteries: Dell would never have initiated the recall if it hadn't been for bloggers. Apple recalls batteries: Behold Apple's benevolence.
I've noticed that the people who generally have a better experience in MMOs are those in guilds, especially those who have real life friends playing with them. Contrary to what people claim it is extremely difficult to find a good guild, especially if you only play casually. Inevitably, if you're not playing enough for their tastes you're marginalized.
And that leads me to another problem. MMO players seem to have a skewed sense of what casual gaming is. Compared to the ones who play all night I suppose 4 hours every day seems casual. But 4 hours a day means you're playing from 7pm to 11pm. That's pretty much the entire evening and if you're doing that every evening it really adds up. Casual gamers dont play 20 hours a week and they sure aren't devoting 4 hours a day to a game; they might but in an hour at best.
When I was playing another MMO, City of Heroes, I did 4 hours an evening fairly consistently and I thought that was excessive, and my wife just thought I was nuts. I can't fathom how there are people who can sustain even this level of gameplay for a year, and still call it casual gameplay on top of that.
Re:Macs suck, but the commercials are midly amusin
on
New "Get a Mac" TV ads
·
· Score: 1
mac IS unix, so you can do almost anything you damn well please on it. Don't like the fancy GUI? enjoy all your system groking in the bash shell to your heart's content.
When was the last time the average Mac user has had the ability to do anything like that? I sure as hell dont know how to do anything like that. The advantage of Mac OS is it's simplicity and here you are advocating something complex and unintuitive which could probably end up breaking the system if done right.
The point is that in Windows I don't have to go through that sort of convoluted nonsense to customize the nonsense. And Microsoft is very good at making their applications excessively complicated and unintuitive. But basic system changes, which OSX lacks, I can perform in Windows easily enough.
Re:Maybe Joe Schmoe shouldn't be using a computer.
on
AOL 9.0 Called Badware
·
· Score: 1
He doesn't look at a PC as a car, he thinks of it as a washing machine.
The average joe, especially in America, looks at his car like a washing machine too. That particular washing machine might be a bit more important because it can make him look cool to his friends, but it's still a washing machine.
A shocking number of people barely know what brand of automobile they drive, unless it's something like a BMW or a Mercedes and even then most probably wouldn't be able to spot it in the midst of Hondas and Toyotas. Even more people have no clue what engine they have in their car, let alone numerous other important details.
The average joe is a bit too ignorant for his own good.
Why is it that when an "evil" PC company like Microsoft is criticized everyone jumps aboard and takes all claims at face value. When Apple is shown to have done something wrong suddenly there's an excuse for everything. It's a conspiracy, the article is biased, certain details weren't taken into account or whatever it is isn't even Apple's fault.
Case in point: Dell laptops explode because of Sony's batteries; Dell sucks. Apple laptops explode because of Sony's batteries; it's Sony's fault!
Godforbid Apple's name is ever besmirched.
As for Apples having superior backwards compatibility thats plain nonsense. The OS 9 mode is clumsy and excessively demanding to run. Even then, it doesn't always properly run old applications or handle old documents. And lets see you run anything from the early Macs.
On my XP machine I've been able to run, fairly easily, DOS applications from the early 80s. I've even run some of the more finicky software from the early Windows generation.
So I'm left to assume that you've never owned a Windows PC otherwise you wouldn't be making nonsense claims of some 90% failure rate.
Slashdot Mirror
Once either one of them offers Battlefield Earth in HD, then we'll talk.
Man, it's pathetic that Blizzard bowed to all the players concerned about the sizes of their e-peens. In fact, I'm surprised the change was demanded at all given the popularity of Japanese games and their effeminate male characters.
And regardless, looking at that screenshot I feel the original version had some character and certainly was elf-like. The new one looks like a generic human with long ears. This just goes to show why so many games are the same old generic crap.
I find it a bit funny that while people act suspiciously towards pharmaceutical drugs and their potential side-effects and are wary of genetically modified foods they freely embrace drugs. Untold millions around the world have displayed countless side-effects from drug use ranging from impotence and brain cell loss all the way to death. And yet somehow people manage to come up excuses for everything. There's a reason why drugs are illegal regardless of whatever other motivations may drive some of it.
Keep in mind that only in relatively recent history have we seen drugs processed to the purity they are today. Hence the increased danger. It's fairly established that many activities, such as excessive MMO gameplay can cause chemical reactions which lead to addictive behaviour. And now you're going to tell me that substances which directly cause chemical reactions in the body aren't addictive. Certainly there are people who won't get addicted, but who's safer and who isn't is anyone's bet.
And drugs don't hurt anyone but the user? I guess drug related crime isn't really drug related at all. However, drug use brings a more subtle problem. Who is going to pay for a drug user's medical bills, especially a user who is incapable of paying those bills him or herself. Like US healthcare isn't already overpriced enough that we need to add yet another burden on the system.
And then what drugs should the government legalize? Should anything and everything be allowed? So the government is making steps to ban fast food, but apparently we should legalize drugs. And mind you there are politicians who have made ridiculous claims that fast food is as addictive as heroin. Even if only mild drugs are legalized inevitably people will move onto something stronger, and it's only inevitable that they start demanding those be legalized as well. For a while now it's been problem in the Netherlands with people seeking out harder drugs.
Despite all this ranting, I honestly don't have a problem at all with some drugs being legalized. And hell, they could legalize every drug in existance. However, if you're going to do that, then I demand that these people sign a waiver that they themselves are responsible for their own healthcare. If they can't afford their own healthcare they're out of luck when they made the choice to start using drugs. I'm sure as hell not going to pay for someone else's drug use, be it through taxes or through my health insurance.
Of course, even if drugs were legalized that would NEVER happen. But just wait, if you thought pharmaceuticals were bad now, just wait until they're allowed to manufacture what are currently illegal drugs. Sometimes I don't think people truly understand what they're asking for.
Ah, another self-righteous spewing from a conservative.
I find it absolutely astounding that you could glean that much from my post. Amazing. I also don't understand where you get the idea that I'm "shitting" on anyone. Apparently you're so blinded by your hatred against anything remotely conservative that you refuse to even use common sense.
So, if I understand you correctly I shouldn't be held responsible for my accounts because there could always be an extenuating circumstance. Or perhaps it's that certain people need to be less responsible than others.
If a company makes a conscious decision to exploit addictions, if Blizzard knowingly designed the game to take advantage of people who couldn't control themselves, I would agree. They need to be held responsible. On the other hand, if some gamer can't prevent himself from gaming 20 hours a day why in the fuck is that the Blizzard's fault?
Are we going to start regulating what the majority is able to do for the sake of the minority who can't control themselves? Isn't is already ridiculous enough with all the stupid warnings? Isn't it ridiculous that a toy sold in the American market has to be modified for fear that some kid might somehow hurt him or herself? Apparently Americans are more clumsy or stupid than the rest of the world.
People today want to do whatever they feel like it without having to face any reprocussions. But when something bad happens they're quick to blame someone else and demand the government protect them. If you can't use own common sense you've got some serious problems and no amount of warning labels or government protection is ever going to help you.
Absolutely MMOs are designed to be addictive. That's the whole point of subscription based games, to draw in players and keep them interested in the game. What MMO player doesn't look forward to hitting that next level, acquiring new gear, or exploring some new region? Character building certainly is an alluring gameplay element. I feel the lure whenever I try a MMO.
That said, however, I certainly don't think Blizzard or any other developer is responsible for anyone who gets addictive. These companies want players subscribed for a couple of years, but I doubt it's anyone's intention that they have players addicted to these games like they were drugs.
It's easy for someone to say they can stop playing whenever they want. There are also people who think playing games 40 hours a week is casual gaming. The point is that for someone who has become truly addicted they've lost all self-control. They can't stop. They feel agitated when they're not playing; the game is constantly on their mind. What they need is help, in one form or another.
Regardless of the nature of the addiction, it ultimately is that player's fault. They made the decision to install the game and start playing. The fact that they lost themselves to the game is ultimately their own fault.
My concern is that there are lawyers out there already licking their chops. It's only a matter of time before we start seeing lawsuits against these developers.
Much like the lawsuits against the tobacco companies. In at least the past 20 years we've known smoking is bad. Even if these people didn't know when they started, they must have learned since then. Why didn't they find a way to stop? The company may have been questionable to selling such a product, but ultimately it's the consumer's fault. I mean, using the rationale for suing those companies we might as well sue all automakers for enabling us to put ourselves in harm's way.
The question here isn't whether games like WoW are addictive, because they clearly are. It's whether people are going to be mature and responsible enough to acknowledge their own fault in all this. Unfortunately, as history has shown in this culture of the victim, too many people are going blame everyone but themselves.
And just wait until gaming reaches a point where it's photo-realistic, approaching something like the realism of the holodeck. We haven't seen anything yet.
There are two absurd extremes when it comes to perceived value and the internet.
On one end you have people who thing everything should be free and anything is fair game.
And at the other extreme you have companies spending hundreds of millions, if not billions of dollars for something that's at its core immaterial.
A bigger problem, to me, is how intrusive internet advertising has become, and that's to say nothing about the general crap quality of that advertising. These sites sell for so much money not because they actually offer anything of real substance but simply because they've hit on enough of a hook that they've managed to lure millions of visitors. The more visitors the more people exposed to advertising.
The Internet is in a big way driven by ad supported models, much like television. These sites exist for advertising which means that whoever is running the site must be responsible for content.
My first thought when I heard this story was, "What does it matter to them? No one outside of Japan will ever get their programming anyway."
But then my friend made a very good point. Youtube was sold for $1.6 billion in no small part because they attracted viewers with copyrighted programming. They certainly have made little effort in the past to block that kind of material.
That friend has been in a similar situation where someone running a site overseas goes and essentially takes his copyrighted flash games and puts them on their site without his permission. They then lure visitors using my friend's, and other people's, creations in order to make money on advertising.
Why Youtube was ever worth $1.6 billion is beyond me.
This excessively protective attitude towards children in the West is why we're going to end up with a generation of wimps. This issue just a small reflection of a more significant problem.
And in typical Microsoft fashion, downloading and installing an internet BROWSER requires... what else? That you reboot your computer.
That statement is made like it's somehow unique to Windows. I was just setting up a new Mac last week and had to reboot the computer after installing drivers for a freaking mouse, and it was Apple's own mouse on top of that.
Considering how inept the patent office seems to be I think I'm going to patent the act of looking at the sky. While I'm at it I think I'll patent the act of defecation too.
The problem isn't so much outsourcing in and of itself. It's that all expertise is being sent overseas. What is even manufactured in the United States anymore? US automakers are already trying to send what they can elsewhere, even the defense industry isn't completely American anymore. And at this point those are really the last stand for this nation.
The problem is that the US no longer has anything to call it's own. They've become completely dependent on the rest of the world for the sake of saving a few dollars. Instead of increasing the quality of their products they keep focusing on reducing costs and cutting corners.
Compare the US to Japan or Germany. Both of those nations export much of their manufacturing, however, the top tier is still kept within their respective nations. It ensures they retain skilled labor and will continue to innovate.
And back to the original question, what exactly do American companies do? They're put themselves in a compromising situation. Take Dell. What do they do other than slap a logo on a case? It's Taiwanese and a few Chinese companies doing most of the work. Sure, Intel, AMD and others are doing some of the initial design but foreign companies are poised to pull the rug out from under American companies. Just like Japanese companies came to dominate the electronics industry the Chinese will likely one day dominate the computer industry.
Here's an interesting thing... Swiffer was invented by a Japanese company. What did Procter & Gamble do? As they proudly proclaim, they "invented" the Swiffer brand. Too many American companies seem to trade in ephemeral concepts. Why waste money on innovation when someone else can do it for you? Well, one day the Japanese company will wise up and sell the products here themselves. Then companies like Procter & Gamble will be out of business, Americans will be out of work and they will blame foreign competition.
I don't think most gamers could play these guys and be even the slightest bit competitive. In the end it likely wouldn't be all that different than trying to play football with a professional footballer.
Furthermore, I don't think these guys care in the least bit to talk to the average guy. Doubtless, there are exceptions but the celebrity mentality inevitably changes everything.
These companies don't put nearly as much effort into Europe as they do in the US and Japan because Europeans don't spend money on consoles. Europeans generally earn less than their Japanese and American counterparts and certainly are taxed far, far more heavily. So Europeans are less likely to spend their money frivlously; if they buy something they expect more value out of it. Hence the popularity of PC gaming. Although, there are certain countries there, like England, where console gaming does enjoy a considerable presence.
But regardless, this is why these companies don't care. What Sony's executives have said is stupid, but they could care less. Their income, if they actually manage to sell any PS3's will be coming from the US and Japan not Europe.
This is inevitably going to come off as flamebait to some, but I think it has to be said...
If people but as much effort into constructive pursuits as they put into these games they couldn't help but be very successful. And I don't think there's a real middle ground where you can truly do well and continue to maintain what is essentially a second career within these games.
This is coming from someone who's played a few MMOs... I never invested even a fraction of the time some have put into these games but I still think it was too much time wasted. I certainly wont be making the mistake again.
They could have also reintroduced the original Nano design in new colors, or just come up with something completely new.
It's not that the new designs are bad, but the fact that they went back to a previous design is a bit of a disappointment. I feel like Apple isn't trying very hard because they know there are plenty of people out there who will buy their products no matter what they do.
If the best Apple can come up with is to reuse old designs then there's isn't much hope for the company.
Although, I'm sure the new iPod Nano will sell well given the way people obsess company regardless of what Apple does. After all, only Apple can take something that's been around for a few years and present it as something new and innovative.
Game movies suck because of the incompetent hacks charged with writing and directing them. If novels, which can have far more content than any game in existance, can be adapted into a good movie there's no reason the same can't be done with games.
Also, keep in mind that most games aren't very well written, with one-dimensional characters and contrived, simplistic storylines. Even games with writing considered to be above-average are fairly weak when compared to writing in other mediums. You're not going to get much of a movie if you try to be faithful to the game.
With consoles slowly turning into PCs themselves, especially in terms of cost, I don't see how the PC gaming market will become marginalized. At some point consoles will become so expensive that people will get more value just spending a few hundred more on a decent PC. This is already the case in most of Europe and parts of Asia.
In the meantime, despite all the nonsense "experts" like to claim the market isn't going to change at all. The market is going to continue as it has the past 10-15 years. Every so often the claim is made that PC gaming is dying and time and again we see it thriving as strongly as ever.
One important advantage PCs have is that it is still perceived by the average consumer to be an educational tool. There are a good number of educational games available for PCs whereas there are essentially none for the consoles. There, of course, are other obvious advantages, the internet, being able to do research online, chat with friends, etc.
This means that many parents will be buying a PC for their children. The PC already has a foot firmly in the door. It's only natural that when the time comes to invest in some games they're going to be looking at PC games first. $40 to $50 on a PC game is far more attractive than $60 for a console game in addition to the purchase of the console itself. Many of these kinds of consumers could care less whether their PCs run current games at the highest detail levels at 60fps.
Also, despite the overwhelming popularity of a few genres on PCs, FPS, RTS and RPGs there's a wide range of games available for PCs. People are going nuts over the supposed innovative gaming coming for the Wii, how the console will attract hordes of casual gamers. The PC has already accomplished this!
The PC has become an ubiquitous platform. Who doesn't have a computer? From flash to indie to commercial games there's a wide variety of gaming content out there, and a lot of it is free. Most people I know who are only mildly interested in games will never spend even $200 on a gaming console. They might see a compelling game on one of the consoles, but its quickly forgotten. They sure arent going to rush out and spend a few hundred dollars in order to play it. However, they will spend $20 on a whim if they see something they like for the PC.
If anything, I forsee the console becoming a niche market in the distant future. Consoles are entering a point of diminishing returns. They're getting too complicated and expensive to justify their purchase of a technically superior and more practical PC. I predict that at some point PCs will become so transparent in use that they'll be intuitive enough so serve as easy replacements for gaming consoles.
I have an adapter that lets me use the PS2 controller with my PC. Some games even take advantage of the rumble feature. This means I can have the same exact gameplay experience offered by any console.
I agree that consoles allow for a more sociable gameplay experience, but that's only because of the physical arrangement of computer equipment. I can go out and buy a 20" or larger monitor, hide the case somewhere, get a cordless keyboard and mouse (or some device better suited to be used from the sofa) and set up as many game controllers as I want. With that, I've effectively recreated the console experience with my PC.
This of course, assumes I'm playing a game originally designed with the console in mind, of which there are plenty. When I want to go back to the standard PC fare, I also have the option.
On the other hand, I don't see consoles provided that sort of capability any time soon. Some genres are limited on PCs simply because developers dont bother with them, but some genres don't exist for consoles because of hardware limitations or because the platform simply isn't conducive to them.
The argument that PC equipment has to be upgraded on a yearly basis is nonsense, not even worth arguing. I suppose if you want to keep running every current release at maximum framerates that may be true. But you can pull back on detail settings and have a current game run well and still look pretty decent. And regardless, there are console games out there that cause slow down and in that case there's nothing you can do about it.
The article posted last week on the top selling PC games demonstrates that there's a lot of variety in PC gaming. The same few contrived genres may get all the attention but the variety is there. Consoles offer something different only in comparison to PCs. But each console seems to have carved it's own niche in gaming. Buy any one console and you're going to be relatively limited in your options, except maybe for the PS2 which has such an large library. And, because PC games aren't limited by all the ridiculous licensing agreements it allows small, indie developers to thrive ensuring you'll find stuff on PCs you wont find anywhere else.
This isn't to say consoles don't have advantages. If all you care about is gaming, a console is a far better purchase. Consoles are significantly less expensive than PCs, although even that seems to be changing rather quickly. There are indeed numerous great games that are available only for consoles. And it really a bit easier to just sit back and play a game with a console, although other than the installation process things have gotten to be rather seamless on PCs as well.
The PC has far more potential as a gaming platform than any console, but in the end that distinction is irrelevant. It comes down to what best suits the consumer and which platform gets the most attention. In the end it comes down to what you're looking for out of a gaming system.
It's easy to see what they mean, but I think most of us know that a new install of XP can seem shiny and beautiful, but 2 months later
So you claim. I got my PC about 3 years ago, installing a new copy of XP onto it. I haven't had a problem at all in all that time, nor has system performance degraded. I can't recall a single system crash and I use the machine fairly intensively.
Let's see... I run Photoshop, Illustrator, Flash, 3D Studio Max and InDesign fairly often and often most of those at the same time. I also use the machine for gaming having played Morrowind, Neverwinter Nights, Warcraft 3, City of Heroes, Guild Wars, Dawn of War, Doom 3, and most recently Live for Speed. I've done the free trials of EQ2 and World of Warcraft among others.
I list all this just to make it clear that I actually use the machine to the maximum of it's capabilities. I keep the machine running clean, I uninstall and clean out anything I no longer use, I frequently check for spyware, having come across a particularly malicious infection maybe twice in the past few years. I certainly don't obsess about every last detail.
Of course I've had individual applications crash, but I don't hold the OS accountable. If I should then Mac OS is pure shit. I got a new Mac G4 at work at roughly the same time I got my PC and I've had far more problems from that computer than I've ever had from my PC. Crashes are ridiculously common, although things have certainly improved from the days of OS9. And my computer generally runs better than my coworkers', some of theirs' have run into some truly absurd problems.
Nevertheless, there's a reason designers have the mantra, "Save early, save often." The thing is that most designers will never blame Apple for anything. Any problem is always someone else's fault. If Photoshop crashes, it's Adobe's fault; if Office crashes, then it most definitely is Microsoft's fault. Either that or it's the end users fault, a common explanation being that too many applications were open at the same time. So now I'm not supposed to use a Mac the way computers were intended to be used.
However, an application on a PC crashes and it's ALWAYS Microsoft's fault. It's so ingrained that people put down Microsoft and their products without using even the most basic common sense. I'll be the first to admit Microsoft makes an over-complicated, bloated mess of much of their software but Windows XP and 2000 have both been sound operating systems.
Didn't Apple just recall well over a million batteries for pretty much the same exact reason?
Why is it that when someone like Dell has a problem leading to a recall it's assumed they were doing something wrong. Either they're trying to cover up defects, or they're unresponsive to customers or everything they make is crap.
Why is it that when the same exact thing happens with Apple suddenly the apologists come out of the woodwork. The defect isn't Apple's fault first of all, and when Apple finally gets around to acknowledging the problem and recalls the product people insist that it proves they care about the customer.
Dell laptops come with defective Sony batteries: Dell is crap.
Apple laptops come with defective Sony batteries: It's all Sony's fault.
Dell recalls batteries: Dell would never have initiated the recall if it hadn't been for bloggers.
Apple recalls batteries: Behold Apple's benevolence.
I've noticed that the people who generally have a better experience in MMOs are those in guilds, especially those who have real life friends playing with them. Contrary to what people claim it is extremely difficult to find a good guild, especially if you only play casually. Inevitably, if you're not playing enough for their tastes you're marginalized.
And that leads me to another problem. MMO players seem to have a skewed sense of what casual gaming is. Compared to the ones who play all night I suppose 4 hours every day seems casual. But 4 hours a day means you're playing from 7pm to 11pm. That's pretty much the entire evening and if you're doing that every evening it really adds up. Casual gamers dont play 20 hours a week and they sure aren't devoting 4 hours a day to a game; they might but in an hour at best.
When I was playing another MMO, City of Heroes, I did 4 hours an evening fairly consistently and I thought that was excessive, and my wife just thought I was nuts. I can't fathom how there are people who can sustain even this level of gameplay for a year, and still call it casual gameplay on top of that.
mac IS unix, so you can do almost anything you damn well please on it. Don't like the fancy GUI? enjoy all your system groking in the bash shell to your heart's content.
When was the last time the average Mac user has had the ability to do anything like that? I sure as hell dont know how to do anything like that. The advantage of Mac OS is it's simplicity and here you are advocating something complex and unintuitive which could probably end up breaking the system if done right.
The point is that in Windows I don't have to go through that sort of convoluted nonsense to customize the nonsense. And Microsoft is very good at making their applications excessively complicated and unintuitive. But basic system changes, which OSX lacks, I can perform in Windows easily enough.
He doesn't look at a PC as a car, he thinks of it as a washing machine.
The average joe, especially in America, looks at his car like a washing machine too. That particular washing machine might be a bit more important because it can make him look cool to his friends, but it's still a washing machine.
A shocking number of people barely know what brand of automobile they drive, unless it's something like a BMW or a Mercedes and even then most probably wouldn't be able to spot it in the midst of Hondas and Toyotas. Even more people have no clue what engine they have in their car, let alone numerous other important details.
The average joe is a bit too ignorant for his own good.
Why is it that when an "evil" PC company like Microsoft is criticized everyone jumps aboard and takes all claims at face value. When Apple is shown to have done something wrong suddenly there's an excuse for everything. It's a conspiracy, the article is biased, certain details weren't taken into account or whatever it is isn't even Apple's fault.
Case in point:
Dell laptops explode because of Sony's batteries; Dell sucks.
Apple laptops explode because of Sony's batteries; it's Sony's fault!
Godforbid Apple's name is ever besmirched.
As for Apples having superior backwards compatibility thats plain nonsense. The OS 9 mode is clumsy and excessively demanding to run. Even then, it doesn't always properly run old applications or handle old documents. And lets see you run anything from the early Macs.
On my XP machine I've been able to run, fairly easily, DOS applications from the early 80s. I've even run some of the more finicky software from the early Windows generation.
So I'm left to assume that you've never owned a Windows PC otherwise you wouldn't be making nonsense claims of some 90% failure rate.